The UX of Interoperability in Web3 Most Web3 users don’t wake up wondering about “which chain” they’re using. They want their transaction to succeed, their asset to be safe, and their experience to feel seamless. Yet, the industry still expects people to pick between Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, or dozens of others. For developers, these choices make sense. For users, they are friction. Chains as Plumbing, Not Interfaces When you book an Uber, you don’t care if it runs on AWS or Google Cloud. When you send an email, you don’t worry if the message routes through Gmail servers or Outlook’s. Infrastructure is invisible when it works well. Web3 is still at the stage where the “plumbing” is visible, and worse, demanded as a choice. Users today are forced into questions like: Which chain should I bridge to? Is my NFT on Ethereum or Polygon? Can my DeFi position be moved cross-chain? Every one of these moments reminds users that the system is fragmented. Chain-Agnostic Design The principle of chain-agnostic design is simple: don’t make the user care about the underlying protocol. Assets should appear in a single view regardless of origin. Transactions should abstract away routing, bridges, and liquidity sourcing. Identity should persist across ecosystems without constant re-verification. This doesn’t mean erasing technical differences. It means moving them behind the curtain. The best interfaces translate complexity into clarity, not exposure. Bridging as a UX Anti-Pattern Current bridging is perhaps the clearest example of broken UX. For many, it feels like “moving money through a risky tunnel.” There are approvals, confirmations, delays, and too many chances for error. Worse, if something fails, the user is stranded between chains. Good interoperability UX would not advertise the bridge. It would simply handle liquidity routing automatically, showing the result (your tokens are here) instead of the process (your tokens are in transit). The Future: Context, Not Chains The question “which chain am I on?” should be replaced with “what am I trying to do?” If I’m buying an NFT, the app should fetch the best execution path. If I’m staking, it should optimize yield and reliability across networks. If I’m logging into a community, the protocol shouldn’t matter — my identity should just work. This is the shift from protocol-centric design to context-centric design. Users operate in contexts (buying, staking, joining), not chains. Closing Thought Interoperability will never be “solved” purely with bridges and standards. It’s a UX challenge first: how to make the underlying chain invisible without removing the guarantees that make Web3 valuable. So, should you care what chain you’re on? Should You Care What Chain you’re On? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this storyThe UX of Interoperability in Web3 Most Web3 users don’t wake up wondering about “which chain” they’re using. They want their transaction to succeed, their asset to be safe, and their experience to feel seamless. Yet, the industry still expects people to pick between Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, or dozens of others. For developers, these choices make sense. For users, they are friction. Chains as Plumbing, Not Interfaces When you book an Uber, you don’t care if it runs on AWS or Google Cloud. When you send an email, you don’t worry if the message routes through Gmail servers or Outlook’s. Infrastructure is invisible when it works well. Web3 is still at the stage where the “plumbing” is visible, and worse, demanded as a choice. Users today are forced into questions like: Which chain should I bridge to? Is my NFT on Ethereum or Polygon? Can my DeFi position be moved cross-chain? Every one of these moments reminds users that the system is fragmented. Chain-Agnostic Design The principle of chain-agnostic design is simple: don’t make the user care about the underlying protocol. Assets should appear in a single view regardless of origin. Transactions should abstract away routing, bridges, and liquidity sourcing. Identity should persist across ecosystems without constant re-verification. This doesn’t mean erasing technical differences. It means moving them behind the curtain. The best interfaces translate complexity into clarity, not exposure. Bridging as a UX Anti-Pattern Current bridging is perhaps the clearest example of broken UX. For many, it feels like “moving money through a risky tunnel.” There are approvals, confirmations, delays, and too many chances for error. Worse, if something fails, the user is stranded between chains. Good interoperability UX would not advertise the bridge. It would simply handle liquidity routing automatically, showing the result (your tokens are here) instead of the process (your tokens are in transit). The Future: Context, Not Chains The question “which chain am I on?” should be replaced with “what am I trying to do?” If I’m buying an NFT, the app should fetch the best execution path. If I’m staking, it should optimize yield and reliability across networks. If I’m logging into a community, the protocol shouldn’t matter — my identity should just work. This is the shift from protocol-centric design to context-centric design. Users operate in contexts (buying, staking, joining), not chains. Closing Thought Interoperability will never be “solved” purely with bridges and standards. It’s a UX challenge first: how to make the underlying chain invisible without removing the guarantees that make Web3 valuable. So, should you care what chain you’re on? Should You Care What Chain you’re On? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story