Yesterday afternoon, I went to the market to buy groceries and spent half the day picking out the sweetest tomatoes. When I got home, I cut one open and took a bite, surprised by its sweet and sour flavor—just like studying protocols, sometimes they seem understated on the surface but have deep flavors inside. Today, I want to discuss my new judgment on @0xSoulProtocol from this "cut open to see inside" perspective—neither hyping it up nor bashing it, let’s see if it can truly grow "from the inside out." 【1】Soul's positioning: not just another lending application, but a cross-chain "credit operating system." Many people see it as a cross-chain version of Aave or Compound, but I don’t view it that way. I prefer to see Soul as a foundational operating layer that allows various lending protocols to collaborate on top of it. What users see might be the interface for borrowing on Chain A and depositing on Chain B, but behind the scenes, there’s a unified brain operating for scheduling and clearing. 【2】Technical challenges: cross-chain messaging and consistency are harder than interest rates. Don’t be fooled by high interest rates or high yield models; the real challenge of cross-chain lies in "when can we synchronize states, when can we clear across chains consistently, and how to avoid fund discrepancies." Soul has been emphasizing consolidating clearing logic and performing middle-layer verification rather than dispersing it across chains. This is a route that relies on design to win, not just flashy models. 【3】Recent undercurrents: chain selection for integration & liquidity entry points. I’ve seen discussions in the community about which chains Soul should prioritize for integration: Arbitrum, Polygon, Optimism, and even the possibility of Solana compatibility has been mentioned. My guess is that the first few chains to land will become "model chains," and we need to see which chain brings in users/assets first. 【4】Risk perspective: those boundaries that are not easily spoken about. Cross-chain channel anomalies: message loss/delay can lead to forced liquidation/clearing errors. Clearing arbitrage risks: if the system doesn’t handle time differences well, it could be exploited by arbitrage strategies. Token release pressure: if the early unlocking rhythm isn’t well controlled, it could lead to selling pressure. Integration adaptation issues: different lending protocols have varying parameters, liquidity, and risk control models, making integration difficult. These are not points to scare you, but rather pitfalls that the project must overcome during its run. 【5】Token model: I value closed-loop sustainability. Many people only focus on the rise and fall of token prices at launch, but I care more about whether a long-term closed loop can be formed between the token and protocol revenue and usage. What I want to see is: protocol fees flowing back → token buybacks/dividends/governance mechanisms → encouraging users to continue using and holding. This kind of "usage → revenue → incentives → usage" positive cycle is more genuine than any multiple hype. 【6】Why I still have faith in Soul: three core reasons. First: it attempts to "unlock the liquidity dividend between chains," pursuing an efficiency revolution. Second: it shows a possibility that can be accepted by institutions/compliance—assets do not cross bridges, and risk boundaries are relatively controllable. Third: it has room for growth—if it can integrate more protocols/chains and form a network effect, it will be difficult for other projects to replicate it. 【7】A one-sentence summary from me. Soul is not just another lending protocol, but could be the "central brain" of cross-chain lending. If it can reliably handle messages, ensure consistent clearing, and maintain a closed-loop token system during the early stages of the mainnet, it will qualify to become the next foundational infrastructure project in DeFi.