Actually, everyone understands that cross-chain is essentially about "who do I trust," but every time I see someone say "just use a bridge," I still want to clarify some details. For protocols like IBC, the core trust is in the verification of the light clients on both sides and their respective consensus/validator sets, plus the relayer is just a transporter, in theory, it shouldn't become a "third-party custodian." But once it involves external bridges, or multi-signature/magic oracle setups, the trust assumptions immediately broaden: signers, operators, pause switches, upgrade permissions... the more components there are, the closer the probability of something going wrong is to "people make mistakes." Recently, the kind of inflation, studio bots, and spiral crashes in blockchain games also seem similar: incentive designs that don't contain boundaries, ultimately everyone is betting on others running away first. The same applies to cross-chain; first, lay out the trust list, then talk about efficiency, or else you're just hiding the risks.