An Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) is a LayerZero token standard in which one token is deployed natively on many chains and shares a single canonical supply across all of them — no wrapped copies, no collateral locked in a bridge vault. A transfer burns the amount on the source chain and mints the identical amount on the destination, so the global supply never changes and the balance stays fungible wherever it lands. The result is unified liquidity and one spendable balance instead of a different wrapper contract on every network. ATS, the fee token used by WATS, is not an OFT: it is held on BSC (BNB Chain), and whichever EVM network a transaction runs on, the fee is debited from that single balance. Solana and TON sit outside that fee model; transactions on Solana and TON pay their own native fees, in SOL and Toncoin.
The problem: too many copies of the "same" token
If you have ever moved a token across chains, you have met its evil twins. You bridge USDC or some governance token from one network to another and end up holding a wrapped version — a separate contract, a separate balance, sometimes a slightly different name. The "canonical" token still sits on the origin chain; what you hold on the destination is an IOU minted by a bridge, backed by collateral locked somewhere else.
This fragments everything. Liquidity splits across a dozen wrapper contracts, so pools are thinner and slippage is worse. Your balance is scattered — 40 units here, 25 there, none of them directly fungible with each other. And every wrapper adds risk: the value of the wrapped token is only as sound as the bridge holding the collateral behind it. When a bridge is exploited, the wrappers it minted can collapse to zero while the "real" token is untouched. The core issue is that there was never one token — there were many incompatible copies pretending to be the same asset.
What an OFT actually is
An OFT — Omnichain Fungible Token — is a token standard from LayerZero designed to fix exactly this. Instead of a token existing on one home chain and being wrapped everywhere else, an OFT is deployed natively on every chain it supports, and those deployments share one canonical supply. The token is not "on" a chain the way a wrapped asset is; it is an omnichain asset that happens to be readable and spendable on each chain, with the total supply conserved across all of them.
Under the hood, the deployments talk to each other through LayerZero's cross-chain messaging layer. As of 2026, LayerZero is one of the more widely adopted omnichain interoperability protocols, and the OFT standard is its reference pattern for making a fungible token behave as a single asset rather than a family of look-alikes. If you want the messaging layer itself unpacked, see the WATS explainer on what LayerZero is.
How an OFT transfer works
The mechanism is refreshingly simple: burn on the source chain, mint on the destination.
When you send an OFT from Chain A to Chain B, the contract on Chain A burns the amount you are moving — it destroys those tokens outright. It then sends a LayerZero message to the contract on Chain B, which mints the exact same amount into your address there. No collateral is locked in a vault. No wrapper token is created. The global supply is unchanged, because what was burned on one side is re-minted on the other. Value moves by destroying and recreating the token, not by parking the original somewhere and issuing a claim against it.
One caveat worth knowing, because it is often glossed over: LayerZero also ships an OFT Adapter for tokens that already exist on a home chain and cannot be redeployed with mint-and-burn rights. The adapter locks supply in a contract on that home chain and mints OFT representations elsewhere, so an adapter-based deployment does keep a locked pool on one side. A token designed as an OFT from the start uses the pure burn-and-mint path described above.
Where there is no locked pool of collateral, there is no honeypot for an attacker to drain in the way classic lock-and-mint bridges create. The security assumption shifts to the correctness of the messaging layer and the token's own contracts, rather than to a separate custodian of locked funds. That is a different risk profile, not the absence of risk: if the message path were compromised, a destination contract could be instructed to mint tokens that were never burned on the source side.
OFT vs. wrapped vs. bridged tokens
It helps to line these up side by side. A wrapped token (think of the bridged "USDC.e"-style variants that sit alongside a chain's natively issued token) is a new contract backed by collateral locked on the origin chain — a derivative, not the asset itself. A bridged token, in the traditional lock-and-mint sense, is much the same: the original is immobilized, and a representation is minted elsewhere. In both cases you end up with two distinct assets that are only economically linked, and only as long as the bridge holds.
An OFT is different in kind, not degree. There is no derivative, no representation, no collateral to defend. There is one token, one supply, and one balance for you — it simply moves between chains by burning and minting itself. For a deeper comparison of these models, see omnichain vs. wrapped and bridged tokens.
Why this matters: unified liquidity and one spendable balance
The practical payoffs follow directly from the design. Unified liquidity: because there is only one canonical token, liquidity does not shatter into a dozen wrapper pools — a single deep market can serve every chain instead of many shallow ones. One spendable balance: your holdings are not stranded per chain; the same token is yours to use wherever it is deployed. Less bridge risk: with no locked collateral sitting in a vault, the classic bridge-exploit failure mode — drain the collateral, and every wrapper it backed goes to zero — largely disappears.
This last point is what makes an OFT genuinely useful as a utility token rather than just a tradable one. A token you can actually rely on having in one balance across chains can serve as a single, portable unit of account — for fees, for settlement, for whatever the application needs — without the user first juggling wrappers.
A practical example: moving an OFT between chains
Say you hold 100 units of an OFT on an EVM chain and want to use it on another network. You initiate a transfer. The source contract burns your 100 units and emits a LayerZero message. Moments later, the destination contract mints 100 units to your address. Your total holding never changed — it was 100 before and 100 after — but the tokens now live on the destination chain, ready to spend. There was no wrapped-token screen, no "you will receive w-TOKEN" warning, no separate balance to reconcile later. From your point of view, the token followed you. That single-balance experience is also what lets a wallet treat one token as spendable across ecosystems; see using one wallet across Ethereum, Solana and TON for how that plays out in practice.
How WATS charges the fee
It helps to contrast the standard with a token that deliberately solves the problem another way. ATS, the fee token of WATS, is not an OFT — it is held as a single balance on BSC (BNB Chain), and whichever EVM network a transaction runs on, the fee is debited from that one balance rather than from a per-chain ATS holding. Instead of making the token exist everywhere, WATS keeps the balance in one place and charges the fee from it. On EVM networks, actions in WATS are charged in ATS instead of the chain's native gas token, through an ERC-4337 paymaster — the same fee model in the Chrome extension and the mobile app alike; since ERC-4337 is an Ethereum standard, that fee mechanism is EVM-only, and transactions on Solana and TON pay their own native fees in SOL and Toncoin. Because the ATS balance sits on BSC (BNB Chain), you never bridge ATS or top up a separate balance per chain, so the fee for any EVM network comes out of that one balance. Collected ATS is burned, taking the supply down from 100M toward 30M.
Two things are worth stating plainly. Paying in ATS is not a discount — it changes which token pays the network fee, not what that fee costs underneath. And WATS is fully non-custodial: the user holds the keys, and WATS never holds one.
The full mechanics are on the ATS fee page.
Frequently asked questions
What is an OFT (Omnichain Fungible Token)?
An OFT is a LayerZero token standard where a token is deployed natively on multiple chains but shares one canonical supply across all of them. Instead of being wrapped or bridged into separate copies, the token behaves as a single asset with one balance that follows you between chains. Value moves by burning the token on the source chain and minting it on the destination, so the total supply is always conserved.
How is an OFT different from a wrapped or bridged token?
A wrapped or bridged token is a separate contract backed by collateral locked on the origin chain — a derivative that is only economically linked to the original. An OFT has no wrapper and no locked collateral: it is one token with one supply that transfers by burning on the source chain and minting on the destination. That means unified liquidity, a single spendable balance, and less exposure to the bridge-exploit failure mode where drained collateral makes wrappers worthless.
Can one OFT balance really be spent across different blockchains?
Yes. Because an OFT keeps one canonical supply, the same token is spendable on every chain it is deployed to rather than being stranded per chain — moving it burns the amount on one side and mints it on the other, so nothing is wrapped and nothing is left behind. WATS does not rely on this for its fee token: ATS is held as a single balance on BSC (BNB Chain), and whichever EVM network a transaction runs on, the fee is debited from that one balance, charged via an ERC-4337 paymaster instead of the chain's native gas token. Transactions on Solana and TON pay their own native fees in SOL and Toncoin.
Because the ATS balance sits on BSC (BNB Chain), you never bridge ATS or top up a separate balance per chain, so the fee for any EVM network comes out of that one balance.
WATS uses a — Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon, BNB Chain, Solana and TON. On EVM networks that balance pays the network fees through an ERC-4337 paymaster, instead of holding a separate native gas token on each; transactions on Solana and TON pay their own native fees in SOL and Toncoin. Collected ATS is burned, reducing supply from 100M toward 30M. Paying in ATS is not a discount: it changes which token pays, not the underlying network cost. WATS is fully non-custodial, so the user holds the keys and WATS never holds one.