Recently at @Firelightfi we have started working on insurance for bridge transactions. Despite the rapid evolution of DeFi, bridges remain the most dangerous action in crypto—and why current insurance models fail to protect them. Bridges are uniquely vulnerable because they act as massive "honeypots" of locked value.1 Unlike a decentralized exchange (DEX) where funds are dispersed in user wallets, a bridge contract often holds billions in a single address. The risk vectors are binary and catastrophic: Validator Collusion: Many bridges rely on a small multi-sig set (e.g., 5-of-9 validators). If these keys are phished or compromised (as seen in the $600M Ronin hack), the entire vault is drained instantly. Smart Contract Logic Flaws: A simple bug in the "minting" logic can allow an attacker to print unlimited "wrapped" tokens on the destination chain without depositing real assets on the source chain (e.g., the Wormhole exploit).3 The Insurance Paradox: Correlated Collateral Current "DeFi Cover" protocols struggle to insure these events due to asset correlation. Most existing insurance pools are backed by ETH or ETH-correlated governance tokens. The Death Spiral: If a major bridge on Ethereum collapses, the panic causes a market-wide sell-off. The value of the insurance protocol’s collateral plummets exactly when users need a payout. You cannot effectively insure a burning building if your payout fund is stored inside that same building. @Firelightfi fundamentally shifts this model by utilizing uncorrelated institutional capital (specifically utilizing deep liquidity pools like XRP). @Firelightfi cover protocol will allow users to purchase coverage to insure the sucessful completion of bridge transaction. Because the capital backing this coverage is distinct from the EVM ecosystem being bridged, it remains solvent even if the bridge itself suffers a catastrophic failure. This transforms bridging from a gamble into a service level agreement (SLA), backed by capital that doesn’t bleed when the bridge breaks.