Lately I've been looking into IBC and various "messaging/bridges," and the more I look, the more I feel that cross-chain is essentially asking: who do I trust? It's not just about trusting a single chain; you usually have to consider the consensus of the other chain, the light client/validation method, the relayer (who is transporting the messages), and the implementation of the intermediary protocol layer. Even a small bug in the code could turn "I just want to transfer an asset" into "I've outsourced my security." Many bridges are promoted as very smooth, but before I get involved, I still review each of these components one by one; otherwise, if slippage isn't much, the trust cost might blow up first.

By the way, I see the "yield stacking" of staking and shared security being criticized as a copycat scheme. I can understand: if you rent out security layer by layer, in the end, who is backing it and who is responsible if something goes wrong? If you can't clearly explain that, it can be very unsettling. Anyway, I currently do cross-chain transactions infrequently; I prefer to go slow and avoid adding unnecessary layers... for now, that's how it is.