OK, I'll bite 1. "The difference lies in the fact that the Gas on Kasplex L2 is $KAS, and its source does not necessarily require bridging from L1 to L2." That's irrelevant. My post never addressed the denomination used, just the fee proportionality. Some of the bridges I stated charge costs in the base coin. Some charge it in native coin. Some both. It doesn't matter. That the fee is charged in $kas is completely orthogonal to my point. I didn't ask why you charge $kas, I asked why the fee is proportional to the amount withdrawn, and not to the operational cost. Why should a person who trusted you with x1000 more assets pay x1000 more to redeem them? 2. "Additionally, $KAS on L2 does not necessarily need to be withdrawn back to L1, As more wallets and exchanges support Kasplex L2, $KAS on L2 will ultimately be freely transferable." So that's your plan? To expect people not to bridge at all? Just sell their wrapped Kaspa for unwrapped Kaspa? Is this what you call "freely transferable"? What about the fact that Kaspa gets locked on the L2 unless someone agrees to pay exorbitant fees? I mean, say that the community bridged a total of 2 billion Kaspa to Kasplex. Does it make sense that the only way to unfreeze the locked Kaspa is to pay Kurve 10M Kaspa? And that's without even discussing multiplicities. As long as there are no alternative ways to bridge back (and no, selling your wrapped Kaspa for native Kaspa is not "bridging back"), Kurve is a monopoly, and they take advantage of their dominance in the form of this fee. This would have been fine in free market terms, but since Kurve is the only possible bridging service, and will remain so as long as Kasplex/KEF control all the nodes (which at this point might be indefinitely), this seems downright exploitative. (I'd even argue that the bridge gives weight to the concern that you never intend to open-source your code, because that would undermine your bridging profits). 3. "Furthermore, I believe the real issue is not whether this fee is incurred, but rather how the fee, once generated, is ultimately used—whether for development of community or just spend." No, the real issue is what the fee is and how it is determined. You can deflect to "how the fee is used", but that was not the question. The question was: why is the fee so high? 4. "I believe this possibility does exist, but I would like to add that this risk is not exclusive to KURVE, which is managed by KEF." Yes, but the question is: what are you doing to mitigate this? Here are a few things that I find reasonable: - Use a temporary multisig bridge with community-appointed signatories. - Make the fee reasonably low, and be transparent about how it was set and how it is going to be used - Make every effort to enable competition, like outsourcing your code or working with other bridge providers - Don't go around announcing that you "don't need a native coin" because you have other funding resources, and then force asset holders to use your expensive bridge. The latter is actually much worse: the market gets to decide the value of a native coin, whereas a monopolized bridge allows KEF to dictate its cut, in Kaspa, on a whim. - Even if you do decide to go the monopolized bridge route, at least be transparent about it. Don't delegate the bridge fees to fine print that you knew some people would only find out about after the fact. - And even if you don't do any of the above, at least don't charge exceptionally high fees! So yeah, there were many things KEF/Kasplex/Kurve could have done better without much effort. My conviction at this point is that the only reason you failed to do any of them is that you'd have pocketed less Kaspa that way. Please let me know if there's a better reason (and no, "at least we launched something" or "we're still feeling things out" are not reasons), because whenever I try to think of any, I come up empty. 5. "there could also be events like the previous Chainge bridge incident or asset losses due to hacking" Which is exactly why this is so irresponsible of you to repeat what happened with Chainge (especially since it was KEF who pushed for Chainge integration to begin with). Trusting Chainge (which most people who did, did so due to KEF's attestations, ironically) got many people wrecked, why do you think it is reasonable to launch Kasplex with the same bridging model? I mean, both Kasplex and KEF are being awfully shady. Questions are never answered directly, only by side observers "giving their unofficial input". Questions and concerns are seldom addressed, and when they are, the answers are always partial and vague. Here are a few previous examples: - Is there any roadmap to open-source the network? A timeline? - Is there any roadmap to provide closed-source binaries? A timeline? - Are there any efforts to provide alternative bridging solutions? - Who controls the Kurve bridge (as in, who are the signatories, how were they appointed, how many are there, what's the threshold, etc.)? Are there any contingencies protecting bridge users from being drained? - Will there ever be specifications about the node sync process and trust assumptions? I can go on, but writing an exhaustive list will easily waste an afternoon. The point is that integrity problems did not start today. (And on a personal level, KEF's executive director was caught posting demonstrable lies about me and other constituents of the community. When you were notified of it, you chose to back up his lies and deflect with an irrelevant harangue about "investors' feelings". This in itself is not a huge problem. Some people are greedy, petty, and dishonorable. I get that. The problem is that you two are the only publicly known KEF faces, and you have both established yourselves as placing your reputation and narrative above integrity and ethics, so why should anyone in the community trust you with their money? Why should they even be expected to?) 5. "Personally, I believe an Atomic Bridge-based solution is the best approach, as it ensures both asset security and perfect mapping with KAS on L1." Well, we don't have that yet. We can't have that before the next Kaspa hard-fork. So while many will probably agree it is hypothetically the best approach, it does not absolve you from making current solutions reasonable. If you don't believe a reasonable bridging solution is possible without vProgs, why did you launch a mainnet already? That's holding the stick in both hands. Not being able to provide an ideal bridging solution doesn't excuse using a highly expensive, monopolized bridge that requires trusting anonymous people, and imposes the same risks as the Chainge bridge that drained people from the community. And talking about holding the stick at both ends, how come on one hand you discuss your network as if it is an early work in progress, still feeling out the correct approach and waiting for dust to settle, but on the other hand, you claim that it is established enough to launch USDC? How does this make any sense? 6. "However, apart from Atomic Bridge, all bridges issued by institutions or L2s are centralized." Yes, a (non-canonical) bridge is a centralized service by definition. The problem is not centralization, it's monopolization. You set things up such that no competing service could exist for the foreseeable future, and then imposed exceptionally high service fees.