Throwing in some comments here. We’ll preface by saying that considering how “unexpected” this discussion arose, we appreciate the UF team for their quick thinking and on the feet decisions.
When looking at the main debate surrounding L0 and Wormhole, we’re still internally conflicted on which is ultimately the best, and think each has benefits of their own. Ultimately, we don’t think this proposed structure of finding a bridge partner is ideal and sets a bad precedence. We propose:
- A working group that gets set up will “whitelists” all bridges looking to be a bridging solution. This can be confirmed with a governance vote if deemed necessary.
- Once a bridge passes this step, they will enter an “approved” pool
- When “x-chain” wants to deploy, they can work out individual relations with any “approved” bridge as their partner
- As @Kydo mentioned with us, the partner bridge for “x-chain” can be multiple bridges that cross check each other and can decrease further the chance of malicious actors.
Overall, this reasoning stems from: 1) we believe there are multiple valid bridges/solutions to this question. 2) Combining L0 & Wormhole & maybe other bridges with a majority rules outcome will present the best security 3) Puts incentives with bridges and “x-chain” better in our opinion to market compete in each situation.