I recently took a serious look at deBridge Bundles and would like to share my understanding.

To be honest, using cross-chain, the process is understood by everyone: switching chains, bridging, paying gas, waiting for confirmation, and then proceeding to the next step.

But if something goes wrong at any step, you basically have to bear it yourself.

I looked at the fundamentals of Bundles and the feeling it gives me can be summed up in one sentence: it is not "teaching you how to operate," but "helping you get things done."

You don't need to worry about how many chains are crossed in between, which chain is executed on, or how gas is paid.

You just need to clarify one thing, what result do I ultimately want to achieve.

The remaining execution, path, and failure retries are all handled by the protocol.

This point is actually quite important because there are not few chains now, but too many, so many that ordinary users cannot possibly be proficient in each one.

The idea behind deBridge Bundles is very restrained:
Instead of talking about a bunch of complex principles, I will directly remove the "complexity" itself.

From a user perspective, it is more like a cross-chain execution layer rather than a bridge in the traditional sense.

You sign once, the goal is clear, and the subsequent matters are completed automatically.

If we say that the previous cross-chain was:
You need to learn a complex set of processes to accomplish a task.

Bundles are more like:
You only need to state the results; the process should not be your burden.

This is also the reason I think deBridge is worth paying attention to. It is still of the practical kind.

When it is truly applied on a large scale, many people may not realize that cross-chain technology is being used behind the scenes, but that precisely shows that it has done the right thing.

This understanding should still be correct.

@deBridge_CN