The consensus model of the database isn't relevant when the bridge contract itself was what signed off right? Isn't the issue that the keys were just for signi

The consensus model of the database isn't relevant when the bridge contract itself was what signed off right? Isn't the issue that the keys were just for signing that transaction for that contract? Or did they really compromise 5 of 9 nodes for the entire blockchain? If it was this, it still doesn't suggest that was really necessary and only coincidence. It is just a fine to compromise funds on a centralized blockchain as long as you can get the funds over the bridge before the validators pay attention to block it, that's pretty common too. A flight to security.