I've been thinking lately about the word "modularization" and what it really means for us end users. Honestly, you don't care who reaches consensus or who handles the data layer; what you care about is: making transfers without hiccups, fees that don't fluctuate like subway tickets or airline tickets, and not constantly worrying about bridges failing the moment you use them.

To me, modularization feels a bit like taking a all-in-one machine and turning it into a main unit + monitor + network cable. Everyone can swap parts and customize configurations. The experience might be that more chains are compatible and more applications can run, but the cost is that interfaces increase, and any looseness could cause issues. Another analogy is like LEGO: quick to assemble, but with more pieces, losing one can be frustrating... Especially when it comes to cross-layer or cross-chain segments, I always feel that the risk boundaries are harder to define clearly.

Recently, RWA, US bond yields, and on-chain "pseudo-yield" products have been grouped together for comparison. But I care even more about: what modules are actually supporting these yields? If something goes wrong, is it the protocol, the custody, or the bridge? Anyway, now I look at the options first for a way to exit, only risking more if I can exit with a single click, rather than ending up having to dig through records to find which chain I was on.