I’m very supportive of any collaboration with the Maker team on their bridging initiatives.
While deprecating the existing Dai bridge may be a short-term hit to Hop’s revenue numbers, it will be hard for Hop to compete against a protocol-integrated bridge like the one Maker is proposing.
Furthermore, the Maker bridge still fits within Hop’s goal of providing the “adoption of secure, trustless, and community-owned bridge infrastructure within Ethereum’s scaling ecosystem”.
@cwhinfrey notes that the Maker bridge is dependent on a multisig and compares this bridge to the Ronin and Harmony bridges, however I believe there’s one key difference. Unlike other multisigs, which custody third-party assets, the Maker bridge has the full ability to mint and burn Dai at will. A compromise of these keys would be a breach of the entire Maker system, not simply a bridge hack. Therefore, Hop assumes these risks regardless of the integration with Maker’s bridges, since compromised Maker keys could mint Dai and drain a Hop AMM bridge as well.
At this stage, it seems there isn’t much actionable for the Hop DAO to do, other than open discussions with the Maker community.