I now generally put a question mark on "cross-chain" by default. It's not that I dare not use it, but I have an extra layer of caution: transferring from chain A to chain B, frankly, you have to trust that the message really comes from there, also trust that the message hasn't been tampered with, and also trust that the receiving side will execute as you expect.

At least the idea behind IBC clearly explains "who is passing the message, who is verifying the message": you need to trust the light client/verification logic on both sides, trust that the relay is just a transporter and won't cheat (in theory, cheating should also be detectable), and that the chain itself won't have major failures. Conversely, many bridges are actually trusting a combination of multi-signatures/oracles/escrows; they work smoothly most of the time, but when something goes wrong, it becomes very stressful.

Recently, Layer 2 is still arguing over TPS, fees, and who provides bigger subsidies. I think we shouldn't rush to compete on data throughput first... the trust aspect of cross-chain is just too big. As someone who has experienced zeroing out, I’d rather go slower and more expensive, at least I can sleep at night. That’s all for now.