​ERC-7802 is a cross-chain token standard that defines two functions — crosschainMint and crosschainBurn — that any authorized bridge contract can call to move a token's supply between chains while preserving canonical accounting. Authored by Skeletor Spaceman, Hadrien Croubois, and the Optimism team and submitted as EIP-7802 in 2024, the standard formalizes the pattern Optimism's SuperchainERC20 had been using to coordinate native token supply across the OP Superchain.
​

This article explains the ERC-7802 interface, the difference between native cross-chain tokens and bridged wrappers, how the standard relates to LayerZero's OFT and Wormhole's NTT, and the production deployments using it across the Optimism Superchain in 2026.
​

ERC-7802 is an extension of ERC-20: an ERC-7802 token is an ERC-20 with two additional functions that a permissioned bridge can call. crosschainMint(address to, uint256 amount) increases supply on the destination chain. crosschainBurn(address from, uint256 amount) decreases supply on the source chain. Together, the two functions let a bridge move tokens cross-chain by burning on the source and minting on the destination, with the total cross-chain supply staying constant.
​

The standard formalizes a pattern bridges have used for years. The novelty is the token-side interface: any bridge with the appropriate role can invoke the mint and burn directly on the token contract, rather than the token contract having a single hard-coded bridge. This lets multiple bridges coexist on the same token without each requiring its own wrapped representation.
​

For more on the broader cross-chain message about ERC-7802 and its place in the multi-chain stack, see the ERC-7802 cross-chain token standard breakdown.
​

A token that exists on multiple chains can take one of three architectures.
​

The token has a canonical contract on one chain (typically Ethereum). To move it to another chain, the user locks tokens in a bridge contract on Ethereum, and the bridge mints a wrapped version on the destination chain. The destination contract is a separate wrapper, not the canonical token. WBTC on Ethereum, USDC.e on legacy Avalanche, and many older bridge wrappers use this pattern.
​

Drawbacks: the wrapper has a different contract address, breaking integrations that hardcoded the canonical address. Some users end up holding multiple wrapped versions issued by different bridges (USDC, USDC.e, and bridged-USDC variants on the same chain).
​

The token has its own contract on every chain. A bridge with permission burns supply on the source chain and mints on the destination. Total cross-chain supply is invariant. Circle's CCTP USDC works this way: the same USDC contract on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, and Polygon, with Circle's CCTP bridge as the only authorized minter/burner.
​

ERC-7802 is the burn-and-mint pattern, but with the standardized crosschainMint and crosschainBurn interface. Multiple bridges can be authorized — for redundancy, for chain-specific routing, or for upgrade flexibility. The token contract maintains the role-based access control; bridges integrate against the standard interface.
​

Optimism's SuperchainERC20 is the production implementation of ERC-7802 across the Optimism Superchain. The Superchain is a set of OP-Stack chains (Optimism, Base, Mode, Zora, Lyra, and others) that share an interop layer. SuperchainERC20 tokens move freely across Superchain chains via the shared interop bridge, with the bridge calling crosschainMint and crosschainBurn on each chain's token contract.
​

Optimism Superchain interop launched on testnet in 2025, with mainnet rollout occurring later. As of April 2026, the Superchain spans 10+ chains with shared sequencing and a unified asset layer. Optimism's interop explainer covers the architecture. The interop bridge is the only authorized caller of the SuperchainERC20 cross-chain functions in the canonical implementation, but the standard supports multiple authorized bridges.
​

Both LayerZero and Wormhole shipped their own native-cross-chain token frameworks before ERC-7802 was standardized.
​

LayerZero's OFT standard defines send and credit functions on the token contract. The OFT contract has a built-in connection to LayerZero's messaging layer; cross-chain transfers go through LayerZero's oracle and relayer. OFT predates ERC-7802 and remains the dominant pattern for tokens that want a single integrated bridge.
​

Wormhole's NTT framework takes a similar approach with its own messaging layer. NTT supports both burn-and-mint and lock-and-release modes; the burn-and-mint mode is functionally equivalent to ERC-7802 but tied to Wormhole's transport.
​

ERC-7802 is transport-agnostic. The token defines crosschainMint and crosschainBurn; any bridge with the appropriate role can call them. OFT and NTT are tied to a specific messaging layer (LayerZero, Wormhole). For tokens that want the option to switch transports or use multiple in parallel, ERC-7802 is the more flexible base layer. For tokens that prefer a complete, opinionated package, OFT and NTT remain reasonable choices.
​

ERC-7802 adoption is concentrated in the Optimism Superchain.

Outside the Superchain, ERC-7802 adoption is slower. Most major stablecoins (USDC, USDT, DAI) use either CCTP (Circle), proprietary issuer minting, or LayerZero OFT, none of which currently expose ERC-7802 interfaces. Migration would require coordinating issuers, bridges, and integrators — a heavy lift.
​

The security of an ERC-7802 token depends entirely on which addresses can call crosschainMint and crosschainBurn. The standard does not prescribe an access-control model, but the OpenZeppelin reference implementation uses AccessControl: a BRIDGE_ROLE can be granted to one or more bridge contracts, and the role can be added or revoked by an admin (typically a multisig or governance contract).
​

Practical implications:

Stablecoin teams that want native multi-chain presence — same contract address, no wrapped variants, multiple authorized transports — benefit from ERC-7802. An issuer can grant Eco's solver network, Across's relayer, and Hyperlane's mailbox each a bridge role on the token, then let each compete on price and finality for any given route. The orchestration layer above (Eco) routes intents to whichever bridge gives the best fill; the token below sees consistent supply accounting regardless of which bridge moved the tokens. Read the essential ERC standards reference and the stablecoin automation platforms overview.
​

The clearest way to think about ERC-7802 is as the token-layer companion to a shared sequencing or messaging layer like the Optimism Superchain. The Superchain treats Optimism and Base alongside other OP Stack chains as a single security domain with a shared message bridge. ERC-7802 lets a token issuer mint and burn native supply across that domain without lock-and-mint wrappers, because the cross-chain message itself is the supply transfer. Compared to LayerZero OFT and Wormhole NTT, which generalize to any chain via a third-party messaging protocol, ERC-7802 is narrower in scope and tighter in trust assumptions: it inherits the security of whatever interop layer ratifies the burn and mint events. CCIP from Chainlink occupies a similar slot but uses its own decentralized oracle network for verification. The mental model: 7802 is a token standard that delegates to a messaging layer; OFT and NTT bundle both layers together. The trade-off is portability versus modularity. Issuers who already commit to OP Stack chains tend to prefer 7802; issuers spanning EVM and non-EVM chains tend to prefer OFT or NTT.
​

No. OFT is LayerZero's proprietary cross-chain token framework, tied to LayerZero's messaging. ERC-7802 is a transport-agnostic standard: any authorized bridge can call the cross-chain mint and burn functions. A token can be both OFT and ERC-7802 by exposing both interfaces.
​

No. The standard defines token-side functions; the bridge is whichever address holds the appropriate role. Tokens can authorize one bridge for simplicity or many for redundancy and competition.
​

Adoption in April 2026 is concentrated in the Optimism Superchain (Optimism, Base, Mode, Zora, Lyra, others). EVM-compatible chains can host ERC-7802 tokens; the question is whether bridges integrate against the standard or use proprietary interfaces like OFT and NTT.
​

Each chain's token contract tracks its own totalSupply. The cross-chain invariant — sum of all chains' supplies stays constant during a bridge transfer — is enforced by the bridge correctly burning before minting. The standard doesn't enforce this on-chain; it depends on bridge correctness.
​

Yes, but it creates accounting complexity. A token that's natively multi-chain via ERC-7802 and also has lock-and-mint wrappers from older bridges will have multiple representations on some chains, defeating the unified-supply benefit. Most teams pick one architecture and migrate.
​