Recently, I’ve been looking into that “cross-chain messaging” of IBC again. To put it simply, it’s not just about transferring tokens; it’s about providing proof that “the other chain indeed experienced a certain event.” You might think it’s just using a bridge, but actually, it’s trusting a chain of components: both chains’ consensus mechanisms need to be reliable, the light client must not be fed fake proofs, the relayer (the transporter) must not slack off, the channel and timeout parameters must not be set absurdly, and on top of that, the application layer shouldn’t write a bunch of strange edge cases. If any link in this chain weakens, assets could turn into “wait a moment, wait a little longer” air.

Currently, I keep my cross-chain positions very small. I prefer to be slower and take more steps rather than risk trusting a black box and packing trust into it just to save effort. The recent NFT royalty disputes also seem similar: creators want predictable income, markets want higher liquidity, but in the end, it all comes down to “who do you trust, and to what extent.” Anyway, I default to assuming the worst-case scenario and just survive first.