I don’t have much to add as I agree with the criteria used to evaluate the bridges (great job btw).
For me, given the nascent state of bridges, and the history of bridge hacks, Lindy effect + (perceived at least) operational security are really important. As folks have said, nothing is forcing Jump or Multichain to backstop in the case of hacks in the future even though they have in the past, so betting on repayment doesn’t seem too important.
A platform having been hacked and lost either user funds (whether they’re repayed or not) should always trigger a huge increase in security practices for those teams. I am not aware of Axelar’s or Multichain’s or Wormhole’s full security measures, but I do know that in every organization myself or a friend or colleague has worked in that security is treated extremely seriously after hacks of these kinds. (Aside: it’s unfortunate that it’s typically not treated as seriously before these events, but hopefully the crypto space will push this change for software companies)
Unfortunately, this means the underlying mechanism doesn’t matter too much to me, so even though the nerd inside of me gets excited by each of the mechanisms, I think it’s rational to trust first Wormhole (since it was hacked for the most money and survived) and then next Multichain (since it was hacked a bit) and finally Axelar in that order makes the most sense.