When it comes to multi-chain ecosystems, the industry is always showing off various cross-chain bridge performance metrics—who is faster, cheaper, safer. But these debates are actually addressing the wrong issues.

Where is the real problem? Assets can cross over, but trust cannot. A stablecoin moving from Chain A to Chain B still appears to be the same coin on the surface, but internally it becomes two different entities. On Chain A, its value anchoring depends on on-chain collateral structures and protocol mechanisms; once it reaches Chain B, it relies entirely on the security of the bridging assets for endorsement. The result is frequent bizarre phenomena: the same asset, because it crosses chains, creates two markets, two sets of prices, and two expectations.

This is not just a liquidity fragmentation issue; fundamentally, it’s a disconnect in the economic system. In traditional cross-chain stablecoin models, the inconsistency of trust sources is like having roads between cities but no unified commercial rules—transactions are possible, but a truly unified market cannot form. DeFi liquidity is thus fragmented and shattered.

It may seem that cross-chain bridges solve the physical channel problem, but what truly needs to be broken through is the consistency at the financial layer—these are two completely different dimensions.