Imagine a scenario: a major public chain needs to undergo a technical upgrade, and users' assets must be migrated to the new chain within a deadline, or they face risks. This is not alarmist—such situations have actually occurred in DeFi lending protocols.

Take a certain lending protocol as an example. When the underlying public chain undergoes significant changes, what should the protocol managing billions of dollars in assets do? It seems simple—"transfer"—but in reality, there are hidden pitfalls.

The biggest trouble lies in how to handle the debt positions. Your tokens can be transferred cross-chain, but what about your lending positions? Debts and collateral are locked in smart contracts—they can't just be moved at will. Cross-chain bridges are prone to congestion, and gas fees can skyrocket. When time is tight, anything can go wrong.

Users typically face two options: one is self-rescue—repay borrowed assets, withdraw collateral, and then cross-chain to re-mortgage on the new chain—this requires substantial cash flow, which many cannot afford. The second is to wait, hoping the protocol's official migration and data mapping go smoothly—but this means bearing significant trust risks. What if something goes wrong?

In essence, this is a liquidity crisis. During critical moments of public chain iteration, whoever holds enough cash has the upper hand. Those with tight funds? They may be forced to accept unfavorable conditions.

The key lesson is simple: maintain sufficient liquidity. Whenever you hear about major adjustments to a public chain, your first reaction should be to check your cash reserves. Don't put all your eggs in one lending position; the market is always more complex than you think.