# Bridging GMX To Solana
**URL:** https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233
**Category:** Proposals
**Created:** [December 13, 2024, 7:47am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233 "2024-12-13T07:47:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@xdev\_10](https://gov.gmx.io/u/xdev_10)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2024, 7:47am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/1 "2024-12-13T07:47:18Z")
Following up on the vote in [https://snapshot.box/#/s:gmx.eth/proposal/0xd20c6ae56a9a1ee5b9cc3d4e55446fc38c33536442c7acc2ed87264db7021629](https://snapshot.box/#/s:gmx.eth/proposal/0xd20c6ae56a9a1ee5b9cc3d4e55446fc38c33536442c7acc2ed87264db7021629)
A bridge needs to be setup between Arbitrum and Solana to bridge GMX tokens to Solana.
Based on our evaluation we recommend using LayerZero for this.
Reasons:
- Solana is already supported by LayerZero, so work can begin on this now
- While GMX is currently bridged between Avalanche and Arbitrum using Synapse, the Synapse team has recently been unresponsive, so we would recommend also moving the Avalanche \<\> Arbitrum bridging to LayerZero
- LayerZero v2 allows for an “n of m” verifier network, this means that e.g. a “2 of 3” configuration could be setup, which would require at least 2 of the specified 3 verifiers to verify a message before it is deemed to be confirmed
- In the substack post [GMX 2024 - - GMX News -](https://gmxio.substack.com/p/gmx-2024), the GMX Bridge proposed was meant to be a similar “n of m” bridge protocol, but work on this was de-prioritized since LayerZero was already creating something similar
- We feel that an “n of m” protocol provides a stronger bridge security as it would require corruption of multiple independent verifier networks in order to compromise
We would propose a 2 of 3 configuration, with the following verifiers:
- LayerZero
- Nethermind
- Google
These verifiers were selected based on an evaluation of speed and security as well as support for the Solana network.
LayerZero would be specified as a “required DVN”, more info on this in the references below.
Approval of using LayerZero with the above configuration for this bridging would require a snapshot vote.
References:
> **[LayerZero V2: Explaining DVNs](https://medium.com/layerzero-official/layerzero-v2-explaining-dvns-02e08cce4e80)**
>
> What is a DVN? Why are DVNs important? This article explains all…
> **[DVN Addresses | LayerZero](https://docs.layerzero.network/v2/developers/evm/technical-reference/dvn-addresses)**
>
> Seamlessly set up and configure your application's Security Stack to include the following Decentralized Verifier Networks (DVNs). To successfully add a DVN to verify a pathway, that DVN must be deployed on both chains!
---
### Author:  [@cmrn](https://gov.gmx.io/u/cmrn)
#### Post date: [December 13, 2024, 9:21pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/2 "2024-12-13T21:21:09Z")
Strong support for LZ
---
### Author:  [@Jonezee](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Jonezee)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2024, 1:17pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/3 "2024-12-16T13:17:35Z")
Sounds like a secure setup. I trust the evaluation from the devs on this.
---
### Author:  [@Tano](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Tano)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2024, 7:25pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/4 "2024-12-16T19:25:09Z")
Yes, support to use LayerZero for all our bridging needs as well!
---
### Author:  [@Snipermonke01](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Snipermonke01)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2024, 10:12pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/5 "2024-12-16T22:12:59Z")
While a GMX owned bridge would be great, it’s encouraging that a trusted protocol has implemented/is implementing the preferred design.
In support.
Additionally, the GMX that is currently held with synapse, is that a straight forward process to migrate layer zero?
---
### Author:  [@xdev\_10](https://gov.gmx.io/u/xdev_10)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2024, 3:18am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/6 "2024-12-17T03:18:30Z")
to migrate the tokens from synapse, a few timelock transactions would be needed, but it is doable
---
### Author:  [@Mustard](https://gov.gmx.io/u/Mustard)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2024, 6:22pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/7 "2024-12-18T18:22:29Z")
All for this proposal
---
### Author:  [@ImmieV](https://gov.gmx.io/u/ImmieV)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2024, 10:20pm UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/8 "2024-12-18T22:20:41Z")
> [@xdev\_10](#):
>
> Synapse team has recently been unresponsive
Find this to be concerning. Why would they not response to a partner giving them more business and volume.
---
### Author:  [@xdev\_10](https://gov.gmx.io/u/xdev_10)
#### Post date: [January 6, 2025, 7:43am UTC](https://gov.gmx.io/t/bridging-gmx-to-solana/4233/9 "2025-01-06T07:43:44Z")
Just to update, we’re finalizing a few details on the bridging, will try to create a snapshot vote soon after