At first I assumed bridge post-mortems mostly get read once and forgotten, filed away after the incident thread fades. But watching how teams cite them months later, in audits, in RFC discussions, in silent code comments, it looks more like slow-release friction. Every past exploit becomes a quiet filter: which routes get liquidity first, which get delayed confirmations, which get capped limits before anyone trusts them again. The mechanics rarely change fast. What changes is patience, users route around known failure points without announcing why, and volume just thins there. Reliability isn't proven by uptime charts, it's proven by whether capital returns after being scared once. That's the real test post-mortem lessons face, not whether the fix holds technically, but whether depositors' memory decays faster than the protocol's. So when a bridge looks calm again, is that recovered trust, or just diminished expectations settling into a lower, quieter equilibrium?
@Dusk_Foundation $DUSK #dusk