How to Recover From Stuck Transactions on Anyswap Bridge
Cross-chain transfers rarely fail at a convenient time. Funds seem to vanish into the gap between networks, block explorers show partial activity, and support channels move slower than your anxiety. If you have used Anyswap or its later Multichain iterations to bridge assets across chains, you have probably seen a transfer get “stuck” at least once. It is stressful, but most incidents are recoverable if you understand what went wrong and take methodical steps.
This guide draws on practical experience handling real user cases across EVM networks and sidechains. It explains how Anyswap’s architecture handles a bridge request, where transfers stall, what on-chain evidence to collect, and how to trigger or request a release when something breaks. It also covers situations where the solution is to unwind the swap instead of forcing completion. The examples reference Anyswap bridge mechanics as they existed around its Multichain phase, but the core recovery approach holds for comparable cross-chain systems.
A clear picture of how Anyswap moves value
Anyswap, later branded as Multichain, operated a cross-chain router for fungible tokens and wrapped assets. The bridging flow looks simple on the UI, yet under the hood it splices together two transactions on different networks with off-chain relayer logic in the middle.
On the source chain, you execute a contract call that either locks tokens in a vault or burns a canonical representation, depending on the token’s origin. The system emits an event with parameters that identify your transfer: sender, token, amount, destination chain, and a unique nonce or transaction ID. On the destination chain, a partner contract listens for a corresponding message and then mints or releases the asset to your address. If everything lines up, you see funds arrive within a few minutes on quick chains and within an hour under higher congestion. If something desynchronizes, the operation pauses with your funds either locked on source or pending on destination.
That pause is what people call “stuck.” The asset is usually safe, living inside a contract, yet no automated process has finished the second leg. Recovery comes down to proving that your first leg finalized on-chain, identifying which stage failed, and then either pushing the message through or requesting a refund depending on the risk.
What “stuck” actually means across chains
“Stuck” takes different shapes depending on chain combinations and token mode.
On EVM to EVM paths, the source chain transaction is final once it is confirmed and not reorged. The event that proves your bridge was initiated is stable. The destination side relies on a relayer network to read that event and submit a mint or release transaction. If the relayer fails, the destination side may never see your transfer without manual intervention.
On EVM to non-EVM paths, or when moving between chains with different finality models, the relayer waits for a deeper confirmation threshold. A temporary fork or gas spike can delay relayer submissions for hours.
On minted representations, the model is burn on source and mint on destination. On canonical tokens, it is lock on source and release on destination. If a token was upgraded or the contract swapped mid-transfer, one side might refuse to mint or release until a new mapping is registered.
Understanding these models helps you reason about safety. If you locked USDC on the source chain, that USDC sits inside a source chain contract. For burns, your value turns into a claim against the destination mint. Both are recoverable, but the process differs.
First, collect evidence the right way
Before you touch anything, gather the basic facts. The single most useful habit is to copy the exact transaction hash from the source chain and anchor your investigation around it. Most recoveries hinge on what that source transaction recorded.
Pull the source chain transaction on a reliable explorer, for example Etherscan, BscScan, SnowTrace, or Polygonscan. Note the block number, timestamp, status, and logs. Look for an event from the Anyswap or Multichain router contract that includes your address, the token address, the amount, the destination chain ID, and a nonce or order ID. Copy the raw log data or the decoded event and keep it in a text file along with your transaction hash.
If the UI showed you an “order ID,” cross reference it with the event. A mismatch suggests you clicked multiple times or initiated duplicate requests. If your wallet sent more than one transfer, you might have two separate orders waiting to settle.
Now check the destination chain explorer for your address. Some bridges use predictable deposit addresses or temporary holding addresses. Search by your wallet address and also by the destination router contract address to see if a mint or release was attempted. If you find a destination chain transaction that failed due to out of gas or a revert, you have a straightforward fix: resubmit with sufficient gas or ask the relayer to retry.
Screenshots of failed UI pages are less useful than hashes. Support and community troubleshooters will always ask for transaction hashes, chain names, token addresses, and amounts. Provide them in plain text, not images, and confirm that the token addresses match the official mappings. Token impersonators cause more stuck transfers than people admit.
Verify you are on the right contract and the right chain IDs
Anyswap evolved, and with it the contract addresses and token mappings. The router suffixed with V3 or V4, along with chain IDs, changed over time. If you are trying to reconcile a transfer from months ago, double check that you are referencing the correct version. A transfer sent to an old router might still be recoverable if the funds sit in a known vault, but the destination side likely will not mint automatically.
Confirm chain IDs and router addresses from archived official sources or reputable aggregators. Beware of phishing clones that show plausible-looking events. If the contract you interacted with does not match prior verified addresses, stop and verify ownership through token issuer announcements or well-known repositories.
In practice, stuck transfers often arise after a token contract upgrade or a symbol swap. A bridging path that worked on Monday may require a different mapping by Friday. The source chain event will still exist, but the destination contract may reject minting because the token mapping now points elsewhere. In that case, the recovery entails a manual release or a refund to the source chain rather than forcing the old destination mint.
Classify the failure: relayer delay, gas failure, token mapping, or chain instability
You can usually categorize a stuck case into one of four buckets, and each bucket suggests a different next step.
Relayer delay or outage. The source chain event exists, there is no corresponding destination chain transaction, and other users are reporting similar delays. In this case, the safest move is to wait for the relayer network to catch up while you prepare a refund or manual release request. Do not spam duplicate transfers. Multiple users have turned delays into real losses by repeating the swap and then receiving both completions at once after the relayer recovered, which forced them into unwanted arbitrage positions or slippage.
Gas failure on the destination side. You might find a destination transaction that failed with an out-of-gas error or a revert due to exceeding block gas limits. This shows up in the explorer with a clear failed status. A retry with higher gas or an updated calldata resolves it, but only the relayer can submit that retry unless the bridge supports a user-triggered claim function. Some Anyswap-style contracts expose a “claim” or “anySwapOutUnderlying” companion that you can call directly if you provide the correct parameters and signature. If you see a claim function in the ABI and your order ID appears in a public mapping, you can attempt a self-serve claim with careful gas settings. Test with small amounts first.
Token mapping or contract migration mismatch. The source event references a token that no longer maps to the same destination representation. The relayer might intentionally skip minting to prevent incorrect issuance. The typical remedy is a refund on the source chain. This requires proof of your source transaction and a request through the official recovery channel. Be ready for KYC or signature challenges that confirm address ownership.
Chain instability or finality risk. On chains with probabilistic finality, the relayer waits for a target confirmation depth. If your transfer sits in a low-depth block or the chain is reorganizing, the process halts, sometimes for hours. Here, the correct action is patience. If the transfer drops from the chain due to a reorg, you will need to resend from the source chain. Before you do, cancel any pending allowance increases or contract approvals to reduce attack surface.
How to attempt a user-side claim when supported
Some Anyswap or Multichain routers exposed public methods that allow end users to complete a transfer if they can supply the original parameters and a signature or proof. Not all deployments offer this, and not all tokens are eligible, but when available it can save days.
Open the verified destination chain contract on the explorer. Review the Read and Write Contract sections. If you find a function that resembles claim, anySwapIn, or mintWithProof, check the inputs. The function often expects the token address, recipient address, amount, source chain ID, and a unique transfer ID or hash. It may also require a signature from a validator set. Without the signature, the call will revert.
If the contract uses a permissioned validator signature, only the relayer or the protocol can produce it. However, some paths allow a Merkle proof or a message that is verifiable against an on-chain root. In these cases, a public API or a subgraph endpoint hosts the proof. When the proof is public, you can load it into the function and finalize your claim. If you cannot find public documentation that describes this path, assume it is not exposed.
If a user-side claim fails, do not brute force repeated attempts with rising gas. Keep a single failed transaction as evidence and move to an assisted recovery route.
Requesting a refund versus forcing a destination mint
The safest recovery is often a refund to your source chain. If your tokens are locked or burned in a known contract and the destination side is uncertain due to token mapping changes or validator liveness, a refund clears ambiguity and returns control to you.
Refunds usually require a request on the official support portal or a form that asks for your source transaction hash, wallet address, token, amount, and intended destination. Be ready to sign a message from the same wallet to confirm ownership. In some cases, refunds are batched and processed on-chain at a fixed cadence, so prepare to wait days rather than hours.
Forcing a destination mint makes sense when the token mapping remains valid, the destination chain is healthy, and you see no security advisories. In these cases, the relayer simply needs to catch up, or a manual submission must be queued. Provide your details through the official channel, then monitor the destination chain for a mint or release transaction referencing your order ID.
I have seen users insist on a destination mint during periods of protocol uncertainty and later regret it when token wrappers were deprecated. Every mint to a dead wrapper adds friction to your next move, because you will have to swap back to a supported asset or bridge again. Trade a two-day delay for a cleaner asset position on a live path rather than locking yourself to a sick market.
Edge cases that look scary but are fixable
Multiple initiations during a laggy UI. When the UI lags, users click “Bridge” twice. If the allowance is already set high, both calls can go through. You will see two source chain transactions with similar parameters and consecutive nonces. If the relayer processes both later, you will receive twice the amount on destination, which may exceed your immediate needs. Resist the urge to reverse one immediately via a hasty swap. Hold until you verify both destination receipts, then unwind at your pace, accounting for slippage.
Mismatched decimals across two token representations. Some chains map tokens with different decimal places, for example 6 on source and 18 on destination. If a mapping update corrected decimals mid-transfer, a safety check may block the mint. This looks like a stuck transfer but it is actually an integrity block. The correct solution is a source refund; do not chase a mint into an incorrect decimal representation.
Wallet address differences between source and destination. Many bridges deliver to the same address on destination by default. If you used a smart contract wallet on source and an EOA on destination, or if your wallet uses different derivation paths across chains, the token might mint to an address you control but rarely check. Search destination for both the EOA and any contract wallet addresses you use. I have recovered funds that “arrived” quietly at a contract wallet that did not emit familiar notifications.
Approved amount far exceeds transferred amount. Users often set a high ERC‑20 allowance, then suspect theft when they see only a portion bridged. A high allowance alone does not cause loss. It increases risk but does not siphon funds on its own. The relevant detail is the actual transferFrom amount in the source transaction logs. Focus there, not on allowance.
Gas strategy and fees during recovery
Recoveries sometimes require you to send follow-up transactions, like a user-claim call or an approval reset. On chains under stress, default wallet settings underbid the market and leave your actions pending. Overpaying by a wide margin is wasteful, underpaying compounds delays.
On EVM chains using EIP‑1559, set a max fee that comfortably exceeds the current base fee by 30 to 50 percent and a priority fee at the high end of recent blocks when speed matters. If your wallet supports replacement, be ready to speed up a pending transaction rather than sending duplicates. On chains without EIP‑1559, check recent blocks and match the p95 gas price.
If the bride path charges a relayer fee or a protocol fee, recheck the displayed fee before trying a second time. Fee markets and liquidity pools change every hour. A refund plus a fresh swap through a path with good liquidity often costs less than forcing a broken path to complete through adverse slippage.
Security posture while you wait
Bridging incidents attract opportunists. The moment a protocol shows delays, social channels fill with fake support accounts and lookalike forms. Protect yourself with a few defensive habits while you work the case.
Share only transaction hashes, token addresses, and chain names publicly. Never share private keys, seed phrases, or raw wallet exports, even in DMs that claim to be “tier 2 support.” Verify every contract address against a verified explorer page and, when possible, cross check with an official repository. A one‑character difference in an address can route your claim to a malicious contract. Revoke stale approvals on known high‑risk contracts using a reputable tool when the dust settles. During the recovery window, avoid interacting with newly surfaced contracts that claim to “unstick” funds automatically.
Communicating with support and expecting realistic timelines
When you escalate, give support everything they need in one pass. A concise, complete packet reduces back and forth and speeds the queue.
Include your source chain transaction hash, source chain name, destination chain name, token addresses on both chains, amount, the timestamp window, and a short description of the outcome you prefer: destination mint or source refund. If you hold proof of a failed destination attempt, attach that hash too. If the protocol maintains a public incident report, link the relevant incident so the agent understands you are affected by a known issue.
Expect that manual reviews run in batches. During periods of heavy congestion or after a mapping update, refunds or releases might be scheduled every 24 to 72 hours. If you can tolerate the wait, do not attempt workaround bridges through third-party tools that promise instant recovery. That path often multiplies your risk.
When to cut losses and unwind
There are moments when the right move is to accept a refund and hold on the source chain or swap into a more liquid asset before bridging again. Watch for low-liquidity destinations, large spreads on wrapped tokens, and validator instability announcements. If you bridge into a thin pool just because your original path was stuck, you might lose more to slippage than to fees.
A simple rule of thumb helps: if the token’s destination volume averaged below mid five figures daily over the last week, and you are moving a mid five-figure amount yourself, you risk moving the market against your position. Opt for a refund, convert to a deeper base asset like native ETH, MATIC, AVAX, or a major stablecoin on source, then use a path with documented capacity.
A quick walk-through with a real-world pattern
Consider a user who bridged USDC from Ethereum to Fantom through an AnySwap Anyswap path and saw no arrival after two hours. The Ethereum transaction succeeded, emitted an anySwapOut event with a clear order ID, and showed 5 confirmations. On Fantom, the user’s address had no mint. The protocol status page mentioned delays on Fantom relayers after a validator rotation.
The user gathered the Ethereum transaction hash, the USDC token address on Ethereum, the mapped token on Fantom, the amount, and the timestamp. They verified the Fantom router address had not changed. They opened a support ticket requesting a manual release to Fantom, attaching their details.
Meanwhile, they refrained from sending a second bridge. Twelve hours later, a destination chain transaction appeared minting the correct amount to their Fantom address. The relayer simply caught up, and no manual release was required.
If the mint had not arrived after 24 hours and the incident report had escalated, a refund would have been the safer route. The key was patience and a clean paper trail.
Preventing the next stuck transfer
Perfection is not possible across heterogeneous chains, but you can lower the odds of trouble.
Keep approvals tight. Approve only the amount you need instead of infinite allowances, especially for less familiar routers.
Bridge during stable periods. Off-peak hours do not guarantee success, but they reduce competition for block space and relayer attention.
Start with small probes. Send a small test transfer when using a new path or after a protocol update. Ten dollars Anyswap can save days of headache.
Track token mappings. Before bridging, check that the token contract addresses on both chains are current and verified. A quick glance at official docs or a known repository prevents mapping mismatches.
Monitor incident channels. Many protocols maintain a status page or an announcements feed that will warn you of delays, chain upgrades, or paused routes. A five-minute check can save you hours.
Final thoughts born from practice
Most stuck Anyswap bridge transactions are recoverable. The funds are not “lost,” they are waiting in a contract or in a queue for a validator set that needs to submit a second leg. The path to recovery runs through evidence, patience, and the right choice between a destination release and a source refund. Treat your transaction hash as your case number, control your gas and your approvals, and communicate with precision.
Cross-chain work remains messy. It stitches together different finality models, fee markets, and token representations. That complexity sometimes bubbles up as stalled transfers. If you prepare for those moments with a clear process and a calm posture, you can move value across chains without letting a bump turn into a disaster. As your amounts grow, prefer routes with visible capacity and responsive operators, and keep a playbook ready for when a bridge hiccups. The difference between panic and resolution is often a single tidy log of hashes and a willingness to wait for the right remedy rather than the fastest one.