Recently, people keep talking about how awesome "modularity" is, but I don't have such an academic understanding... Frankly, for us end users, the most direct changes might be two points: First, blockchains are becoming more like "assembly," where you use the same wallet to jump back and forth between different layers, and the experience feels more like switching pages, without necessarily knowing what's behind the scenes for settlement; Second, when something goes wrong, it's harder to pinpoint the issue—whether it's the execution layer being stuck, data layer costs increasing, or the bridge acting up—ultimately, it's just my transaction spinning in circles.

For someone like me who prefers not to move if unnecessary, I'm even more concerned about whether the staking and penalty mechanisms will become more complicated after "splitting": what exactly are validators protecting, who gets penalized, and when? Sometimes it feels like the risk isn't just price fluctuations but that the rules are broken into pieces, increasing information asymmetry.

By the way, recently there's been quite a heated debate about the compliance boundaries of privacy coins/mixers. Actually, modularity also amplifies the question of "who is responsible": whether privacy is handled at the application layer, the underlying layer, or middleware... in the end, the pressure shifts back to the entry point and the user.

What I’ve learned isn’t techniques, but this: the more something claims to hide complexity, the more you should ask, "Who is the complexity being transferred to?"