A wrapped token is an onchain token that represents a one-to-one claim on a different asset, usually one that lives on another chain. The wrapper holds the underlying asset in custody and issues a transferable receipt on the destination chain. WBTC, cbBTC, tBTC, FBTC, and cirBTC are all wrapped Bitcoin: each one is BTC held somewhere off Ethereum, paired with an ERC-20 minted on Ethereum that you can move, lend, or trade.
​

A wrapped token is a one-to-one representation of an asset issued on a chain where that asset cannot natively exist. The wrapper takes custody of the underlying asset, mints a token on the destination chain, and lets the holder redeem the wrapper for the original at any time. The mechanism, not the brand, defines what the holder is trusting.
​

The pattern shows up when a chain wants liquidity in an asset it cannot natively host. Bitcoin has no smart contracts, so a Bitcoin holder who wants to use BTC in an Ethereum lending market needs a representation that conforms to ERC-20. Wrapping predates most active DeFi. WETH 9 deployed in 2017. WBTC launched January 2019. The largest wrapped-asset float in 2026 is still wrapped BTC across all issuers, with roughly $9 billion at the WBTC contract alone per CoinMarketCap as of May 2026.
​

Wrapped tokens exist because most assets cannot move directly between chains. Bitcoin cannot execute Solidity. Ether cannot natively appear on Solana. A wrapped token solves this by leaving the original asset in custody on its native chain and minting a transferable claim on the destination chain, where it can be used in any contract that accepts the destination chain's token standard.
​

The practical motivation is liquidity. A Bitcoin holder who wants yield on Aave or BTC collateral on Morpho needs an ERC-20 form of BTC. Without wrapping, that holder either sells BTC for an Ethereum-native asset, changing their exposure and creating a tax event, or skips the opportunity.
​

The second motivation is composability. Once wrapped, the asset inherits the destination chain's tool stack: lending markets, DEX aggregators, perp protocols, automated vaults. WETH composes into Uniswap v3 pools the same way any other ERC-20 does. WBTC and cbBTC routinely appear in the top collateral assets across Aave, Morpho, and Compound.
​

Wrapping uses one of two flows. The first is mint-and-lock: the issuer locks the underlying asset in custody, then mints a token on the destination chain. The second is burn-and-mint: the wrapper sits at the boundary between two chains and uses a messaging layer to burn the token on one side and mint it on the other. Most wrapped Bitcoin uses mint-and-lock; bridge-style wrappers use burn-and-mint.
​

The mint-and-lock flow runs like this. A user sends BTC to a custodian's deposit address. The custodian credits the deposit, then mints an equivalent ERC-20 to the user's Ethereum address. Redemption reverses it: the user burns the ERC-20, the custodian releases BTC from the custody wallet. Total wrapped supply equals the BTC sitting in custody at any moment, which is what makes proof-of-reserves attestation possible.
​

Burn-and-mint is what most newer cross-chain stablecoins use. USDC moving between Ethereum and Solana via Circle's CCTP burns USDC on the source chain and mints fresh USDC on the destination, with no locked pool. Mint-and-lock concentrates risk in a custodian. Burn-and-mint concentrates risk in the messaging layer that authorizes the mint.
​

Wrapped Bitcoin is the largest and most-mechanically-varied wrapped asset category in 2026. WBTC dominates by supply, with around 120,000 BTC backing the ERC-20 as of May 2026 per CoinGecko. cbBTC, tBTC, FBTC, and cirBTC each take different approaches to the same job: turning BTC into a token a smart contract can hold.
​

The five share the mint-and-lock pattern but differ in custody. WBTC uses a BitGo and BiT Global joint venture, with control split across Singapore, Hong Kong, and the United States in a 2-of-3 multisig, per Cointelegraph's August 2024 reporting. cbBTC is held by Coinbase as a single qualified custodian, with attestations at coinbase.com/cbbtc/proof-of-reserves. FBTC pairs Cactus Custody with an MPC signer set across Ceffu and Antalpha. cirBTC, announced by Circle in April 2026 and on testnet ahead of a Q2 2026 mainnet, will custody BTC in qualified custody with redemptions limited to authorized participants, per FXStreet.
​

tBTC is the outlier. It uses threshold ECDSA: BTC is held in addresses controlled by a rotating group of 100 staked node operators, and any 51 of them can co-sign a redemption, per the Threshold Network v2 repository. No single operator holds a full private key. The system depends on an honest majority of the 51-of-100 set.
​

The table below summarizes mechanics. Treat these as descriptive only, not a ranking.
​

Supply figures shift weekly. WBTC has seen net redemptions outpace mints since the BitGo custody change; cbBTC has grown to roughly 485,000 holders on Base by May 2026 per BaseScan. These numbers reflect demand patterns, not endorsements.
​

Wrapped ether and wrapped stablecoins extend the pattern to assets that already live on a smart-contract chain but need a standardized form. WETH wraps native ETH into an ERC-20 so DEXs can treat it identically to any other token. Wrapped stablecoins like USDC.e are bridge-issued representations of a native stablecoin from another chain.
​

WETH is the simplest wrap in production. The WETH 9 contract has two functions: deposit, which accepts ETH and mints WETH 1:1, and withdraw, which burns WETH and returns ETH. No custodian, no messaging layer, no signer set. The contract itself holds the locked ETH. That works because ETH and WETH live on the same chain. Cross-chain wrapping cannot replicate the design.
​

Bridged stablecoins follow the older lock-and-mint bridge pattern. Circle's bridged USDC standard formalizes the path from bridge-issued USDC.e to native USDC issuance, retiring the wrapped form once Circle deploys natively on a chain. The trajectory shows what the issuer prefers when both options exist: native issuance over wrapping.
​

Three patterns cover most wrapped-asset designs in production. Centralized-custodian wrappers concentrate the underlying asset with one qualified custodian. Federated-multisig wrappers split control across several institutions, each holding a share of a multisig or threshold scheme. ZK-proven or trust-minimized wrappers use cryptography to bind the wrapper's mint authority to verified state on the source chain.
​

Centralized-custodian is the cbBTC and cirBTC pattern. One entity holds the underlying BTC, publishes proof-of-reserves attestations, and processes redemptions. The user trusts that entity to hold the BTC, run honest accounting, and honor the redemption queue.
​

Federated-multisig is the WBTC and FBTC pattern. The underlying asset sits behind an m-of-n signature scheme distributed across institutions in different jurisdictions. The user trusts that the federation does not collude and that the multisig threshold cannot be assembled by any single party.
​

Threshold-cryptography wrappers, like tBTC, push further toward an operator set with no privileged member. Threshold ECDSA generates key shares such that no participant ever holds the full private key, and signature production requires the threshold to cooperate live. ZK-proven Bitcoin wrappers, an active research direction in 2026, replace the federation with a succinct proof that a Bitcoin transaction occurred, which the destination chain verifies onchain. The user trusts the proof system, not a custodian.
​

Each model trades different things. Centralized-custodian wrappers offer cleaner legal recourse and faster redemptions. Federated-multisig wrappers reduce jurisdiction risk at the cost of coordination complexity. Threshold and ZK-proven wrappers reduce trust in any single entity but inherit their cryptography's soundness assumptions. The right framing is not which model is better, but which matches the holder's threat model.
​

Holding a wrapped token is not the same as holding the underlying. The user holds an ERC-20 receipt against an offchain or other-chain reserve. Redemption depends on the issuer staying solvent, the redemption queue staying open, and the underlying remaining intact. Day-to-day, the wrapped token tracks the underlying's price within a tight band, but the trust assumptions differ in ways that matter at the edges.
​

Three practical differences. First, redemption is not always permissionless. WBTC redemptions require approved merchants. cbBTC redemptions run through Coinbase accounts. cirBTC redemptions are limited to authorized participants. tBTC redemptions are the most direct but require coordinating with the operator set. The token transfers freely; converting back into native BTC has gates.
​

Second, fees show up at wrap and unwrap. Most issuers charge a small percentage on mint and redemption, plus network fees on both sides. For a small position, the round-trip can erase the yield differential that motivated the wrap.
​

Third, peg risk is real but typically narrow. Wrapped tokens trade within a fraction of a percent of the underlying most of the time, but custody-event news has historically widened the spread. Llama Risk's analysis of the WBTC custody transition showed a brief discount as the market repriced the new custody arrangement. Treating a wrapper as fungible with the underlying for risk purposes skips the layer where these wrappers actually differ.
​

Wrapped tokens are infrastructure Eco Routes interacts with constantly. Cross-chain stablecoin transfers, the core Eco use case, often touch wrapped variants of the same underlying: USDC.e on a chain that has not yet received native USDC, or wrapped BTC sitting as collateral in a destination lending market. Routes treats each wrapped form as a distinct token with its own liquidity, its own redemption path, and its own peg behavior, and routes the user to the form that matches the destination contract's expectations. The wrap is a mechanism the user shouldn't have to think about, but the router has to.
​

Sources and methodology. Wrapped Bitcoin supplies pulled from CoinGecko, CoinMarketCap, and BaseScan in May 2026. WBTC custody structure verified against Cointelegraph reporting on the August 2024 BitGo and BiT Global transition. tBTC mechanism verified against the Threshold Network v2 repository. cirBTC launch timeline verified against FXStreet's April 2026 coverage. Figures refresh weekly; treat exact circulating supplies as approximate.
​