Chainlink cofounder Sergey Nazarov for an article about Mantle moving its Super Portal to Chainlink CCIP.

Mantle Moves Its Super Portal to Chainlink as Announced Migrations Top $7.24 Billion

By Isaac • July 9, 2026 5:05 pm • Comments

Mantle is moving the Super Portal it built with Bybit off LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token standard and onto Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Token standard.

The portal moves MNT between Ethereum and Solana today, with additional networks planned. Mantle said transfers were paused from 13:00 UTC on July 9 and expected to resume by July 15.

Mantle said users did not need to take any action during the work and that existing MNT on Ethereum and Solana and MNT activity on Byreal and Bybit would remain unaffected.

Trending: Alvarez & Marsal Just Took Its First Client Payment in USDC on Solana

Mantle framed the change as a security upgrade for a system that keeps moving more value.

The bigger story here is where Mantle fits in a longer line of high-value systems making the same switch.

CoinDesk reported on July 9 that more than $7.2 billion in cross-chain and wrapped assets had been announced for migration from LayerZero to Chainlink CCIP since May, and put the more precise total above $7.24 billion once Mantle was included.

That figure is a count of announced migration values, not a live on-chain balance and not money that moved in a single transfer. CoinDesk’s chronology adds up separate projects announced at different times.

The named migrations include more than $1.5 billion from Kelp, $700 million from Solv Protocol, $475 million from Re, $330 million from Kraken, more than $1 billion from Lombard, $700 million from Virtuals Protocol, and $54.5 million from Yuzu Money. CoinDesk reported Mantle Network held more than $2.5 billion in value locked at the time of the report.

Read those as project figures announced on their own timelines. They should not be treated as one simultaneous balance.

Mantle’s move onto CCIP extends a relationship that started well before this week. In its December 2024 announcement, Mantle said it selected CCIP after reviewing cross-chain options.

Mantle pointed to programmable token transfers, arbitrary messaging, audited token-pool contracts, rate limits, and support for burn-and-mint or lock-and-unlock designs. It described CCIP as an interoperability layer for its developers rather than a single bridge product.

Mantle also said programmable messages can carry instructions alongside tokens so a destination-chain contract runs a follow-on action. The Super Portal migration builds on that earlier architecture choice rather than starting a new one.

The earlier page also said CCIP messages can move arbitrary data alongside tokens and can be extended as new chain connections become available. For Mantle, the value was a reusable cross-chain interface capable of supporting applications beyond the portal’s current Ethereum-Solana route.

What CCIP actually offers is spelled out on Chainlink’s own cross-chain page. Chainlink says Cross-Chain Tokens are secured through decentralized oracle networks and multiple risk-management layers that validate transfers.

Chainlink says its CCT standard lets developers connect a token to CCIP while keeping ownership of the token contract, token pools, and custom logic. It advertises programmable transfers, external attesters, configurable pool mechanisms, policy rules, and rate limits.

The page says CCT pools can use burn-and-mint, lock-and-mint, or lock-and-unlock designs depending on the asset. Those options matter because the security model includes the issuer’s pool configuration, transfer controls, and attestation choices as well as the interoperability network carrying the message.

Those are Chainlink’s product descriptions. They explain the feature set Mantle picked without proving any cross-chain system is immune from software, configuration, oracle, or operational failure.

The wave of migrations traces back to an attack this spring that put bridge configurations under a harder look.

LayerZero’s April 19 incident statement said the April 18 attack hit KelpDAO’s rsETH bridge and caused a loss of roughly $290 million.

LayerZero attributed the operation to a sophisticated state actor likely connected to TraderTraitor and said attackers poisoned downstream RPC infrastructure used by its decentralized verifier network. It said Kelp’s bridge ran a 1-of-1 verifier configuration, leaving no independent verifier to reject the forged message once uncompromised RPC connections were disrupted.

LayerZero said the incident was isolated to that configuration, that no other cross-chain assets or applications were affected, and that it found no vulnerability in its core protocol.

Kelp later disputed parts of LayerZero’s account of who was responsible. That disagreement remains unresolved, so the attack explains the heightened security review without meaning every LayerZero integration shared the same failure.

CoinDesk reported that Kelp announced more than $1.5 billion moving to Chainlink CCIP after that attack, and the announcements kept coming from there.

Bridge security design has become a visible market-share contest, and Mantle has now put the Super Portal on the CCIP side of it. The separate $2.5 billion figure refers to value locked on Mantle Network at the time of CoinDesk’s report, not to a live balance inside the portal.

The durable signal is that cross-chain infrastructure is being treated as a competitive product that projects are willing to replace. Mantle expects the CCT setup to give it direct control over token pools and transfer settings as MNT reaches more networks, turning governance over transfer mechanics into part of the network’s expansion plan.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

 

Search ProCoinNews