Recently, I’ve been organizing my on-chain transfer colorful trajectory chart, and the more I look at it, the more I feel: security is really not about "the more complex, the more advanced."

Assets are not large, mainly held long-term and not moved much; hardware wallets are quite like locking cash in a drawer, with the key kept by yourself, peace of mind;
but if you often cross-chain and interact everywhere, relying on just one hardware wallet can be troublesome, signing and queuing until your hand gets tired.

At a higher asset level, or if more than one person is involved (partners/team/family), multi-signature is like several keys opening one door; losing one doesn’t mean instant death, but the process is really slower;
social recovery is more like “finding a few reliable contacts as a fuse,” suitable for those afraid of slipping up and losing their seed phrase, but only if you truly trust those people—don’t pick “reliable” just because they’re “popular.”

Looking at the recent criticism of staking and shared security being called “set-duplication,” I also somewhat understand: no matter how good the yield stacking looks, if the underlying layer has an issue, it’s like a block being pulled out from a pile of building blocks.
Anyway, my current approach is: put the high-risk part in a wallet that can withstand losses, and prefer the core position to be slower, rather than treating security as something that can be compounded.
That’s it for now.