TON to Base, BNB Chain, and Polygon: how cross-chain remains the main reference point for users and Telegram Mini App developers following this update.
Moving assets between TON and EVM chains like Base, BNB Chain, and Polygon is more complex than standard EVM-to-EVM transfers. These cross-chain transactions hinge on two key architectures: the bridge model and the resolver-based HTLC (Hashed Time-Locked Contract) model. Bridge setups typically lock or burn assets on TON, then issue a wrapped version on the target chain. In contrast, the resolver-based HTLC model—used by systems such as STON.fi’s Omniston—enables users to receive native tokens on their destination chain, rather than a wrapped token.
Technical differences between TON and EVM chains shape how these swaps work. TON smart contracts use FunC or Tact, which aren’t compatible with Solidity used by Base, BNB Chain, or Polygon. As a result, cross-chain solutions require custom infrastructure and security logic. Users also pay gas and protocol fees on both source and destination chains—costs that often exceed what’s shown in the initial swap summary.
Bridge Model: Locking and Wrapping Tokens
The bridge model relies on locking or burning tokens on the source chain while minting a wrapped equivalent on the target chain. For example, when sending assets from TON to an EVM chain, the original tokens are locked or rendered unspendable. The user receives a wrapped asset in their destination wallet, which tracks the value of the original. The assets themselves remain on the source chain, held in custody by the bridge contract.
This approach is standard for most cross-chain solutions, but it introduces counterparty risk. The user’s assets depend on the bridge contract’s operational security and governance. If the bridge is compromised, assets are at risk. Bridges between EVM chains are easier to build and audit, thanks to their shared use of Solidity, but integrating TON’s languages requires more sophisticated infrastructure.
Users should be aware that costs aren't limited to quoted protocol fees. Full expenses include TON network gas, bridge fees, and gas costs on the destination EVM chain. It's important to confirm whether the received asset is actually native or a wrapped token, and to check the reputation and technical details of the bridge contract involved.
Resolver-Based HTLC Model
Resolver-based HTLC models, like Omniston on STON.fi, use linked smart contracts on both the source and destination chains to deliver native tokens instead of wrapped versions. This approach does not require users to redeem wrapped tokens later. Settlement is atomic—if either leg of the swap fails, both are rolled back, and funds are returned.
In practice, this model removes the need to trust bridge custody or manage wrapped assets. However, it still requires users to pay gas fees on both chains, plus protocol fees. These network and protocol costs may not be displayed together in the user interface. Additionally, the technical complexity increases, as the contracts must handle communication across chains with different programming standards—FunC or Tact on TON, and Solidity on EVM chains.
Users interested in this approach can review the actual HTLC contract interactions to understand the security and execution guarantees.
Practical Challenges and What to Check
Swapping between TON and EVM-based chains comes with specific tradeoffs:
- The total cost is a sum of source-chain gas, protocol fees, and destination-chain gas, not just the quoted rate.
- TON smart contract architecture introduces additional complexity, making compatibility with EVM contracts more difficult.
- Security guarantees differ between models. Bridge models carry custody risk; HTLC-based models require secure and reliable contract logic for atomic cross-chain execution.
- Asynchronous messaging in TON can introduce state inconsistencies if the cross-chain solution does not properly handle atomicity.
For users, the safest approach is to verify exactly which contracts and tokens are involved in the swap—check whether you’re receiving a wrapped or native asset, and review the details of the cross-chain protocol, even if the swap UI appears simple.
Builders aiming to connect TON and EVM chains face unique challenges in ensuring reliable, secure swaps. HTLC-based methods like Omniston offer direct native-asset transfers—reducing wrapped token exposure—but require specialized development.
To explore more about builder tools and DeFi on TON, visit TON tools and DeFi.
TON to Base, BNB Chain, and Polygon: how cross-chain remains the main reference point for users and Telegram Mini App developers following this update.
TON to Base, BNB Chain, and Polygon: how cross-chain remains the main reference point for users and Telegram Mini App developers following this update.
For related TON Drop Hub coverage, see TON tools and DeFi.
Source reference: original source.