I am all for it. As I mentioned here: Proposal - Have ETH pool for every EVM-compatible chain . Every chain on debank should have a HOP bridge. Arbitrum Nova was added a few days ago. Whatâs even better is there is an official bridge, which is what I think should be the default bridged-token. And, according to Sushi (the one app supported by Arbitrum Nova), there is no bridged MATIC. This doesnât mean I think Arbritrum Nova should support MATIC. In my opinion, HOP should STOP supporting MATIC.
I wrote this on Discord a few days ago:
Not sure what the connection/collaboration between Hop and Lido might be, but I hope itâs not adding to the list of assets (e.g. stETH). ETH USDC USDT MATIC and DAI is plenty. If anything, I would drop MATIC. And possibly USDC and USDT. Frankly, only ETH is the only required asset, you could drop everything but ETH. What should happen is an increase of Networks. And when bridging to any Network, you could also allow a checkbox to swap a tiny bit (like $5 worth, or the minimum to do 3 transactions, which ever is higher) for gas token on any destination chain.
When asked to elaborate I wrote:
âŚmy concern is partly of overhead/complexity. And a lot of UI. So for UI: Right now, you pick an asset, then you pick a network. Nice. Very simple. Or you pick a network and then an asset. No matter the asset, thereâs all the networks, and vice versa. But hereâs whatâs really tricky about most bridges and bridge aggregators. You canât even see what networks you can choose until you pick an asset, you canât see what assets until you pick a network. Not every chain has a bridged verison of USDC, USDT, DAI. Certainly not all of them have MATIC. You could, theoretically, have a nice big matrix chart, and frankly, that would be nice to see. But itâs still not very clean. This means you either limit your number of chains, or you have a less clean UI but informative UI (a matrix), or you have a clean UI but not informative (canât see the assets/networks until youâve chosen the network/asset). I like how itâs very clean and informative, but you canât do a lot of chains. As for overhead/complexity⌠Sometimes the bridged asset that is best for ETH is also going to be the best for bridged USDC and USDT⌠But probably not always. When you get into DAI, less likely. And definitely when you get to MATIC (if even supported). How do you decide? Do you sacrifice quality for quantity? Do you pick whatever bridge happens to have MATIC and then accept their others, when their version of ETH has 1/10th the liquidity as another bridge that doesnât have MATIC? Or do you mix-and-match bridge-asset versions? Itâs complicated and a lot of overhead. While if it was just ETH, it would be much easier. I think MATIC should be dropped if nothing else. I like when a bridge also gives you (swaps for you) a little gas money too, so hop could/should do that for Polygon, but I would drop MATIC.
Itâs basically, choose one: Less assets, less networks, ugly/informative UI/UX, clean/non-informative UI/UX. I would pick less assets. I can swap ETH for anything on the EVM-compatible chains. And I want to get to every EVM-compatible chain. But, sure, Iâll also take an ugly but informative UI/UX and you just keep supporting USDC/USDT/DAI (and MATIC /if absolutely necssary/) when possible and just show on the matrix where it canât be done. But give me ETH on each.
And, by extension, you can add more assets beyond that (assuming they are optional). But youâre just going to start spreading yourself more and more thin. I think ETH every chain, then maybe, more assets. Thatâs why I was concerned with the Lido talk.
So, yes! Letâs add Arbitrum Nova. And, maybe, letâs drop MATIC. (And Iâm saying this a full proponent of Polygon/MATIC. I would definitely still want the bridge to Polygon, and possibly with an optional gas helper transaction.)
