Why did zkSync outsource its "official cross-chain bridge" to the little-known TxFusion?

In accordance with the ZK Credo Manifesto @zksync has recently completed the decentralization of the Ecosystem Portal, Block Explorer, and the official Cross-Bridge, open-sourcing these core components to a third-party technology provider.

However, the "Official Cross-Bridge", which involves major asset deposit and withdraw channels, has been handed over to the little-known @TxFusion_io. Why?

Why, and what to make of this? Generally speaking, ecological data analysis service and browser and other auxiliary product functions are generally provided by community builders, for example, mainstream public chain projects such as Ethereum behind the Etherscan and so on are all from the community builders. The data analysis and ranking of ecological DApps as well as browser rendering are handed over to Dappradar, l2scan and other well-known technical teams from the three parties.

In this way, Matter labs can focus on technology development and ZK Stack technical architecture promotion, including: sharing Sequencer, sharing zkPorter and other technical components. This is beneficial to both the community and the team.

Because there are a lot of data analytics service teams in the blockchain community, such as dune analytics, 0xScope, nansen, etc., their biggest pain point is the business model. to C charging model is difficult to cover the high operating costs, to B services, most of the project owners are used to do it by themselves, and are not willing to give up their hands, which makes a large number of data service companies have a very difficult time. This makes a large number of data service companies have a very difficult time. If a large number of projects follow zkSync, this will bring new life to this kind of technology services company. (Not to expand too much.)

However, zkSync has handed over the "official cross-chain bridge", which is a technical component of layer2's asset security, to a brand new startup, TxFusion, which I haven't been able to find out even after checking a lot of information. But I found several interesting points:

1. TxFusion's earliest Blog was posted on February 21st this year, without disclosing the investor, the team is also relatively vague, but the opening text is about to cooperate with zkSync, seems to be specifically for zkSync.

2. Ines Isliami, founder of TxFusion, has had data-related experience in Blockchain Collective, HyperGrowth, Shard Labs and other blockchain-related companies since 2020, but none of the time is long;

3. TxFusion founder Ines Isliam has a video interview, listening to the accent is similar to zkSync founder Alex, presumably both Russian.

This is all I've seen so far, so I'm puzzled why zkSync would give the cross-chain bridge to TxFusion, but as a blogger who has been following zkSync for a long time, I personally understand the motivation behind it, and I'll briefly share it below:

The kernel is that zkSyn does not want to recognize the existence of the "official cross-chain bridge".

On the one hand, it is because the bridge is the lifeline of L2 security. Simple to understand, any asset circulating in L2 is a mapped asset in the form of a Wrap, and any asset circulating in L2, whether hacked or Rugpulled, as long as it can be withdrawn back to the main chain by the "hacker" before the asset is a restricted circulating asset.

The Rollup mainnet contract can completely block the flow of L2 suspected assets back to the mainnet through the form of Update, thus realizing the control of unexpected abnormal conditions. Now the mainstream layer2 are preset with Security Council, the main responsibility of the multi-signature committee behind is to decide whether to upgrade the contract to control the suspect assets in times of crisis.

But Rollup contract reserved for upgradeable features, has been criticized as centralized, has not been able to say on the stage, Alex said in an interview that even if the multi-signature committee has the authority, can only suspend the assets, as for the assets of the decision-making to the DAO community. But this explanation can only be heard, because once layer2 suffers a huge asset attack, such as a contract was issued out of thin air a few Trillion more assets, to buy out the assets of Layer2 and do the DAO governance vote seems to be feasible.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)