The article dives into the complexities of token bridging across different blockchain networks, emphasizing that even with intent protocols like Near Intents, some level of minting is necessary. If a token received on a destination chain isn’t native to that chain, it means it was minted elsewhere, often introducing unseen risks tied to intermediary bridges. For instance, using Across could result in receiving a token minted by LayerZero, which carries its own risks, even if LayerZero wasn’t directly involved in the bridging process. Most bridging protocols utilize validator networks, guardians, or attesters, often functioning similarly to multisig wallets. The trade-off here is between safety and liveness. A low threshold allows for quicker signing of malicious messages, while a high threshold risks halting transactions altogether if dishonest entities are present. The challenge lies in ensuring visibility across different chains; without a trusted intermediary, validating transactions becomes complex. The article notes that if one chain can fully validate another’s state, it can operate a bridge without needing a committee, which is a significant advancement. Rollups aim to eliminate the need for honest majorities, with Stage 2 rollups allowing complete independence from such assumptions. Current Stage 1 rollups, however, are controlled by Security Councils that can upgrade them instantly. These councils, defined by their ability to protect against bugs rather than actively validate messages, allow for higher safety thresholds without compromising transaction speed. This structure means Stage 1 rollups can already offer stronger guarantees compared to traditional bridges, even if they still rely on some level of trust.