xGov 165: Proposal to build NFT Bridge between Algorand and EVM based networks

Hey all, you can find below our proposal 165 for an NFT bridge between Algorand and the various EVM based networks. Looking forward to hear your feedback, comments, and questions.

xGov 165: Proposal to build NFT Bridge between Algorand and EVM based networks



Messina.one intends to build an Ethereum <> Algorand NFT bridge by leveraging its existing expertise in the bridging space. Messina believes that enabling native bridging of NFTs between networks helps to grow the domain by opening up various opportunities for creators on Algorand.
Messina already built and deployed an NFT bridge between Polygon and Cronos and will benefit from the experience and existing in-house technology. Messina also developed a new NFT standard that ensures exclusivity of NFTs and allows for only one unique NFT to ever be alive on chain at the same time.
The bridge would allow seamless transfer of NFTs between Algorand and all EVM based chains including, but not limited to, Polygon, Ethereum, Base, Optimism, Arbitrum, and Avalanche.


The Messina.one team consists of several experienced professionals across the various web3 domains such as development, product management, marketing, and community.

Jonathan Kay, CEO
A seasoned entrepreneur with a background in decentralised applications, operational support, and transformative ventures.

Mike Knott, CTO
An industry expert with accomplishments in transformative change across a number of technology disciplines.

Derine Loke, Product Manager
A motivated and results-driven product manager leading cross-functional teams with a zeal in building innovative web3 solutions.

Kevin Vernooij, Partnerships & Community
A passionate community builder who spent over a decade in enterprise customer management before taking his expertise into the web3 space.

Chester, Tech Lead
Deep knowledge and skill in Web3 development. Proven expertise in guiding teams in creating advanced blockchain applications and smart contracts.

Experience with Algorand

Messina.one deployed the first native token bridge on Algorand to connect the network with various other ecosystems. Messina also launched its Algorand Governance Liquid Staking solution with mALGO in September 2023.
On top of the products delivered by Messina.one, the same team is also the driving force behind Algo Foundry. Algo Foundry on boarded numerous developers to Algorand through its academic interface programs and developer courses, in addition to building products like AlgoSafe.
The team of Messina.one has been involved with the Algorand ecosystem since its inception and worked closely with the Algorand Foundation on various projects.
From top to bottom, the team has close relationships with the Algorand community on all levels and led the way through numerous partnerships with many leading Algorand players and founders.

Present Proposal

1 - Requirement Analysis & Product Design
Define project objectives and gather stakeholder needs and create the blueprint and architecture for the bridge.
Estimated Duration: 1-2 weeks

2 - Development, Integration, and Testing:
Design, code, and program the solution. Combine various components and conduct rigorous tests for functionality.
Estimated Duration: 4-6 weeks

3 - Security Audit:
Work with a reputable auditor for a thorough review of compliance and security.
Estimated Duration: 2-4 weeks

4 - Deployment & Launch:
Implement the project into a live environment and launch the bridge.
Estimated Duration: 1-2 weeks

Total Estimated Duration: 10-12 Weeks
Estimated Requirement: 300000 ALGO

*All durations are strictly estimated and may vary.

Benefits for the community

By connecting the EVM and AVM (Algorand) NFT ecosystems, Messina.one is enabling further cross chain integration and community growth in the NFT domain. It will give NFT communities in the Algorand space easy access to a greater audience and creators the opportunity to leverage their creative talent to bring new users into the Algorand ecosystem from EVM chains.
At the same time it allows NFT projects on EVM chains to explore the superior Algorand network at a lower cost and without spending big resources to launch an entire collection, and instead bridge parts of existing collections to test the waters first.
Through these benefits it brings more buyers, more traders, and more capital into the Algorand NFT landscape, adding more diversity and creating an altogether more attractive ecosystem for all NFT stakeholders alike.


Hello Kev,

A couple questions, Algofoundry and Messina are owned by the same people? Are there others under this brand that should be included?

You have already built a bridge to polygon and cronos, which is great. Do you have any metrics or campaign efforts that have seen demand or show promise for future bridges for NFTs?


Can you edit your post to include all the proposal info here? The idea of this forum is helping people who are not familiar with github to evaluate your proposal.


Hi! That’s right. Messina I’d say is a spinoff brand of Algo Foundry, as you can also see on the Messina website when you scroll to the far bottom - it will say Powered by Algo Foundry.

Parts of the dev and marketing team also work with AlgoRai, which you could say came through the Algo Foundry studio, but has a different owner and product team.

The Polygon and Cronos bridge was built in collaboration with an NFT Game on Cronos called D.G. Pals who were seeking to go cross chain with existing NFTs. I’d need to get back to you about metrics.

When we announced the launch of that bridge, we had a lot of comments and requests from the community about wanting one for Algorand. Building a bridge is costly though and expecting a stand a lone NFT project, which is often a single individual or a small group at most and not externally funded or profit driven, to carry those expenses is probably unrealistic. Hence this proposal.

We haven’t spoken with any NFT projects or creators specifically about concrete plans to go cross chain, but we have seen the rise of interest in cross chain activities among the community for both tokens as well as NFTs.

1 Like

I like the idea of more bridging and crosschain opportunities. Do you know if this is built what the overhead would be to keep from being shelved if market conditions are not good in the next 6-8 months?


I’ll check the official response and post tomorrow - but unofficially, 2022-23 was a pretty terrible year and bear market and the token bridge wasn’t shelved :slight_smile: so I’m sure it’ll be okay. But let me confirm and get a proper answer.

1 Like

Thanks for this overview! This seems like an exciting opportunity for our Algorand NFT community. I too am interested in the stats for the Polygon and Cronos bridge.

Additionally, would you please expound on the stakeholder engagement process? Two weeka could be a good timeline with the riggt proceas. Thanks in advance for your response. Cheers!


So our overhead is relatively low at the moment, and a new NFT bridge won’t add much to it. The cost is mostly a capital expense and not an operational expense. We also have quite a robust runway. So bad market conditions shouldn’t affect the availability of Messina products much.


Why would people bridge their NFTs? Do you have any numbers on how much NFT bridges are used at all? I dont see people using it really.


I assume you’ve read our proposal and went through what we believe are the benefits to the community. But in case not.

Why would individual people bridge their stand alone NFTs? I don’t see that either unless they simply prefer to hold an asset on a chain of their choice. That’s possible of course. Maybe you see a cool NFT project you like on … BASE - but you don’t want to separate your NFT holdings between chains so you bridge it across to Algorand to consolidate it in one place.

Why would creators bridge parts of their collections or apply a multi chain philosophy without locking a collection in the vacuum of a single network, I definitely see that. The USP of an NFT bridge is more for creators and NFT projects, than it is for individual holders or collectors.

I’d refer you to that section in the proposal as I’d just be repeating what’s already written there.


tbf there is not a lot in that proposal besides the classic “if you wanna test out algorand maybe bridge some assets over” :smiley:

Dont see how individual users will use it. It has to be the creator who wants to go multichain and has an easy way to do so via your bridge. Holder benefits are tied to the NFT for example so the creator would have to put in work to give someone these benefits even if they bridge their NFTs over. Also I dont see a lot of NFT projects really trying to go multichain tho and I feel like it could be a dead bridge because of that. Do you know how many NFT projects tried using portalbridge to go multichain for example?


I mean, sometimes that’s all it takes. Plenty of tokens going the same route. We submitted this proposal because there was an ask and interest from the community in building it for Algorand after we had announced the bridge for Polygon and Cronos. We see value in the bridge for NFT projects and creators both ways, which will strengthen the ecosystem as a whole. Instead of creating and minting an entirely new collection, existing collections can be moved across and a presence can be created step by step on other chains. But yes, there needs to be an effort from the creator space to make it a success. Tools to do this right now are scarce and cumbersome, Messina will make it fast and seamless with it’s own NFT standard that allows for just 1 NFT to ever be alive on chain (mint and burn).

There is a clear interest in cross chain activity and many agree multi chain is the way to go to grow. Look at the reaction on the Algorand / Hedera partnership. It’s better to have the tools in place for when that boom happens, than waiting for the boom and coming to the conclusion the infrastructure isn’t ready yet.


For example, if someone bridges a BAYC to algorand. You can then list it on algorand nft marketplace.
Would there be any data for buyers to see? like would they know the ranking, purchase history etc?

Could be a problem for nft marketplace to handle fake cross-chain NFTs imo.


Hi, what are the open source deliverables here? Thanks!


Hi! The entire build would be open source apart from the UI.


Thanks, what do you mean by a build? Does it include any analysis/design documents and/or security audit contracts or is it just some of the software source code?

1 Like

Good questions! The meta data is copied along to the new NFT on the new chain, in this scenario Algorand - so that would bring along anything that’s in the metadata, like accessory info, rarity data, ranking and so on. Purchase history is usually not recorded on the meta data. But our minting process will create a proof of authenticity tag in the metadata which will include a reference to the original NFT that is locked on the mother chain. So through that tag, people can find the original and see purchase history there. Hope that helps!


Indeed. Design documents, audit records, source code, and so on - it would all be made open source throughout the building process.


Thank you, thats very cool! Just to be clear, when someone mints an ARC19 updateable metadata NFT on Algorand, and then bridges the NFT over to Eth. One can edit the metadata on algorand chain, and effectively update the traits showing up on Eth as well. The proof of authenticity can keep up with updates? This could be a nice way to update and edit NFTs from other chain all on Algorand with low txns cost.

1 Like

Hi Kev

Couple of questions… interested in the method of bridging

You say it’s a new NFT standard and there’s mint and burn… does this mean an Algorand NFT bridging to a new chain would be burnt - thus losing it’s provenance? And if it were to be bridged back, it would be reminted with an entirely new ASA ID?

When assets are bridged from the EVM to Algorand - are they created under a shared creator account?

If they lose the ASA ID and lose the creator account - how would a creator/collection manage this? It feels closer to a migration ↔ migration solution.

Unless im understanding wrong?

1 Like