UMA is 'secure' because enough of the token supply is within the teams call upon, which is actually a very secure verification solution when securing yourself (ala Across). If a bridge copied that verification method 1:1, maybe they would inherit that same security guarantee?

You don't lose confidence in UMA's ability to verify the Across settlements when they cant decide if some guy is wearing a suit or not for Polymarket. But what if it's a bridge mirroring Across's verification 1:1?

Root thought here is ok if we're gonna have these token voting systems that are secured by concentrated control behind the scenes, can you force that control to view and defend you as if you were as important as their own?

Root thought here is ok if we're gonna have these token voting systems secured by concentrated control behind the scenes, can you force that control to view and defend you as if you were as important as their own?