An asset bridge increases counterparty risk of the native t…

An asset bridge increases counterparty risk of the native token without any additional investment gained into the target blockchain, but increases the infrastructure costs to run it. Chained counterparty risk is as weak as its weakest link. The benefit is that you get to have users to believe they are using a token with a known reputation, helping kickstart adoption of the bridged token, but it remains unclear how well users actually understand that the bridged version, despiting being named the same, doesn't carry the same risks. A better solution would be one that is native so that it gets actual investment gained into the target blockchain.