Rango is a cross-chain swap router for self-custody wallets

Rango is a swap router that compares paths between blockchains while the user keeps key control through a connected wallet. It combines decentralized exchange trades, bridge transfers, and, on supported routes, intent-based settlement into one quoted workflow. The quote shows expected output, route providers, fees, and estimated timing before signature. Execution inherits the liquidity, smart-contract, finality, and message-delivery assumptions of every protocol selected for that route.

Moving one asset between unlike networks

From a timing perspective, Rango gives a self-custody user one route from an asset on one network to a different asset on another, without requiring separate searches for every venue. It connects native BTC, ERC-20 tokens, Solana assets, and Cosmos tokens when integrated protocols support the pair. An EVM path may span Ethereum chain ID 1, Optimism 10, BNB Smart Chain 56, Polygon 137, Base 8453, or Arbitrum 42161. A direct bridge remains simpler when the asset and destination already match.

What risk remains when Rango finds the route?

Route selection by Rango reduces interface work, yet the chosen bridge, exchange, messaging layer, token contracts, and destination network still determine whether settlement completes as quoted on time.

Bridge and liquidity dependencies

Each added dependency carries its own completion rule.

A three-leg route links a source swap, a cross-chain transfer, and a destination swap, so each leg reads a different pool or settlement system. The source DEX sets price impact, the bridge defines message and asset delivery, and the destination DEX supplies the final token. If the source transaction finalizes while a later leg waits, the route status spans more than one ledger. Rango exposes the chosen providers, but the quote remains a snapshot of liquidity and network conditions rather than a single-chain guarantee.

Allowances and recipient scope

A route that needs a fresh ERC-20 allowance on an EVM chain normally asks for two on-chain transactions: approval first and route call second. The allowance binds a token contract, spender address, and amount; it remains until fully used or changed. Exact approvals reduce residual authorization, while unlimited approvals avoid repeated setup. The recipient field deserves equal care because a completed bridge follows the address encoded in the signed call.

Atomicity stops at chain boundaries

Bundled calls on one EVM chain can revert together, while a cross-chain sequence has no shared global block that reverses every completed leg. A bridge message or destination call may remain pending after the source chain finalizes. Intent routes move execution to solvers and settlement contracts, yet their completion still follows the signed output constraints and settlement rules. Direct transfers between accounts on one chain carry a narrower dependency set.

How quotes become executable transactions

A Rango quote becomes executable data through two stages: off-chain path calculation first, then wallet-signed transactions or an intent-style order for the selected route and recipient.

Quote construction

The router receives the source chain and asset, destination chain and asset, amount, slippage setting, and relevant wallet addresses. Its response identifies expected output, fee entries, route nodes, estimated time, and the maximum required signatures. Integrators may include or exclude particular swappers and cap route length. Rango then creates transaction data only after the user accepts the path, allowing the wallet to display the actual contract call before signature.

Contract composition on EVM chains

Rango's v2 EVM architecture follows EIP-2535: a diamond contract handles swaps and bridges, while middleware contracts receive assets or messages on destination chains. The corresponding notes are kept in Rango walkthrough.

A swap operation contains one SwapRequest and one or more Call records, with each Call naming a spender, target, and calldata. Separate facets connect bridge logic such as Stargate, Axelar, and THORChain, while RangoSwapperFacet handles DEX calls for integrations such as 1inch, ParaSwap, and Uniswap v2 or v3. EVM wallets use EIP-155 chain identity, so a signature for Ethereum chain ID 1 remains distinct from one for Arbitrum chain ID 42161.

Intent-style settlement

On supported intent routes, the user signs an output constraint and a solver competes to fulfill it, rather than following a fully prescribed bridge path. EIP-712 provides a structured-message pattern for wallet-readable terms, while ERC-7683 defines common cross-chain order concepts across the wider EVM ecosystem. Explicit transaction routes reveal their DEX and bridge calls; intent routes place more path selection behind solver competition and settlement contracts.

How should a Rango quote be compared?

A Rango quote should be ranked by expected destination output after listed expenses, required signatures, estimated completion time, and the route providers that carry settlement across chains.

The fee array separates network charges, Rango charges, underlying swapper or bridge charges, and affiliate charges. It also assigns expenses to three locations: the source wallet, a deduction from output, or the destination wallet. Source-wallet gas needs a separate native-asset balance. An output deduction already reduces the estimate and should not be subtracted twice. A destination-wallet expense matters when the route requires a claim or final action on the receiving network.

The integration model for Rango describes a typical 0.15% platform share above an affiliate fee and caps the affiliate percentage at 3.0%. An embedded wallet may configure its own affiliate amount, which appears in the generated quote. Pool depth, price impact, bridge pricing, and network gas move with the request, so the signed transaction data and its expense locations govern the individual comparison.

Every changing input is hypothetical: the input is 1,000 USDC, the quoted output is 0.5000 ETH, and the tolerance is 0.50%. The minimum-output calculation is 0.5000 × (1 − 0.005) = 0.4975 ETH. Fees marked as output deductions already sit inside the quote, while source-wallet gas stays separate. The concrete route minimum is therefore 0.4975 ETH before separately paid source gas, not that amount minus an included bridge charge again.

A slightly lower output with one fewer signature may beat a complex route when completion simplicity matters more than a narrow quote difference.

Connecting wallets and signing the minimum required actions

A clean Rango execution starts with the exact source asset, destination asset, recipient network, and compatible wallets, then moves to quote review and explicit signatures from the owner.

Choose exact chain and asset identifiers

Chain identity comes first.

Token symbols repeat across networks, so pair the ticker with its chain and contract or mint. Ethereum USDC uses 6 decimal places, native ETH uses 18, native SOL uses 9, and BTC uses 8. API integrations encode amounts in smallest units: 1 USDC equals 1,000,000 base units, 1 SOL equals 1,000,000,000 lamports, and 1 BTC equals 100,000,000 satoshis. The consumer interface converts those integers into readable amounts.

Match wallets to each ecosystem

MetaMask covers EVM signing, Phantom handles Solana, Keplr serves Cosmos networks, and Trust Wallet offers a multichain interface; WalletConnect links additional compatible providers. A cross-ecosystem route may require more than one connected address. An EVM address contains 20 bytes and displays 40 hexadecimal digits after the 0x prefix, while a Solana public key contains 32 bytes. The recipient must match the destination network's format.

Read the route before signing

Review the input chain, output chain, token identifiers, recipient, minimum output, fee locations, providers, and signature count as one decision. If the wallet shows an approval, inspect its spender and amount before authorizing the route call. The source transaction hash and Rango request identifier then connect the route to its component transactions. This preparation takes more work than a same-chain Jupiter or 1inch swap because cross-chain identity includes both ends.

Squid, THORSwap, Bungee, and direct venue routes

Squid, THORSwap, Bungee, direct bridges, and single-chain DEX aggregators address different parts of Rango's routing scope, so the best substitute follows route shape and custody preference.

Squid builds cross-chain routes around Axelar, while Bungee exposes routing built by Socket. THORSwap surfaces THORChain liquidity for native BTC and other supported assets. Across focuses on intent-style transfers across supported EVM networks. When no chain change is needed, 1inch or Jupiter removes the bridge layer entirely. Uniswap v3's established factory tiers are 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.30%, and 1.00%, giving a direct EVM swap a known pool-fee dimension. Rango fits routes where broad cross-chain discovery matters; a direct venue fits one chain and one deep pool.

Everyday questions about Rango