I’ve never understood why bridges have to always be fast. I get it for impatient retail or cross-chain arbitrage.

But many tasks aren’t very time sensitive. Which is why I always had a soft spot for the (now-defunct?) @fraxfinance bridge.
They called it Frax Ferry and gave the roles a nautical theme. The captain had admin roles, and a second set of actors called crew members had the power to temporarily pause to enforce a “stop, look, listen” process.
Normally I dislike meme-y themes (like food names), but in this case I think the ferry analogy helped communicate to users how it worked.
The Frax Ferry would have scheduled departure times between specific chains, and would take 24 hours to arrive.
This gave ample time to catch shenanigans. And also meant there was low risk of infinite mint, since any compromise would have to be sustained undetected for the entire journey.
I’m not sure if 24 hours is the right time period, but it’s hard to think that the Frax Ferry would have allowed DPRK to rekt Kelp.
To the extent a need for fast bridging still exists, it does seem appropriate for someone (bridge, issuer, swap-bridge counterparty) to levy a fee to account for the increased risks.
The model converged upon has been the asset issuers doing this for free - you’ll notice even on L2s, the standard bridges aren’t growing their escrows much as fast options proliferate.
I think we can agree there needs to be a rethinking about how this risk is shared. That could be a fee, lower claims priority, or some TBD clever solution.