2026-01-06 20:34:46

What is the prerequisite for truly owning an asset? The ability to move freely. In the current blockchain ecosystem, assets trapped on a single network are like being locked on an isolated island. Cross-chain bridging technology breaks this isolation — users can transfer assets freely between different blockchain networks, completely removing intermediaries. This is the true essence of digital ownership. Some projects are practicing this ideal by enabling real cross-chain liquidity, giving users full control over their assets. This is exactly how the ownership concept promised by Web3 is realized in practical applications.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

19 Likes

Reward
19
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TradFiRefugee

· 2h ago

That's correct, liquidity = freedom. But are those bridges really safe now? It still feels like they're in the patching stage.

View OriginalReply0

RebaseVictim

· 2h ago

Cross-chain bridging sounds great, but who will bear the risks?

View OriginalReply0

AirDropMissed

· 4h ago

Honestly, cross-chain bridging sounds great, but using it now is still a bit tiring. Liquidity is indeed important, but what about security? I have no clear answer. The isolated island problem is really annoying, but cross-chain isn't a silver bullet either. I've heard this theory a hundred times, but the key is whether it can really be implemented. Asset mobility is free, provided these bridges don't have issues again. Ownership control in your own hands? Well, let's see if we live to see that day. Another rhetoric about cross-chain saviors; I just want to see who can truly do it well. It sounds idealistic, but reality is quite harsh. I completely agree on the importance of liquidity, but are we really there yet? Cross-chain technology is indeed needed, but the risk part needs to be carefully calculated.

View OriginalReply0

NeverVoteOnDAO

· 01-07 21:04

The孤岛 theory sounds good, but in reality, there are a bunch of cross-chain bridging issues, and security vulnerabilities are also not uncommon.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterNoLoss

· 01-06 21:04

Cross-chain bridging sounds great, but how many can truly facilitate seamless, lossless transfers? Most still end up costing a fortune in fees.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter

· 01-06 21:04

Cross-chain bridging sounds good, but in reality, those bridges still frequently encounter issues, with assets being stuck in a complete mess.

View OriginalReply0

DaoResearcher

· 01-06 21:01

According to the white paper, the security assumptions of cross-chain bridges actually become invalid in highly decentralized environments.

View OriginalReply0

ProposalManiac

· 01-06 20:50

It sounds ideal, but how is the security mechanism of the bridging contract designed? Historically, most cross-chain solutions have failed due to governance loopholes rather than technical issues.

View OriginalReply0

ForkLibertarian

· 01-06 20:48

Wait, doesn't this logic seem a bit flawed... Can cross-chain bridging truly eliminate middlemen completely?

View OriginalReply0

CompoundPersonality