Lately I keep seeing people staring at large on-chain transfers and hot/cold wallets on exchanges, and as soon as there's movement, they say "Smart money is coming/going." I find it a bit funny but also a little anxious... Honestly, most end users don't care whether the underlying is modular or all-in-one; what they care about is: transfers that don't get stuck, fees that don't fluctuate wildly from 1 dollar to 100 dollars, cross-chain transfers that aren't like opening a blind box, and wallets that don't pop up a bunch of signatures they can't understand.

If modularization really counts as a change, I think it means breaking down "whether this chain is good or bad" into several parts: slow execution isn't necessarily a consensus problem, data availability issues don't necessarily mean your chosen L2 is causing trouble. The user experience is more chains, more entry points, potentially smoother, but when something goes wrong, it's harder to shift blame... As someone who writes small contracts, I just hope error boundaries are clearer, so that a chain reaction doesn't happen if something explodes.

As for what I mean by "long-term," it's not about grand narratives like quarterly reports. I usually think in a month, and if within a month I can avoid being led astray by all kinds of "smart money interpretations" and stick to my plan with fewer reckless moves, then I consider that a win. That's all for now.