The word "modular chain" sounds quite grand, but for end users, honestly, it boils down to two things: first, you might be less likely to get stuck on a particular chain (cheap execution, stable settlement played separately), and second, it's harder to trace the "experience issues"—whether the problem is with the wallet, bridge, oracle, or some DAO layer acting up, users only see: why do I have to wait for confirmation again...

Recently, the wave of cross-chain bridge thefts and oracle errors has really given me some PTSD. Everyone collectively enters a "don't touch it yet, wait for confirmation" mode, which is basically patching system uncertainty. Theoretically, modularity can isolate risks, but in reality, with more boundaries and more assembly points, it actually tests the product's ability to hide complexity better.

What I fear most isn't losing money, but losing control: losing money I can calculate the expectation for, control the position; losing control means you have no idea where the risk is coming from. Anyway, I now slow down a bit when working on new chains/new bridge interactions, preferring to earn less than to step into a black box.