Honestly, these days I've been looking into IBC, message passing, and various bridge designs. The more I look, the more I feel that "cross-chain" isn't just a simple click; behind it, it's really about asking: who do you trust? In a single cross-chain transaction, you must trust at least the consensus of the chain itself, the implementation of the light client/verification proof, whether the relayer forwarding the message is following the rules, and whether the bridge contract/multisig/oracles will cause any issues... I'm also not sure if I've missed anything. Anyway, every additional layer of components introduces more potential points of failure and more code that could go wrong.

Thinking about the kind of inflation + studio + coin price spiral in chain games, it's actually quite similar: everyone thinks they're playing "asset interoperability," but the core is trust and incentives. Once those are distorted, everything else starts to slide downhill. For now, I just want to brew a cup of tea and wait for confirmation. If I can avoid cross-chain, I won't do it. If I must cross, I’ll only choose the path where I can clearly explain the risks. That’s all for now.