Bridge Intern

Bridges be burning but are we learning?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@0xkydo We need @JonCharbonneau to bring back the rollup definition debate

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@Crypto_McKenna @garrette0x Wdyt about bridges? Are they good enough?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@alexsmirnov @TokenArchitect @chainlink @Google Would they be able to technically?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@alexsmirnov @chainlink @Google https://t.co/5WPgXz2jJV

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

Ask yourself, is this actually more centralized that what came before it? Or were you misled about how decentralized the previous oracle was?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

Ask yourself, is this actually more centralized that what came before it? Or were you misled about how decentralized the previous oracle was?

[hal2001.hl @hal2001]

Is no one worried about the censorship and centralization risks a Google oracle creates for LayerZero?

In this environment, it seems very easy for Gary to call up Google and say "hey guys, I'm going to sue you if you validate messages that touch this defi protocol". Or even worse is the DOJ calling up saying "this block touched this DPRK address and you're liable if you validate it". Do we really think that Google would fight this instead of just turning off their LZ oracle?

I suppose LZ will respond saying "it's ok, protocols can always switch oracle providers via governance". But like... that's not very satisfying. Do we really want to promote using a centralized solution until it gets "turned off"?

I'm all for partnerships with big tech, but I think we're supposed to hold each other accountable for maintaining our ethos of decentralization. Unless I'm missing something, this feels like an unacceptable vector for censorship and centralization.

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@hal2001 @PrimordialAA @AcrossProtocol @StargateFinance 👀

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@arjunbhuptani @ethereum @ensdomains All good! Tho ngl, don't quite understand the difference between L0 and ENS. I guess L0 will have a higher share for the core team/foundation, but wouldn't both effectively be the same structure in their success case?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@arjunbhuptani @ethereum @ensdomains Actually what makes Rollups scenario 1? Isn't everybody trying to create different rollup architectures like everybody is trying to create different message bridges?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@arjunbhuptani @ethereum @ensdomains Great examples. I'm curious how you view the difference between OP/OP Stack and LayerZero Labs/LayerZero? Aren't both open platforms? One is just more mature and successful in inviting participation?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@arjunbhuptani @ethereum @ensdomains What are other examples of (2) in crypto?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@RHLSTHRM @arjunnchand What if building a cross-chain app is too difficult right now? What if building said app requires you to take different trade-offs at the messaging layer that none are providing? I.e. isn't @ConnextNetwork effectively building their own messaging bridge (kinda)?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@arjunnchand I know what it doesn't look like, but I'm curious how it does look like :P

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

Crazy how after all these bridge hacks people still have a poor model of how bridges work and what risks they are taking with different approaches. We are so early

[Saint @thesaint_]

The recent Multichain Bridge hack still shows clearly on the future being Omnichain and not Cross-Chain (Bridges)

Over $100M+ was exploited from Multichain.

Possible solutions to Cross-Chain Bridges can be:

• Omnichain
• Cross-Chain Swaps

Omnichain leverages layer 0 as the base layer, which transports Cross-Chain (messaging, state sharing, transfers, lending and borrowing, swaps e.t.c)

It also does not fragment liquidity like Cross-Chain bridges but unifies liquidity

Cross-Chain Swaps also facilitate liquidity unification as it doesn’t wrap assets, i.e. lock and mint

Instead, it leverages atomic swaps, which swaps assets on the souce chain for assets on the destination chain and thereby no assets are held in the source chain.

Locking assets in the source chain while minting on the destination chain has always been the design for bridges, which makes them a honeypot for hacks.

Vitalik has emphasized this countless number of times

I'm bullish on Protocols leveraging Cross-Chain Swaps and also building the Omnichain Future like:

• @Chainflip
• @LayerZero_Labs
• @THORChain
• @synthr_defi

Is anyone else building this future that I don't know?

Let's explore more other solutions together

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@bkiepuszewski What even is omnichain?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@arjunbhuptani @sandman2797 @MultichainOrg Trade-offs all the way down! What do you see the response from asset issuers right now? Was implementation really the burden?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@arjunbhuptani @MultichainOrg By aggregation I mean using the message passing of those bridges and get consensus on a transfer

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@arjunbhuptani @MultichainOrg Wouldn't an aggregation of bridges be better in this case? I.e. if a bridge fails you still are guaranteed a loss of the risk cap?

[Bridge Intern @BridgeIntern]

@0xGeeGee