Talking about modular blockchains, I actually understand it in a pretty straightforward way: for ordinary people, the interface is still the same interface, clicking a few times, signing a signature, and the experience is just "faster / cheaper / less likely to get stuck." What really changes is how the risk is hidden—execution, data, and settlement are separated, so when something goes wrong, it's harder to see at a glance which layer can't handle it, or at which point the assets get stuck. Recently, someone was complaining that on-chain data tools and tagging systems are lagging behind and can be misleading, right? I feel that modularization might amplify this illusion of "being very clear": you think you're looking at the whole picture, but you're actually just seeing a shadow of one layer. Anyway, I stick to my old habit when choosing protocols—first focus on whether the liquidation logic and collateral are clear, and don't tell me a bunch of beautiful architecture when the risk is left for me to imagine.