UMA is 'secure' because enough of the token supply is within the teams call upon, which is actually a very secure verification solution when securing yourself (ala Across). If a bridge copied that verification method 1:1, maybe they would inherit that same security guarantee?
You don't lose confidence in UMA's ability to verify the Across settlements when they can't decide if some guy is wearing a suit or not for Polymarket. But what if it's a bridge mirroring Across's verification 1:1?
Root thought here is ok if we're gonna have these token voting systems that are secured by concentrated control behind the scenes, can you force that control to view and defend you as if you were as important as their own?
Root thought here is ok if we're gonna have these token voting systems secured by concentrated control behind the scenes, can you force that control to view and defend you as if you were as important as their own?
1.63K
4
The content on this page is provided by third parties. Unless otherwise stated, OKX is not the author of the cited article(s) and does not claim any copyright in the materials. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent the views of OKX. It is not intended to be an endorsement of any kind and should not be considered investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell digital assets. To the extent generative AI is utilized to provide summaries or other information, such AI generated content may be inaccurate or inconsistent. Please read the linked article for more details and information. OKX is not responsible for content hosted on third party sites. Digital asset holdings, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk and can fluctuate greatly. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition.