Bridge Mutual AMA with Wolf Crypto

Wolf Crypto
23 min readJan 15, 2021

We held an AMA with Bridge Mutual in our public Telegram channel on the 10th of January.

Bridge Mutual is a decentralized, DAO-controlled, p2p / p2b discretionary insurance platform that allows people to insure stablecoins, centralized exchanges, smart contracts, and other centralized crypto services (like custodians).

The platform lets users provide or purchase insurance for hacks, rug pulls, exploits, and other events that result in permanent loss of funds. For stablecoins specifically, the platform protects against price crashes for any reason.

  • Bridge Mutual’s stablecoin and centralized exchange insurance is an industry-first
  • MVP on ETH, main release on Polkadot
  • Cross-chain insurance for assets and platforms on any network. Totally permission-less network that lets anyone add brand new assets by their contract ID within minutes
  • More advanced than binary yes/no results on insurance claims, Bridge Mutua’s voting system allows the community to determine the exact amount that a claimant should be rewarded.
  • No centralized “Advisory Board” or “Council” layer that can overturn votes and change outcomes
  • Very advanced reputation system that makes it lucrative to be an honest and active voter on the platform.

You can also visit the Bridge Mutual Telegram Group or the Bridge Mutual Website for further details.

Here’s what Bridge Mutual’s CEO Mike Miglio had to say in the AMA.*

*This AMA has been edited for clarity.

WC (Wolf Crypto Telegram Member)


Welcome to another edition of Wolf Crypto AMA…

Today we have Mike Miglio from Bridge Mutual joining us!



Mike, it’s our pleasure to have you here today…as much as a pleasure as one can have talking to a lawyer that is!

Speaking of which, how does a lawyer firstly get involved in the crypto space and secondly involved…as CEO no less, of a crypto insurance project?


Well, before I was a licensed lawyer I was a crypto investor. I started a crypto law firm right away, servicing only crypto projects that needed help navigating U.S. crypto regulations. As a firm we ended up doing very well, servicing clients like QTUM, Akropolis,, NOIA and many others.

As for how I got involved in “insurance” on blockchain, the founders saw a clear need in the space for a better insurance solution and we just began theory crafting one into existence. We quickly realized the idea was gold and that, between us, we had all the necessary components to turn it into a solid project.

As it turns out, insurance on the blockchain is significantly different from traditional insurance models — you don’t need an insurance background to understand how our model works (although we do have insurance experts on the team.)


I’ve got a lot more ask and talk about when it comes to crypto insurance, as not only is it desperately needed in a space where it seems we get at least one rug a day, but it’s also starting to become one of the hottest crypto narratives out there.

Before we get to that though, tell me more about the team behind Bridge Mutual. I’m assuming despite your wide and varied experience in the crypto space Mike, you’re not building this one on your lonesome.

Who else is involved in Bridge Mutual and what is their experience in the crypto or insurance spaces?


This question would take a long time to fully answer, so I’ll give you the gist. We have 2 international crypto attorneys, an exchange director, an accomplished marketing guru with insane connections, a marketing coordinator, a content writer, 5 talented devs, 4 quantitative analysts/mathematicians, a product manager, and 2 graphics and web designers. This is just our core team.

We also have a slew of advisors and 3rd party service providers backing us for the long-term, such as Tyler Ward (co-founder of Bridge), and Michal Terpin (long-time OG that runs a PR company that does work for a big chunk of the top100 projects.)



Aiight, before we get into the general topic of insurance and crypto insurance, let’s hear your elevator pitch on what Bridge Mutual is and what problem you’re trying to solve in the crypto space?


Sure, Bridge Mutual is a decentralized, dao-managed, permissionless, p2p/p2b discretionary insurance platform that allows users to provide or purchase coverage for smart contracts, centralized exchanges, stablecoins, and other centralized crypto service providers.

We are aiming to create a balanced, scalable and efficient way for users to quickly provide or purchase discretionary insurance policies without any centralized layer.


So let’s talk a little of the traditional world of insurance before we get into the crypto side of things.

What do you see as the main commonalities between the legacy world of insurance and the crypto world…and what are the main points of difference for you?

I’m especially interested in the structural component of both worlds, as the “mutual” aspect of your product is something that I believe is quite different to most traditional insurance structures?


As you guessed, traditional insurance and Bridge Mutual are two very different animals entirely. The commonalities are few and far between, aside from the obvious things like both involve purchasing policies to insure a risk.

The main points of difference are that with insurance companies, a user is entering into an agreement with a centralized insurance company who’s incentives are adverse to the policy holder. Insurance companies have an absolute conflict of interest in approving a user’s claim; in general, traditional insurance is so broken that we have to rely on vast amounts of governmental regulation to force insurance companies to operate fairly and approve valid claims.

Bridge Mutual uses a mutual model wherein its users collectively share risk amongst themselves by buying and selling coverage and adjudicating their own claims internally. The token helps to align incentives more than traditional companies, as denying a valid claim would hurt the mutual’s reputation and affect the price of the token, which all users are holding. There are also reputation, reward, and punishment systems in place that heavily incentivize users to act in an honest and fair way.


Obviously insurance in crypto wasn’t really a thing until DeFi came along and changed EVERYTHING…of course we had a few CeFi entities who said they were insured but that was never really put to the test and certainly not in a decentralised manner.

Now we live in a DeFi based world, and as I alluded to in the intro for the AMA, it seems we have some sort of rug pull, smart contract exploit, flash loan attack or just general fuckery every…single…day…|

I’d love to hear your general take on the DeFi space and how it’s maturing…or not…as it ages, and I’m especially interested in your thoughts on it from a regulatory perspective with your crypto lawyer background…


I agree, the DeFi space is a bit of a cluster f*ck right now. Everyone is FOMOing face-first into projects and contracts run by teams they know nothing about on the promise of a potential 100x. The risks and rewards are great, just like in 2017. With the advent of insurance, I think DeFi investor culture will change to be more cautious and educated. For example, the Bridge Mutual platform incorporates a Proof of Loss system, meaning that it is the claimant’s responsibility to carefully document their asset holdings so that they can share this information with the network in the event a platform gets hacked or rug-pulled and they need to make a claim.

From a regulatory perspective, nothing that is decentralized fits neatly within the box of modern-day regulations. In general, it is difficult to regulate something or someone when you can’t physically stop it and you don’t know who is controlling it. In the real world, we have systems for tracking people down and crippling them financially by seizing their assets. In the crypto world, that generally isn’t possible. If a DAO breaks a law in a specific jurisdiction, there is no feasible way to bring that DAO to its knees and force it to comply. The DAO could be run by hundreds or thousands of people across fifty different countries, and there is no realistic way to uncover the identities of these people.

Decentralized systems present a lot of problems for regulators, but a lot of solutions to humanity.


With that background out of the way, both from a traditional insurance side of things and the DeFi ecosystem you sit within, let’s talk about competitors in the space, before we break down Bridge Mutual in its entirety.

One thing I noticed in your pitch deck was that you only have a direct comparison to Nexus Mutual, and it’s phrased as the “only serious competitor”.

I’d love to hear why you think this is the case, and why projects such as why other products such as Cover, Nsure, Union Finance or even PolkaCover didn’t make the cut there?


The pitch deck was written at a time when Nexus was the only functional platform. In general, the pitch deck is very outdated and shouldn’t be referred to. We stopped updating our pitch deck due to the wild increase in competition in the space, and after experiencing some idea theft from competitor projects and VCs. Most of our business model is confidential, and we expect to be copied to a large degree after we release, so we’re holding our cards close to our chest until a couple weeks before our product launch.

In general though, there are a few major differences between us and ALL of the competitors you listed:

1. We provide coverage for stablecoins and centralized exchanges, not just smart contracts.

2. We have no minting, no burning, and no equations or bonding curves that manipulate our token price.

3. We have innovative new use-cases for NFTs on our platform that have never been done before.

4. We have no centralized layers that can influence or completely control the outcomes of claims.

5. We are partnering with top-tier auditing firms and paying for 3rd party projects (Aave, Compound, etc.) to be audited.

6. We have an extremely intricate reputation system.

These are the differences that I can think of that apply to ALL of the above platforms, though I don’t update myself on every competitor daily, so I could be wrong if something has changed.

I’d like to point out that PolkaCover specifically isn’t really a competitor right now. They are focusing on entirely different products. But also, the insurance industry in general benefits from having multiple large players in the space because they can insure each other, so even if we have “competitors”, Bridge Mutual doesn’t feel threatened by them at all, we will co-exist peacefully and improve this space together. My condolences go out to Nexus and Cover for the recent hardships they experienced, no project or founder deserves to be targeted.


Ok, so ignoring the others for a second, let’s do a 1:1 on Bridge Mutual vs Nexus Mutual.

As we briefly mentioned above, the “Mutual” style offering is something you both have in common structurally. Tell me why you’ve chosen to go down this path and what advantages or disadvantages it offers up as opposed to doing a shareholder style structure?


Our two projects are significantly different from each other, aside from the fact that we both use a Mutual model, which means that the users on our platform cover each other and decide on whether to approve or deny claims together. And actually most of the insurance platforms in the space share this general model, they just don’t use the word “Mutual”.

Aside from the 6 points I listed above on how Bridge is unique, we’re distinctly different from Nexus because:

1. We don’t collect or require KYC, our system is anonymous;

2. We are building on Polkadot instead of Ethereum to avoid high gas fees;

3. We cover more products;

4. Nexus has to manually approve and add assets to their system, our system is permissionless in such a way that allows anyone to add an asset to our platform and start insuring it immediately.

5. Our claims are not paid out in a highly volatile token like NXM (this hurts NXM holders and claimants both);

6. We do not have control or access over user’s funds, and user’s funds are invested automatically to provide additional yields to our users.


One thing Nexus Mutual does, and does “quite” well, is Smart Contract insurance. However you’ve taken this a little further with coverage for stablecoins, wallets and centralised exchanges.

Before we get too far into this AMA, can you expand upon those and what they actually involve, perhaps with some more concrete use cases or scenarios?



Both of these are pretty straightforward. Stablecoin insurance simply protects policy holders from price crashes. Price crashes can happen due to new regulations, actions made by centralized entities such as the Tether Foundation or Coinbase, or exploits (DAI’s Black Thursday event). If the price of a stablecoin falls beneath $1.00 for a set period of time, all eligible policy holders will be able to make a claim on our platform and get paid out instantly. It’s really that simple.

For centralized exchange insurance, it’s a bit more complicated. The claims go through our multi-phase voting system and we use the wisdom of the crowd to determine whether or not a “coverable event” took place. Coverable events for exchanges include the exchange being hacked or the exchange shutting down and stealing user’s funds. Typically when these things happen the news makes every major headline, so it should be fairly easy for our community to determine whether a claim is valid or not.


Couple of questions on that one…firstly on the wallet side of things…is there any intent to cover something like personal wallet exploits/hacks etc…think MetaMask or the like?

Secondly, you have CEX coverage there, but no DEX?


For personal wallets it’s really hard, because the incentive for a user to commit insurance fraud (transfering money out of their own wallet and making it looked like they were hacked) is super high. Personal theft requires a high degree of investigation and analysis, it’s very difficult to accomplish in a decentralized system, but it’s something that a lot of people ask for, so we’re already actively thinking of ways that we can cover this demand.

As for DEX coverage, DEXes are all run off of smart contracts, so DEX falls under smart contract insurance. However, if there was a component of a DEX that was centralized, we could cover that under our CEX insurance. This is a very frequently asked question, so we should probably do a better job of making this more well known.


Ok nice, so DEX’s fall under the smart contract banner. I assume that covers users for an overall platform exploit and their own individual holdings on said DEX’s?

If so, can you explain how that works and if not, what am I missing?


That’s correct. The policy applies broadly to the entire platform, regardless of which pool was hacked or if multiple pools were hacked. If you are covered for a DEX, you’re covered for everything that happens on that DEX up to your policy maximum.


How about CEX’s, is this the type of insurance a CEX would take out on themselves, or is it something an individual user can take out on their own holdings on a CEX?

I have a couple of schools of thought on that one, firstly an entity like Binance has always maintained the ability to keep funds SAFU, via their supposed SAFU fund, and when push came to shove on that, they made good with their users…and on the other hand you have KuCoin, who said they were insured and obviously weren’t…and pushed the onus of the hack back on their listed projects to make good with token holders instead of coming up with the funds themselves…

So on one hand you have a need for some CEX’s to have the ability to take out insurance for the platform, while some can self insure, and on the other hand, like with KuCoin, there is a definite need for users to be able to self insure on a CEX…


Users can insure their own funds on a CEX. A CEX can also self-insure on our platform. It’s the same thing. All projects can self-insure on our platform, and it goes through the same voting and claims system as everything else. However, just as a reminder, this is a proof of loss system. A lot of CEXes do have traditional insurance, so if the insurance provider pays the CEX and the CEX reimburses the user, then users on Bridge will not be able to double-dip. Because CEXes usually have some form of insurance, we are thinking of making the voting process for CEX claims 2 or 3 times longer than smart contract claims. We think that over the long-term, CEXes may opt to self-insure on Bridge (which is the same thing as letting the community insure their CEX for them) instead of buying a policy from a traditional insurance company.

In your scenario above with Binance and KuCoin, if the CEX paid users back, then claims on our platform would most likely be denied. If the CEX (KuCoin) didn’t pay the users back, the claims would most likely be approved. While this does give CEXes an indirect incentive not to use their own insurance to pay its users, it also damages their reputation and greatly increases Bridge’s reputation, so we’re fine with this. Users should be careful when choosing who they will provide coverage for. Binance is obviously a super safe bet, so we expect a lot of people wanting to provide coverage for Binance, but not a lot of people feeling the need to purchase coverage on Binance. It will still be profitable, but things that people are more reluctant to cover (KuCoin) will naturally have higher APYs.


With both the above DEX and CEX scenarios, how do you go about verifying a user’s holdings and that they’re in line with the policy taken out on said holdings?

As we all know, the value of crypto currency holdings is a day by day proposition…


Policy holders on CEXes should be extra particular when documenting their CEX funds. It doesn’t take much to do a time-stamped screenshot or quick live video of your portfolio at the end of a trading day. Either way, it is our users that will determine whether they believe the claimant or not. We will come up with some general best-practice guidelines for the community to adhere to so that they can maximize the odds of getting approved on their potential future claims, but that’s really the most that we can do.

For DEXes, it’s a little bit easier because every hack or exploit is well documented on-chain for all to see. But especially on DEXes and other DeFi products, people need to start documenting their holdings religiously. If you are going to play in dangerous waters like DeFi to make those juicy multiples, it only makes sense that you do the bare minimum to keep your funds safe.

As an example, if you had a $10k policy on Uniswap to cover the $10k you put into a liquidity pool, you should screenshot the transaction and timestamp it with your address. It would be even better if the funds came from the same ETH address that purchased the policy. If that liquidity pool was ever compromised, it would be well established on social media and other outlets, we’d also see the event on-chain. So long as the last screenshot of your assets on that liquidity pool were pretty recent, and your ETH address didn’t show you take the liquidity out of the pool, the users on our platform are very likely to accept your policy claim and reward you.


Stablecoins now hold an obscene amount of value in the crypto space. It would probably be fair to say they’ve been the winning utility use case for crypto over the past few years.

As we mentioned above, you’re now insuring stable coins. Can you explain to me how this works? If it turns out USDT actually is one big scam, I’ll be able to insure it and get the full value of my USDT back off you when the scam is revealed?


That’s correct. I can’t really go into too much detail into how it works, but you have the right idea. If USDT was one big scam that got revealed, the price would crash. If the price crashes, you are eligible. If you are eligible, you will instantly get the full amount of the value you lost up to your policy maximum in a different stablecoin.

The one point of failure is if all stablecoins crash simultaneously. If that happens, we’ll all be in a pickle.


Before we move onto the other aspects of the Bridge Mutual platform, I’d just like to question you a little more on the insurance offerings side of things.

Another interesting competitor in the space is ETHERISC, who have a couple of crypto related insurance products, but also some more left field ones, like Hurricane insurance, Flight Delay insurance and Crop insurance.

You’re not going to get speccy and start offering insurance products like that via Bridge are you?


Flight delay, train cancellation and things like that are pretty easy to do, but I don’t think we’re going to venture into that territory. One of our devs and core team members, Kiril Ivanov, actually has his own insurance platform just like this called HighBridge, so we have internal knowledge on exactly how to accomplish this and other similar products.

We do have long-term plans for more traditional insurance products, but we will likely cover things that are much more broad and meaningful than a late flight.


Obviously one of the main points of difference between Bridge Mutual and Nexus Mutual is the lack of KYC required on Bridge as opposed to a KYC process on Nexus (which by the way, didn’t seem to stop them getting exploited recently…)

However other protocols, like Cover and Nsure, are KYC free also and this seems to now be more the norm rather than the exception.

How much of a competitive advantage do you see this being as we move into a DeFi and insurance landscape that’s becoming more and more decentralised?


When we first started developing Bridge, this was a huge competitive advantage. Now it isn’t. Time’s change and the space evolves rapidly, but I’d say we are 3 steps ahead of the competition right now in terms of innovation.

We didn’t just stop at “no KYC”, and we’re going to maintain our edge by continuing to innovate even when we are the leaders in the space.


While I’m on the subject of Nexus Mutual and their recent exploit…I’d love to hear your thoughts on it, and an opinion on if the ones doing the insuring also need to be insured?


Well, I don’t personally know Hugh but I know people that know him, and I’ve heard nothing but amazing things about him. Getting hacked is my greatest fear. I’ve gone through great lengths to make sure that my personal funds and access to tokens will never be compromised. That being said, the attack on Hugh was highly sophisticated, so one can only hope that what they are doing is enough to prevent an attack.

It is absolutely the case that insurance platforms should insure each other. Nexus will be on our platform without a doubt; all of the insurance platforms will be.


Pricing when it comes to insurance is also one of the most important aspects of it, especially when it comes to crypto insurance, as there’s a few different types of models when it comes to pricing not only premiums but the underlying token itself.

So let’s do the token first. How is the token priced and how does this play into pricing of premiums? I assume since it’s dynamic you’ll end up having some premiums that are cheaper on your platform than others, but also some that may be more expensive?

Is equilibrium there simply found by the old supply and demand theory?


We’ve finally come across a question that I’m not allowed to fully answer at this stage in our launch. Many other platforms require users to purchase policies with their token. Using the token in this way comes with extreme limitations, and requires you to use a bonding curve to control the price of the token.

Users on Bridge will be paying for premiums in stablecoins. That is all I can say for now, as I’m afraid of getting into too much detail.


How about the dynamic of the underlying collateral that supports the system. Obviously you’re decentralised so I assume like most decentralised platforms, this collateral is decentralised.

What form does it take though? Do users supply collateral in the form of BMI tokens, stable coins, other crypto assets or all of the above?


Again with the sensitive questions. They’re very good questions.

Our collateral is not kept in BMI tokens. We believe this is the right move.


Past the initial release, what will be the process for adding new assets onto the platform?

Is this where governance will play its part?


Right, so as I discussed earlier, any on-chain asset will always be able to be added to our platform. For centralized things like exchanges and custodians, they have to be manually added.

Before the DAO is up, the team will be adding these things manually. After the DAO is up, the DAO will take over this responsibility.


I see from your pitch deck you have two collateral pools, low risk and high risk.

Can you give me some detail as to how and why they’re classified as such and where that risk component comes in?


The model on the pitch deck is completely out-dated. We went through 3 iterations of our model, each substantially more intricate than the last. The one on our pitch deck is the prototype of the first iteration, so it’s 5 months old.

We’ve done away with high risk vs low risk pools, our system will have potentially hundreds and even thousands of pools, but that is all I can say for now.


Talk to me about how the collateral on the platform gets invested into other DeFi protocols, what that means and how accessible this collateral is when it needs to be used for a claim?


So coverage funds in our system will be dropped into our yield generation pool. The funds in this pool will get automatically reinvested into other platforms, and will rebalance the allocation of these funds in intervals to maximize yield generation. If a valid claim is made, the amount of funds necessary to cover the claim are withdrawn from one or more platforms to pay the user.


So let’s go through the claims process on the platform and how that actually functions.

Can you give me a flow chart of the process in general and any particulars of caveats that might come along the way…and of course, how this might differ to other crypto insurance platforms?

What actually happens, process wise, once a claim is made…How is it decided and how is it paid out?


The claims process is also partially confidential at the moment. We have only explained the process to large investors. But it’s a multi-phase blind voting system that is sprinkled with rewards and punishments to incentivize honest voting. Unlike other platforms out there, there is no centralized layer that can control the outcome of votes.

If you look at Nexus, it has an “advisory board” that can decide to punish specific users, burn tokens, veto outcomes, etc.


I see staking is a major component of the claims process.

How about you explain to me the staking dynamics on the platform?


So in our platform, providing coverage funds and staking are the same thing. But in order to provide coverage funds, you have to choose which assets you want to provide coverage for. Projects can incentivize users to provide coverage for their insurance pools by easily integrating shield mining into their system, which we’re making it simple for other projects to do.

Once your funds are staked and providing coverage to an asset (for example, Sushiswap) then you start earning. If Sushiswap were ever hacked and a claim was successfully made against it, then some of your staked collateral would be given to the claimant to pay for the claim.


You’ve made a point of stating in your pitch deck that Bridge will hire third party auditors to audit popular projects, along with your own in house auditing solution.

Define to me what “popular” projects are and how these audits will take place…and where the money for them will come from?


That’s right. The second or third version of our product will use some of the funds generated to pay auditors whole-sale fees to audit “popular” projects. The DAO will decide which projects get audited, and there will be a specific pool of funds for paying our auditing partners. It’s a pretty easy setup.

The team will forge the auditing partnerships at the start, and it will be the DAOs responsibility of continuing those relationships or replacing the auditors as needed.


I have a couple of questions on the tech side of things…

In my opinion, the whole Polkadot aspect of things is a little bit of a meme at the moment, as we both know, you can’t actually build on it just yet, so all these Polkadot projects that have been coming out lately are actually building on ETH first and waiting for Polkadot projects to release some sort of framework to allow projects to build within their ecosystem.

So with that in mind, what’s your path to Polkadot and what comes in between it…will we see an ETH based MVP first?


Spot on.

Polkadot isn’t really a thing yet, and it’s all very speculative as to whether it will function as promised. Our entire platform is coded in Solidity and ready to be launched on the ETH network. We can use parachains like Moonbeam or Edgeware to migrate over to Polkadot, as those parachains are ETH compatible.

Assuming shit hits the fan and none of that works out, we’ll continue to operate as planned on ETH until there is a better alternative. It’s very difficult to break away from something that isn’t at least compatible with ETH, however, as nearly all of the TVL is on ETH and novice users understand how ETH works.


I note that you’ve been a little cagey on some of the tech details and mechanics on how things will work on the Bridge platform…is there a reason for this?



We’ve already experienced some idea theft early on. Since then, we’ve vastly improved our models, so the ideas that were nefariously shared are old news and don’t affect us anymore. We are doing everything we can to make sure that Bridge is the first to market with its technology and design.

Our team believes that we’re inventing the next iteration of insurance for a decentralized world.



What’s the revenue model past selling BMI tokens for Bridge Mutual and how do the aforementioned token mechanics work into the model?


Bridge has a pretty complex revenue model, but in essence the revenue is made by reinvesting coverage into a slew of other yield generating platforms (Aave, Curve, Balancer, etc.) and collecting the yields. These yields are used to support the BMI token price, to reward users, and for one other very important and novel thing (which I can’t disclose).

BMI tokens have multiple uses, and will end up adopting more uses as later versions of the model are introduced. However, going into specifics puts us in a position where we’d have to reveal more information than we’re comfortable with right now, so unfortunately I have to keep it vague. The token can be used to control the DAO with votes, and it can be staked. Staking it grants you numerous abilities on the platform that create opportunities for users to make money on the system, and also earns you passive yields.



Let’s do the token sale and supply now, before we get into the sale side of things, can you data dump me your full token metrics on me please?


We had 3 rounds of private sale and we’re finishing off with an IDO on Polkastarter just before we list on January 30th. Our private sale received over $9m in interest within 48 hours, and we stopped counting after that. Total interest in the project far exceeds $9m, we’ve had a lot of requests from large funds since our private sale.

The market cap at launch is still being minorly tuned, we’re hesitant to push out a final number, but it should be low. The *effective* market cap at launch should be even lower. The reason for this distinction is that our platform requires small chunks of tokens to be unlocked that will be used for bug bounties, social bounties, marketing, CEX listing fees, etc., but most of these tokens will not be actively traded on the DEX at launch.

However, because these tokens are technically unlocked, they are still considered to be part of the “circulating supply”, which in turn increases the market cap. So while we tweak the numbers of how many tokens we need for bug bounties and so on, we can’t release a final number on the market cap (which everyone is eagerly awaiting). Rest assured, it will definitely be under $2m. And likely under $1.5m. And the effective market cap you see liquid on the DEX will be even lower.

The rounds are here:
Angels — $0.0625–0% TGE
Seed — $0.09375–25% TGE
Private — $0.125–25% TGE

Polkastarter — TBA

The metrics could still technically change, but there is very little chance of that happening. It depends on what happens with the CEXes we are talking to.



Does Bridge Mutual have a Github?


It does, but the Github is private until we draw closer to launch.


Where are you guys based?


The management team is mostly American, but the rest of the team and our advisors are all over the globe.


Where is Bridge Mutual incorporated?


Wyoming, but we may reincorporate in Puerto Rico.


Has the BMI token already been minted? If so, what’s the address?


It hasn’t, so PLEASE DO NOT GET SCAMMED. We have many scammers gunning after us, and have had 3 or 4 fake versions of BMI tokens already on Uniswap. We also have scammers copying our chats, announcement channels, youtube, twitter, et all. Please help us find and report the scammers :).

Official Twitter:

Official English channel: @Bridge_Mutual.

Official Announcement channel: @BridgeMutual


Has your token smart contract been audited and can we see the results?


It hasn’t been audited yet, but we’ve already booked Zokyo and Consensys for our mainnet audits. Most auditing companies are backlogged for 3+ months, it’s very difficult to get an audit right now.

Bridge Mutual Resources


Wolf Crypto Resources

Public Group:
News Channel:



Wolf Crypto

Wolf Crypto is a place for ETH & BTC TA, ICO discussion, altcoin roulette & memes.