← All research · Bridge flows
Video breakdown

Phil walks through the bridge flow review.

Bridges · Hyperliquid · Solana · BSC · Tron

Blockchain bridge flow review: Solana's positive day masks a negative week

Bridge dashboards show money arriving. The useful part is how much of it stays, and whether one good day sits inside a bad week. On this snapshot, Solana took in $65M and kept $1.3M, and its week was negative. Hyperliquid's record day followed six days of outflows.

DefiLlama bridge flows by chain · USD M Day ≠ week
Destination24h in24h out24h net7d net
Hyperliquid392.47138.62+253.84+66.91
Solana64.8563.54+1.31−54.39
BSC26.0521.85+4.20+35.18
Tron9.916.24+3.67+2.62
TL;DR
  1. Solana's $64.85M of deposits left a net of just $1.31M, about 2%. Calling the deposits "new capital" would overstate the net movement nearly 50×. Its week was −$54.39M.
  2. Hyperliquid's +$253.84M day is 3.8× its whole week (+$66.91M). Working back, the other six days were about −$187M: a sharp one-day swing, not steady accumulation.
  3. BSC is the only chain positive on the day and across the other six days (≈+$31M), the pattern closest to steady accumulation.
  4. Bridge flows cover tracked routes only. They miss exchange transfers and native issuance, and they don't show where the money goes next.
Dashboard 01

Bridge flows at a glance

DefiLlama · snapshot 17 Sep 2026 · "other six days" = 7d net − 24h net, derived

Hyperliquid 24h net
+$253.8M65% kept
Of $392.5M deposited
Hyperliquid other 6 days
≈ −$187M
Day is 3.8× the week
Solana 24h net
+$1.3M2% kept
Of $64.9M deposited
Solana 7d net
−$54.4M
Positive day, negative week
BSC 7d net
+$35.2MSteady
≈ +$31M over the other 6 days
Tron 7d net
+$2.6M
Other 6 days ≈ flat (−$1M)
Deposits, four chains, 24h
$493.3M
Hyperliquid 80% of it
Where funds went next
n/aNot measured
Destination use not tracked
01 / Gross vs net

Money in is not money kept

Solana received $64.85M through tracked bridges in 24 hours and sent out $63.54M. The net was $1.31M, about 2% of deposits. Calling the full deposit figure "new capital" would overstate what actually stayed by nearly fifty times.

The other chains kept far more of what came in: Hyperliquid about 65%, Tron 37%, BSC 16%. Large deposits with tiny net can mean busy routing, money passing through rather than settling. Small gross flows with a steady positive net may point to gradual accumulation.

Dashboard 02

In, out and net, last 24 hours

DefiLlama · USD M · deposits right, withdrawals left

DepositsWithdrawalsNet
Dashboard 03

How much of each dollar stayed

24h net ÷ 24h deposits · derived

Net as % of deposits

Deposits ÷ net: the overstatement factor

How many times larger "deposits" is than what actually stayed.

02 / Day vs week

A positive day can sit inside a negative week

The 24-hour window sits inside the 7-day window. Subtract one from the other and you get the six days before, assuming the windows line up. Hyperliquid's day (+$253.84M) is 3.8× its whole week (+$66.91M), so the other six days were roughly −$187M. That describes a sharp one-day reversal, not steady accumulation.

Solana is the title case: a small positive day after six days of about −$56M. Tron's other six days were roughly flat. Only BSC was positive both on the day and across the rest of the week, about +$31M, the closest thing here to gradual accumulation.

Dashboard 04

24-hour net vs 7-day net

DefiLlama · USD M

24-hour net7-day net
Dashboard 05

Inside the week: the day vs the six days before

Other six days = 7d net − 24h net · derived, assumes aligned windows · USD M

Day vs rest of week

Only BSC sits in the top-right: inflows on the day and before it. Bottom-right = positive day inside an outflowing week.

Average daily net, other six days

03 / Concentration

One destination dominates the gross flow

Of the $493M deposited across these four destinations in 24 hours, Hyperliquid took 80%. Its gross activity, deposits plus withdrawals, was $531M, nearly three times the other three combined. Scale of activity and direction of net flow are separate findings, and both need reporting.

Dashboard 06

Share of gross bridge activity, 24h

Deposits + withdrawals · four destinations · USD M

HyperliquidSolanaBSCTron
04 / Limits

What bridge data can't see

Net flow here is deposits minus withdrawals across the provider's tracked bridge routes. It isn't a full balance of payments. Exchange transfers, native token issuance and untracked routes can all be missing, and address ownership isn't reconstructed. The data supports claims about movement on specific routes, not about institutional buying or new investors.

A bridge destination also says nothing about what the money does next. It might sit idle, back a loan, go into a trading app, or leave by another route. Destination balances and follow-up transactions are needed to tell those apart.

Dashboard 07

Coverage: what the numbers include

Ways value can arrive on a chain

● CoveredTracked bridge routes

The provider's listed bridges. This is the whole dataset.

✕ MissingExchange transfers

Withdrawals from a centralised exchange straight onto the chain.

✕ MissingNative issuance

Tokens minted directly on the chain by an issuer.

✕ MissingUntracked routes

Bridges or paths the provider doesn't cover.

Dashboard 08

After the bridge: where money can go

Possible next steps · not measured in this review

Sits idle

Held in a wallet on the destination chain.

Check: balance age
Backs collateral

Deposited into lending or margin.

Check: protocol deposits
Enters trading

Into a DEX or perps venue.

Check: trading-app inflows
Leaves again

Out by another route, possibly untracked.

Check: onward transfers
Dashboard 09

Evidence scorecard

What the snapshot supports today

Solana kept only ~2% of its daily deposits

$1.31M net on $64.85M in.

● Established
Solana's week was negative

−$54.39M over 7 days.

● Established
Hyperliquid's day was a one-off swing

Other six days ≈ −$187M; derived, assumes aligned windows.

◐ Derived
BSC shows the steadiest accumulation

Positive on the day and the other six days; derived.

◐ Derived
Deposits equal new capital

Gross inflow overstates net movement.

✕ Not supported
Flows show institutional buying or new investors

No ownership or destination-use data.

✕ Not supported
05 / DashMode's assessment

Report gross and net together, and more than one window

Gross and net should always sit side by side. Big deposits can mean active routing even when little capital stays; modest gross flows with a steady positive net may mean gradual accumulation. And a single day should be read against the week it sits in.

On this snapshot, Solana's positive day masks a negative week, Hyperliquid's big day follows six days of outflows, and BSC is the only destination with consistent inflows. None of that says what the money does once it arrives.

Dashboard 10

DashMode's bridge-flow method

For a recurring flow review

Gross beside netDeposits, withdrawals and net together, never deposits alone.
Several windowsDay, rest of week, and month, with aligned cutoffs.
State coverageList tracked routes; flag exchanges and native issuance.
Follow the moneyDestination balances and next transactions.
Watch persistenceDo inflows stay after a week, or route straight out?
Sources

Methodology and limits. Net flow is deposits minus withdrawals across the provider's tracked bridge routes; rounded inputs may cause small reconciliation differences (Hyperliquid: $392.47M − $138.62M = $253.85M vs $253.84M displayed). "Other six days" is 7-day net minus 24-hour net and assumes the windows are aligned; exact upstream cutoffs were unavailable. This is not a complete balance of payments: exchange transfers, native issuance and uncovered routes can be missing, and address ownership is not reconstructed. The figures support route-level movement claims, not claims about institutional buying or new investors. Dated research, not a live feed. Not investment advice.