Late at night, I was checking on-chain records and saw someone asking, “Who do you really trust for cross-chain?” Plainly speaking, crossing a chain isn’t a bridge—it’s a relay race of people and machines. IBC looks “standard,” but in the end you still have to trust that: the source chain itself shouldn’t go offline or roll back; the light client and verification logic shouldn’t be written recklessly; even though relayers shouldn’t have the ability to act, they can still stall your messages and make you wait; and when it finally comes time to execute on the target chain, contract/module permissions, timeout parameters, and rollback handling all have to be correct. Recently, when bridges get stolen, it’s usually not that you don’t understand—it's that some part “assumed nothing would go wrong,” and then it did. After an oracle reports an error, everyone also shouts “wait for confirmation,” which is also a kind of consensus: it’s better to be slower than to forcefully accept messages. These days, I only dare to do small cross-chain transfers, wait through a few rounds of confirmations, and when things get chaotic, I just withdraw first—cowardly, but I can sleep at night.