When it comes to multi-chain deployment, the industry seems to see it as a savior. Covering more networks, reaching a broader user base, attracting incremental capital—these advantages are right in front of us, enough to make people full of expectations for multi-chain solutions. But only after a deeper examination do we realize that things are far more complicated than they appear on the surface. The root of the problem lies in: trust is difficult to align.

Do you think running a project on multiple chains simultaneously can achieve a seamless experience? The reality is that each chain has its own quirks. Transaction confirmation times, network congestion levels, liquidity depth—these fundamental parameters vary greatly across different chains. The same asset may exhibit completely different market performance on Chain A and Chain B. Cross-chain data transfer is not just simple copy and paste; it must pass through heterogeneous operating environments, and this process can subtly alter the actual meaning of the data. Such inconsistencies often occur silently, and by the time you realize it, they have already become problems.

What’s even more painful is that smart contracts are blind to all this. They cannot perceive when a chain is lagging, cannot judge whether the chain’s liquidity reserves are sufficient; cannot distinguish whether price data comes from a deep, abundant pool or a shallow, sparse one; and cannot assess how much impact transaction confirmation delays might have on market volatility. The logic of smart contracts is rigid—they only recognize numbers and execute every received signal as if it were absolutely true. Under this mechanism, the trust gap across chains becomes a hidden systemic risk.