Invisible Dilemma: Assets locked in a protocol are like being trapped in a sterile box - unable to cross-chain circulation, with income directly cut off. Clearly, it's your own money, yet you live more passively than a fixed-term deposit.

It wasn't until I delved deeper into @MultichainZ_ that I realized it didn't take the shortcut of cross-chain speedup, but rather was doing something more fundamental.

Its core logic is particularly clear: collateral should not be dead assets. The government bonds and LSTs you pledge, which are interest-earning assets, can continue to generate returns on the original chain, while the underlying credit limit can freely traverse chains like Base and Avalanche, without having to use cross-chain bridges at all. This means that asset earning and cross-chain lending can run in parallel, and even the interest income can dilute the borrowing costs to nearly negligible levels. For someone like me, who has been reallocating funds across multiple chains for years, the savings are not just in transaction fees, but also in the mental strain of repeated hassle.

Essentially, it reconstructs the multi-chain credit rules - it doesn't make any single chain more dominant, but rather makes the boundaries of chains irrelevant. Users no longer need to worry about "which chain to place their assets on"; they only need to care about whether their assets can generate efficient returns and be flexibly liquidated. This design, which folds the friction of multiple chains down to the underlying layer, precisely addresses the most critical contradiction in the multi-chain ecosystem: it's not that the chains aren't fast enough, but that the liquidity of assets is fragmented by the chains.

@MultichainZ_ The most precious aspect is bringing DeFi back to the assets themselves. The smoother the experience, the more you can feel that it aims to address the structural pain points of a multi-chain world, which is a rare long-term valuable exploration in the highly homogeneous DeFi space.