Thank you for your reply. You do realize that exposing users to 11 different, newly integrated bridges increases the risk of them using one that may not be as secure or reliable as the alternatives? (For example, the Bungee hack in January—you had to issue a warning advising users to revoke approvals for that bridge, if I recall correctly.) The same concern applies to some of the lesser-known L2s—what even is “Corn”? lol.
Also, the pop-up on Oku.trade when you first visit the site is just terrible.
As for the Morpho integration—good job. Now go to AAVE and ask for integration funding so they’re not left out of your UI. Then do the same with Compound, and so on. Why not just offer lending functionality with the safest options under a single, unified interface?
At the end of the day, the OKU business model feels like governance arbitrage in exchange for subscription fees. Comes off as kind of grifty.
I’ll keep using OKU.trade until there’s a viable, safer alternative to avoid the official Universal Navigation front-end fees. I just wish OKU could remain that alternative without making me feel like I’m constantly picking between bridges or aggregators, trying to guess which ones are safer. It’s an approval minefield.