“Indeed I have some concerns, while providing token issuers with the ability to choose which bridges to support can offer advantages in terms of control and risk management, it can also potentially lead to the concentration of funds in a limited set of solutions. Token issuers may have biases or motivations that go beyond technical metrics when selecting bridges, which could influence users’ decision-making. This could reduce diversity and limit the number of available options for users.”
Spot on.
I agree with this response from a6-dou that this proposal is not aligned with the intended objective. Despite the assertion in a Twitter post that this is not an attempt to create a monopoly, it appears that the proposal indeed aims to achieve such dominance. This approach parallels the practices of Web 2 companies that leverage regulation to impede competition and innovation. It seems to stem from a place of fear and reflects contradictory messaging, particularly when considering Connext Network’s aspiration to become the “http of Web 3”. While pursuing ambitious goals is commendable, utilizing regulation to discourage technologically superior competitors contradicts the principles upheld by Web 3.
Additionally, if I possess an asset, why am I restricted from providing liquidity to the bridge of my choice? It is condescending to assume that liquidity providers for existing bridges lack understanding of the associated risks, especially given the availability of avenues where such risks are disclosed, as demonstrated by resources like L2BEAT – The state of the layer two ecosystem. This approach also fails to address the possibility of a secure bridge’s liquidity pool being hacked. I can recall the substantial loss of wealth incurred due to the Nomad Bridge hack, which was touted as the most secure bridge ever created. Regrettably, no apology or acknowledgement has been received for that incident.
In summary, let the free market determine the outcomes. Avoid introducing regulations that lead to industry monopolization, protecting inferior technologies behind artificial barriers. As both a liquidity provider and a user of multiple bridges, it is worth noting that at least two bridges have already resolved the slippage issue when transferring between rollups, particularly relevant in the context of this Ethereum forum.