Lately I've been looking into the IBC / cross-chain messaging system, and the more I look, the more I feel: one "cross-chain" sounds like point-to-point, but behind it is a series of things you have to trust. To put it plainly, you're not only trusting chain A and chain B, but also the light client / verification headers to keep up, whether consensus has been temporarily hijacked, whether relayers are messing around (or simply going offline), plus the permissions of bridge contracts / multisigs — whoever holds the upgrade keys is the most tempting and also the most dangerous. Actually, everyone has been watching the unlock calendar and shouting about selling pressure lately, but I think the "invisible unlock" in cross-chain is even more frightening: if a component has a problem, asset liquidity can disappear just like that, and anxiety jumps from the calendar directly onto the blockchain. Anyway, when I look at cross-chain projects now, I first check permissions and upgrade records before talking about narratives.