Is there a generalised risk of using bridged coins as collateral?
The largest bridge coin is wbtc but Ren is growing apace and there are other decentralised "bridge solutions such as tbtc.
At the moment, Ethereum is the only serious defi game in town, but there are challengers on the horizon and atomic swaps are facilitating easier cross-chain transfers. Ren is branching out onto Polkadot and has a couple of collaborations there for “bitcoin on dot”.
Following on from the liquidity and peg issues raised by RenDoge, could there be an issue if bridged btc exited the ethereum network for another L1 chain, without any decrease in the amount of unbridged btc, bearing in mind that those who use “btc on eth” are substantially more likely to use btc on another chain than bitccoiners who keep their btc chain native, and that the growth of on-eth btc has slowed in the last few months. Or alternatively that another “btc on eth” solution could attract attention and draw liquidity away from an UMA collateral type.
To some extent this is relatively moot with the expiring contract, but if a bridged coin was used in a perpetual contract could this cause issues should there be an generalised exit from one bridge or one chain to another?