Lately, I keep hearing people talk about "modular chains." Frankly, the most intuitive changes for an end-user are just two: First, the same confirmation point now involves more detours behind the scenes—cross-layer, cross-bridge, cross-service... sometimes the fees and settlement times are really unstable; Second, the security boundaries have become more fragmented. In the past, we mainly looked at the chain itself, but now we also need to consider the execution layer, data layer, bridges, and ordering services. Who holds the permissions and emergency switches? You have to ask—otherwise, if something goes wrong, you won't even know who to blame.

The wave of RWA (Real-World Assets) is also quite interesting. People compare U.S. Treasury yields with on-chain yield products. I actually care more about "where the returns come from, who can move the funds, and who will cover the losses if things go wrong." When you break down the modular system, these questions are more easily hidden in the corners.

Next time, I plan to review the permission configurations of commonly used protocols and the emergency plans for bridges again. The fewer crossovers, the better... Do you think modularity is "cheaper and more user-friendly" for ordinary people, or "more complicated and easier to trip over"?