Introducing ABR0

Why the Old Model Had to Change

The lock-and-mint model used in Allbridge Classic eventually created several challenges that limited how ABR could evolve and how users interacted with bridged assets. Over time, three main problems became clear:

• Limited utility for newly minted tokens. Although each minted asset was fully backed by locked liquidity on the source chain, new tokens had no immediate use. Every token variant needed separate integrations with DEXes, lending protocols, and other applications, each requiring new liquidity and user incentives.
• Liquidity fragmentation. When multiple bridges brought the same asset to a chain, each produced its own wrapped version. Instead of a single liquid market, users ended up with several incompatible tokens, each with its own pool.
• Unnecessary complexity for users. Tokens like USDC could arrive in several wrapped forms depending on the bridging direction. Users needed to understand which version they held, how it was backed, and how to convert it back to the native asset without losses. This complexity eventually pushed many toward bridge aggregators to navigate the “token zoo.”

These limitations made it clear that the old model could not support the kind of unified, native-liquidity ecosystem that Allbridge Core aimed to build.

The Shift to Allbridge Core

The challenges of the lock-and-mint approach led us to design Allbridge Core around a completely different idea: moving only native stablecoin liquidity between blockchains. Instead of minting wrapped versions of tokens, Allbridge Core relies on liquidity pools on each chain to establish the value of assets during transfers. Liquidity is provided trustlessly by users, and 80% of all bridging fees are distributed back to them.

When ABR was evaluated for this new system, we initially considered using it as a reward token. On paper this aligned well with the existing token model, but in practice it introduced several problems:

• Higher smart contract complexity, which would make audits harder and increase attack surface. More logic per transfer would also mean higher costs for users.
• Confusing value flow for liquidity providers. Depositing stablecoins and receiving rewards in a separate volatile asset would make long-term LP decisions harder to justify.
• Multichain distribution challenges. To reward users across all supported chains, ABR would need to exist everywhere. That would require continuing the same lock-and-mint approach we were trying to move away from.

For these reasons, ABR remained tied to Allbridge Classic while Core launched with a simpler and more robust native-liquidity design. But as Core matured, bringing ABR into the new ecosystem became the natural next step, provided it could be rebuilt in a cleaner, modern, omnichain form.

Choosing the OFT Standard

To bring ABR into the Allbridge Core ecosystem, we first had to solve the problem of its multichain presence. The token needed to move seamlessly across networks without relying on the old lock-and-mint mechanics used in Allbridge Classic. That requirement led us to LayerZero’s OFT (Omnichain Fungible Token) standard.

OFT was created specifically to eliminate the fragmentation issues that wrapped assets suffered from. Tokens built on this standard use a burn-and-mint model that keeps supply unified across chains. No liquidity gets locked on bridge contracts, and no competing token versions appear depending on the bridging direction. The bridging logic itself is handled by LayerZero’s messaging protocol, giving the token a consistent, verifiable structure across all supported networks.

While OFT can link existing legacy tokens, using it with the original ABR would have created several parallel variants across chains and made circulating-supply tracking extremely complicated. The cleaner solution was to issue a new token, ABR0, directly as a native OFT asset and provide a migration path for existing holders.

How ABR to ABR0 Migration Works

With ABR0 issued as a native OFT token, the remaining step was to create a straightforward way for existing holders to transition to the new asset. The migration process is intentionally simple, transparent, and not bound by any deadline.

All migration happens on Ethereum and is handled entirely by a smart contract. When you initiate the migration, the contract receives your full ABR balance and immediately mints an equal amount of ABR0 for you. The exchange is always 1:1, and the entire process is trustless and instant.

If you hold ABR on other chains, you can bridge it to Ethereum using the old Allbridge Classic bridge and then complete the migration. Once migrated, ABR0 can be bridged natively through LayerZero to the supported networks.

You can read more about ABR0 here and the migration UI is available here.

Migrating to a native OFT token brings several clear advantages for ABR0. Supply tracking becomes fully transparent, since there is no longer a mix of wrapped variants across different chains. All ABR0 representations are linked through LayerZero’s infrastructure, making it easy for users and third-party tools to verify the token’s movement and integrity. And by delegating minting and cross-chain coordination to an industry-standard protocol, ABR0 benefits from the same security model used by major omnichain assets such as USDT, USDe, and WBTC.

What ABR0 Enables Next

With ABR0 now live across supported networks, the next step is expanding its role within Allbridge Core. The first upcoming feature is the ability to pay relayer fees using ABR0 instead of native gas tokens or stablecoins. This option will offer meaningful savings, as fees paid in ABR0 will be priced roughly 25% lower than other payment methods. The feature is in final testing and will roll out to chains where ABR0 is available in the coming month.

More ABR0 integrations are planned as Allbridge Core evolves, gradually expanding the token’s utility within the ecosystem.