Web3 cannot deliver financial freedom with assets trapped on a single blockchain | Opinion

As crypto matures, one of the industry’s biggest illusions is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: users are not financially free if their assets are trapped inside a single blockchain. This means there is still work to do for the industry to deliver its freedom promise.

From the outside, web3 promises openness, sovereignty, and permissionless access. Yet in practice, much of the ecosystem is defined by invisible borders. Each blockchain operates like a siloed jurisdiction, with its own rules, standards, liquidity pools, and tooling. Once users enter one of these ecosystems, they often discover that leaving is difficult, risky, or just exhausting. That is the opposite of the idea of financial freedom.

True financial freedom implies open, seamless access. That means the ability to move assets freely across the broader ecosystem. Today, fragmentation prevents that. Isolated chains, incompatible standards, and siloed liquidity limit users and constrain how capital can be used. Ownership alone is not freedom if users lack the practical ability to act on opportunity.

Fragmentation and network tribalism

The irony is that web3 has reproduced many of the same structural limitations found in traditional finance. Fragmentation in both systems not only restricts agency and creates artificial barriers but also forces reliance on intermediaries. In traditional finance, these barriers are legal and institutional. In web3, they are technical and cognitive, but the outcome is similar.

Fragmentation limits participation and yield optimization. Users are often forced to settle for suboptimal outcomes simply because accessing alternatives on other chains requires too much effort, expertise, or risk. Even a single blockchain can be complex to navigate. Multiply that complexity across dozens of chains, each with different wallets, bridges, and fee models, and it becomes overwhelming. When users cannot reasonably understand or navigate the system, their ability to act rationally is compromised.

Financial freedom is not just about holding assets. It is about having unrestricted capability to deploy and leverage those assets wherever an opportunity exists. Fragmentation makes that capability inaccessible to most participants.

This fragmentation also fuels network tribalism. When each chain is positioned as the only “right” one, capital and talent become stuck. Liquidity remains siloed. Developers build inward rather than outward. Users are discouraged from exploring better opportunities elsewhere, even when those opportunities clearly exist.

Importantly, this tribalism is not ideological at its core. It is structural. It emerges because networks are isolated. If blockchains functioned as parts of a larger, interoperable system, tribalism would naturally diminish. Competing incentives would still exist, but the zero-sum framing would weaken. Innovation thrives when ideas, capital, and users can move freely.

Today, the benefits of cross-chain activity accrue disproportionately to high-ability users. Those with the time, knowledge, and risk tolerance to navigate fragmentation are rewarded. Everyone else is effectively excluded.

True interoperability raises the floor, not the ceiling. It reduces systemic bias by lowering the cognitive and operational barriers to participation. Ability will always matter, but seamless interoperability ensures that access itself is not restricted to a technical elite.

Why centralized bridges are not the answer

Attempts to solve fragmentation through centralized bridges introduce their own risks. Centralized bridges create single points of failure, expose users to vendor lock-in, and remain vulnerable to regulatory intervention. They often replicate the very shortcomings of traditional finance, concentrating control in a single entity while asking users to trust opaque systems.

While these solutions may reduce surface-level friction, they ultimately exacerbate risk. When a bridge fails, users are exposed to systemic loss. Financial freedom cannot rest on infrastructure that collapses under centralized pressure.

Decentralization is not an ideological preference. It is a safety requirement. Removing single points of failure reduces systemic risk and limits the ability of any one actor to exert outsized control over user assets. Properly designed decentralized infrastructure also reduces the need for vendor lock-in and mitigates the impact of regulatory or operational shocks.

Decentralization alone, however, is not sufficient. It must be paired with seamless and abstracted interoperability. The goal is not to make every user an expert in cross-chain mechanics, but to remove the need for that expertise altogether.

The path forward

If the industry fails to break down chain-level borders, blockchain adoption will remain limited to niche applications. These may still be large in absolute terms, such as international remittances, but the broader promise of a universal financial system will remain unrealized.

If the industry succeeds, the implications are far more profound. Blockchain technology could underpin global financial coordination, enabling open access to capital, opportunity, and innovation at scale. That outcome is not guaranteed. Nothing has been promised.

Imagine if internet routers could only communicate with other routers from the same manufacturer. That is effectively where web3 stands today. This is why the solution is not a single product or protocol. It requires industry-wide standards. Competing interoperability solutions themselves need to figure out how to be interoperable with one another, or the industry will not be able to deliver its promise. 

Financial freedom depends on choice. Choice depends on mobility. Until assets can move freely across blockchains without friction, web3 will continue to promise freedom without delivering it.