I would be interested in more details for this point.
For me personally the primary advantage is that for most users it is less error prone when receiving funds. But besides this specific use case I don’t see that many UX benefits.
From the technical point of view I see many disadvantages in having the same address:
- it is not possible on all networks, therefore exceptions to this become even more confusing
- same addresses require way more security considerations (replayability, undeployed or uninitialized contracts on new networks, nonce collisions).
- it is quite complex (and maybe impossible) to keep Safe configurations in sync across network
A point that @lukas brought up before was that the address concept should be elevated to a higher level. Or if we combine it to the concept proposed by @koeppelmann it would be on the chain where our main Safe is (e.g. Mainnet). On that chain we have a logic to look up the addresses on all other networks. There are already solutions for this (looking at you ENS).
Additionally to this not depending on the same address allows to add support for non-evm networks at some point. I.e. it would be possible to use an AMB to Solana to control a contract on Solana from your Ethereum mainnet Safe.
One point that in my opinion still needs to be improved (and I know that Gnosis is working on this) is the trust model around bridges. Else this is a single point of failure that is controlling quite a lot of accounts.