Recently, Gavin Wood indicated in the JAM chat group that — the future positioning of XCMP in JAM may be redesigned or replaced by other protocols, such as Hyperbridge! 👀
In this episode of PolkaWorld, we invited Seun, co-founder of Hyperbridge, a technical builder who worked at Parity and deeply participated in the early architectural design of Polkadot, to discuss what Hyperbridge is and why it has been pointed out by Gavin as a potential replacement for Polkadot's cross-chain protocol! Seun has experienced the technical bottlenecks in blockchain scalability, from Ethereum to Polkadot, and now to building the decentralized cross-chain bridge Hyperbridge. His path reflects the entire Web3 industry’s shift from 'building the foundation' to 'focusing on real use cases.'
In this in-depth conversation, we discussed:
Why he believes blockchain would be meaningless without practical applications;
Why Hyperbridge is a 'short' on the existing cross-chain bridge industry;
Why only on Polkadot can a truly decentralized co-processor style cross-chain bridge be built;
Why future bridges should be invisible but ubiquitous invisible infrastructure;
The increasing importance of bridges behind applications like stablecoins, RWAs, and tokenized stocks;
And how he saw the truth of this industry being 'crazy yet hopeful' while examining code late at night.
From Parity to Hyperbridge: If blockchain only has infrastructure without practical applications, it is meaningless.
Kristen: Hello everyone, welcome to this episode of PolkaWorld's interview live stream! I am Kristen, and today we are very pleased to invite Seun from Hyperbridge to the live stream.
Seun is one of the guests I have been looking forward to for a long time. Bridging protocols play an extremely important role in the entire crypto industry, and Hyperbridge has also made significant recent progress. I have always appreciated the way you express your ecosystem, which is why I have been following your Twitter content for a long time. So today, I particularly want to take this opportunity to learn more about your personal background and your journey at Hyperbridge. Welcome to PolkaWorld!
Seun: Thank you for the invitation, Kristen! I'm glad to be here and very happy to converse with you.
Kristen: Let's start with your crypto journey. Do you remember what opportunity led you to enter this industry for the first time?
Seun: Of course I remember. At that time, a colleague of mine 'pulled' me into this world. I was still working at a small software company developing enterprise-level systems, and to be honest, that job was quite boring.
My colleagues were always discussing Bitcoin, various cryptocurrencies, and the skyrocketing altcoins. My first reaction was actually skepticism — isn't this just a scam? It sounds like one of those 'get rich quick' stories. But by 2017, when Bitcoin rose to $1000, I began to seriously try to understand what was behind it.
During my research, I first learned about the 'double spending' problem and how blockchain solves this issue through decentralized ledgers. Then I discovered Ethereum, which can not only record transactions but also run decentralized programmable applications.
What truly 'moved' me was the concept of on-chain governance. I come from Nigeria, where our governance system is not ideal. And the governance mechanisms on the blockchain provide people like me with a new way to voice opinions and participate in decision-making without permission — even being able to vote on the use of public funds.
Of course, the implementation in reality is far more complex than imagined, involving many factors such as politics and finance. But I believe this is one of the most promising applications of blockchain.
Kristen: There is a lot of resonance. I remember your first company in the crypto industry was Parity, right?
Seun: That's right.
Kristen: That’s quite a high starting point for entering the industry! How did you get into Parity?
Seun: Actually, I can't explain it clearly myself (laughs). During my study of blockchain, I started doing some small projects on-chain in my spare time and began contributing to some open-source projects. Later, I saw a job posting for Parity in a subreddit on Reddit.
I noticed that they were doing blockchain development using Rust, which intrigued me. At that time, I didn’t even know who founded Parity. Until I checked their GitHub and found their technical level was very high, it truly shocked me. What I thought was: I want to join this team.
I have always been interested in complex systems and enjoy exploring the cutting edge of technology, so I decided to submit my resume. They saw my contributions to open-source projects and may have looked at other materials, feeling that I was a good fit for the team.
I remember the last round of interviews was actually a video call with Gavin Wood himself. We talked a lot about our views on crypto and also discussed some real-world scenarios I observed in Nigeria. He was particularly concerned about questions like 'What is the crypto culture like at Parity?'
Around September 2019, or 2018, I can't remember clearly, I officially joined Parity. That was a very valuable experience; I not only gained an in-depth understanding of the underlying technology of blockchain but also acquired a lot of macro-level insights. I am very grateful for this experience.
Kristen: So before joining Parity, you had already begun contributing to some open-source libraries. You could say you accumulated some practical experience first, right?
Seun: You could say that, but at that time, my experience was still relatively junior, more at a surface-level understanding. My real goal was to gain an in-depth understanding of the underlying blockchain, not just stay at the application layer.
At that time, I had already noticed some very practical issues, such as Ethereum's gas fees being ridiculously high and Bitcoin processing only about five transactions per second. These made me think: If we truly want blockchain to be promoted globally, we must address the issue of scalability. And I wanted to personally participate in this 'expansion' battle.
I remember in 2019, Parity officially stopped developing the Ethereum client and fully shifted to building Polkadot, a project clearly aimed at solving blockchain scalability. For me, that was a very exciting turning point.
Kristen: You have participated in several key stages, from Parity to Composable, and now to Hyperbridge. For you personally, as a builder, which stage was the most pivotal?
Seun: Many people might think it's Parity, but for me, the most crucial shift actually occurred at Composable.
Because that was the first time I truly participated in the construction of the application layer of blockchain. I began to realize that even though we had previously invested a lot of effort in building infrastructure, these tools might still be far from friendly for developers.
Accepting this reality and seriously thinking about how to improve the developer experience was an important mindset shift for me.
But you know, I have always believed that — if blockchain only has infrastructure but no practical applications, it is meaningless. That is why we decided to establish Hyperbridge, aiming to build genuinely practical development tools that help developers create cross-chain applications that serve global users.
Because once your product is cross-chain, it is no longer limited to a specific chain but can reach users across the entire multi-chain world.
I am not a philosopher, I am a Builder.
Kristen: This indeed represents an upgrade in thinking. Since we’ve talked about concepts, I also want to discuss the philosophical thoughts behind you. After all, Web3 itself is driven by a set of philosophies.
Your X account name always gives off a 'philosophical vibe'; I feel like you must have your own cognitive system behind it. Did you come up with this name yourself, or did someone else give it to you?
Seun: To be honest, I can't quite remember how this name came about. But I remember it was around 2022, when a lot of people on crypto Twitter were playing the role of 'philosophers,' sharing so-called 'crypto philosophy' everywhere.
In fact, I personally do not like this atmosphere of empty philosophical talk. So I call myself a 'philosopher,' to some extent, also as a form of irony. I think philosophy is indeed important; it underpins science and engineering, but if you only stay at the level of speculation without practicing, it is meaningless.
I am not a philosopher; I am a builder. However, I admit that in the process of building products, I do carry some philosophical thinking. But ultimately, it still needs to be grounded in practice.
So the message I want to convey is simple: you can say a lot of beautiful things, but what really matters is to take action, write code, launch products, solve problems, and create value. Those who truly change the world are never the ones who just talk philosophy, but rather those scientists and engineers who are willing to take action.
Kristen: I completely agree; action is always more powerful than words.
Seun: I completely agree.
Looking across the entire industry, almost no team has the technical capability to build a 'decentralized bridge.'
Kristen: Let's return to the topic of 'bridges.' What do you think about the concept of 'bridges' in the crypto industry? I remember this concept gradually emerged around 2016 or 2017 to address the issues of different blockchains being unable to communicate and being isolated from each other.
In real life, when we talk about 'bridges,' we think of structures that cross rivers, tools that connect two shores. But in the tech field, I had never heard of 'bridges' having other meanings before.
Do you think 'bridges' are a unique concept in the blockchain industry, or do similar concepts exist in other fields that we just haven't noticed?
Seun: In fact, I believe that the concept of a 'bridge' exists in almost every industry; it just may not be directly referred to as a 'bridge.'
For example, Google can actually be seen as an 'information bridge.' It connects users to information on the internet, helping you quickly get from one point to another.
For example, Stripe serves as a 'payment bridge' between merchants and customers. It allows you to easily complete processes such as receiving payments and settlements, connecting both parties.
So, 'bridges' are not just a concept exclusive to blockchain. In other industries, it may have different names, but its essence is still 'connecting' two systems that cannot directly interact.
However, in the crypto industry, the importance of 'bridges' is even more direct. As you mentioned, blockchains themselves are highly fragmented systems, with each chain acting like an island. The significance of a bridge is to connect these islands to build a cohesive working network.
Kristen: Your analogy of Google and Stripe as 'bridges' is quite fresh. So I'm curious, why did you decide to build a crypto bridge from scratch? This process sounds very challenging.
Seun: There is a popular meme that says: We do this not because it is easy, but because we think it will be easy (laughs).
For me, I have always been looking for a direction that can truly bring value to the crypto industry. As I mentioned earlier, I am driven by ideals, and I want to see this industry succeed because it has the potential to change the world. Moreover, this change is slowly happening, such as the introduction of stablecoin regulations and more businesses going 'on-chain' — all of which validate our early judgments.
Since 2017, I have started paying attention to which infrastructures in this industry are still immature and where there are significant 'gaps.'
And 'bridges' are undoubtedly one of the most prominent shortcomings. From 2017 to 2020, several cross-chain bridges were attacked, with cumulative losses exceeding $3 billion, and bridges like Harmony and Nomad have experienced serious security incidents.
All of this made me realize that this is a huge opportunity — we can completely build a bridge infrastructure that is both secure and decentralized, capable of operating stably for the long term and serving global users. This is also the original intention behind launching Hyperbridge.
At that time, we were also very aware that in the entire industry, almost no team truly had the technical capability to build a 'decentralized bridge.'
Currently, there are only two paths to achieving a decentralized bridge:
One is based on zero-knowledge proofs (ZK), but this technical path is still in its early stages and has not yet been fully validated;
The other uses a system like Polkadot that has strong computing resources and parallel processing capabilities to build the logic and execution environment required for bridges.
Cross-chain communication is actually an extremely resource-intensive process. If you compare it to image processing, it will be easier to understand — it requires specialized computing power and even independent 'chip modules.'
When I understood this, I realized: we might have been the only team capable of launching a 'truly decentralized bridge' at that time.
Hyperbridge is 'shorting' the entire existing cross-chain bridge industry.
Kristen: You just mentioned that many bridges in the industry have been attacked, leading to significant asset losses. What have you learned from these incidents? In other words, what insights have these failures given you?
Seun: The most important lesson is that the root of the problem lies in centralization.
This is actually the reason we initially built blockchain — decentralization, breaking away from dependence on intermediaries, and establishing a trust-free infrastructure.
But ironically, even in this so-called 'decentralized' industry, at the most critical link of bridges, we still rely on a lot of centralized 'intermediaries.' This is clearly unsustainable.
So we made it clear early on that what we want to build is a bridge that is decentralized from an architectural perspective, replacing these high-risk centralized solutions.
Since the launch of Hyperbridge, we have invested over two years, approaching three years. And during this time, the entire industry still has not seen a truly decentralized and trustworthy bridge.
This makes me even more confident that our initial judgment was correct. We are heading in the right direction.
Kristen: So projects like Wormhole, LayerZero, and Axelar, which are well-known in the industry, seem to have not yet reached the standards you pursue, right?
Seun: That's right. These bridges are essentially still highly centralized. They rely on a 'middleman' mechanism, where a specific group of participants transmits messages from one chain to another.
In contrast, Hyperbridge does not require an intermediary at all. It is an automated system running on the blockchain. One of the core features of the blockchain is immutability and automatic execution, and no one can change its behavior unless through on-chain governance mechanisms.
So architecturally speaking, Hyperbridge is truly decentralized. The bridges you mentioned earlier still require 'humans' to perform some form of manual confirmation or signature operations to transfer messages from one chain to another, which is essentially a centralized approach.
Honestly, I feel very disappointed with the current state of most bridges in the industry; it can even be described as catastrophic. I often say that Hyperbridge is like a 'short' on the entire existing cross-chain bridge industry — I feel like Michael Burry in 2008, who saw systemic risks and made a counter-choice.
Hyperbridge is not just a simple bridge; it is an inherited computing hub from Polkadot.
Kristen: Your analogy is indeed shocking. But I also know that Hyperbridge involves many complex technical terms. You once mentioned that a bridge is not just an 'information mover'; it should be a programmable, verifiable cryptographic computation engine capable of confirming on-chain states.
Honestly, I find these quite challenging to read. Can you explain the core principles of Hyperbridge in a simpler way and how it achieves security and decentralization?
Seun: Of course! I usually explain it like this: Imagine there are two blockchains that want to communicate with each other — meaning one chain wants to know if something has happened on the other chain, such as whether a transaction has been completed.
At this time, there are two ways to obtain information:
The first method is that you choose to 'trust others' to tell you the answer. For example, through a third-party service, they tell you: 'This transaction has indeed occurred.' But the problem is, if this intermediary is attacked or malicious, they can transmit false information, causing you to send funds to the wrong address. This method is efficient but also carries high risks.
The second way is for you to personally verify the state of the target chain, i.e., 'keeping your own books.' It sounds safer, right? But the problem is that networks like Ethereum have millions of validators, and expecting you to listen to all these validators and determine consensus states is an extremely heavy computational task that is costly.
So this leads to the concept of 'co-processor': we cannot perform all validations directly on the original chain; that would be too expensive; but we can delegate these validation tasks to a dedicated co-processor system, which reduces costs while ensuring security.
Hyperbridge is such a 'co-processor.' It represents other blockchains to perform these state validation tasks and generates cryptographic proofs, telling the target chain: 'This is what we have verified, and it is indeed valid.'
In achieving this goal, there are mainly two technical paths in the industry:
One method is based on zero-knowledge proofs (ZK), which can generate verifiable results, but currently has high costs and low efficiency, and is usually generated by a single prover, which poses a risk of censorship;
The other method is based on the blockchain system itself, executing and verifying computations through a consensus mechanism run by multiple nodes.
We chose the latter because this method inherently possesses decentralized attributes and is more controllable in terms of cost. Specifically, Hyperbridge is built on Polkadot's parachains, utilizing the shared security of the Polkadot network. Any validation action will ultimately be backed by the Polkadot main chain. A small proof is all that's needed for the target chain to confirm that all messages transmitted by Hyperbridge are valid and verified.
And in this process, there are no centralized 'movers' or 'intermediaries' — all verifications are automatically completed by on-chain logic. The Hyperbridge program is not controlled by us, nor is the Polkadot network controlled by us; it is a self-operating system driven by an economic incentive mechanism. If anyone tries to falsify states or cheat, they will be 'slashed' and lose their staked tokens.
To some extent, we were inspired by the architecture of Polkadot itself. The RelayChain itself is also a co-processor, responsible for coordinating and connecting all the parallel chains. What we are doing is extending this mechanism into the realm of cross-chain communication, allowing Hyperbridge to serve as a bridge node representing other chains in 'computational verification.'
In this way, we have built a bridge system that does not rely on trust, does not depend on intermediaries, and is completely decentralized.
The truly decentralized cross-chain bridge can currently only be realized on Polkadot.
Kristen: It sounds like a significant amount of technical and engineering work is required to achieve a truly decentralized bridge. I'm curious, why haven't well-known bridge projects like Wormhole or LayerZero attempted to adopt similar approaches? Is it because this type of architecture can only be implemented based on Polkadot, or because the costs are too high?
Seun: You are not wrong; achieving a truly decentralized bridge is indeed very costly.
There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the technical threshold is extremely high. As I mentioned earlier, to solve the core problems of bridges, there are only two technical paths: one is to use zero-knowledge proofs (ZK), and the other is to build a validation system running on the blockchain. If you choose the ZK route, it means you need to design an extremely efficient ZK system. But the reality is that the entire industry is still far from mature in this regard. We have already seen several ZK EVM projects shut down successively, which also demonstrates the complexity of the problems.
The second issue lies in the limitations of blockchain infrastructure. Currently, almost no chain possesses true scalability like Polkadot. What makes Polkadot unique is that it supports multiple parallel chains running simultaneously, with about 50 currently, and plans to expand to over 150 in the future. This architecture naturally supports parallel processing, suitable for managing the large number of transactions required by cross-chain bridges.
So if other projects also want to build a truly decentralized bridge, they need similar multi-chain parallel processing capabilities like Polkadot. The reality is that — only Polkadot has truly achieved the combination of sharding and scalability. This is not found on other chains.
Once users start using it and find it useful, they will stay.
Kristen: Understood, which means that the reason Hyperbridge can achieve a decentralized bridge structure is due to its technological foundation built on Polkadot. I also noticed that Hyperbridge already supports networks like Ethereum and BNB, right?
But besides the technical aspect, another challenge is: how to encourage more ecosystems to adopt Hyperbridge? How are you promoting landing and actual use?
Seun: Good question. We believe that the key to driving adoption lies in practicality and usage volume.
Therefore, we are developing a series of cross-chain applications around Hyperbridge, aiming to increase the protocol's usage frequency and user perception. One of the core products is the cross-chain asset exchange function, simply put, a 'platform for asset exchange on-chain,' allowing users to freely exchange ERC-20 assets across multiple networks.
For example, you can exchange stablecoins, BTC, or even some long-tail tokens between Ethereum and BNB chain. This functionality far exceeds the range of assets we natively support. Currently, we have already supported some natively integrated assets, such as DOT, Bifrost tokens, and others like Serum.
We believe that once users start using it and find it useful, they will stay. And other ecosystems will see that this bridge is both practical and secure, which will give them more confidence to integrate with us.
Kristen: Indeed, practical applications driving adoption are key. But I also want to ask a question related to user experience: do ordinary users really need to know that they are using a bridge? Or should bridges ultimately be 'hidden,' just like the TCP/IP protocol in Web3, so that users don’t need to perceive their existence?
Seun: I completely agree with you. Bridges should be invisible infrastructure, and end users should not directly interact with or operate the bridge interface.
We hope that the future usage scenarios will be like this: users will simply open an application, perform operations such as saving, borrowing, trading, etc., and the cross-chain parts will be automatically completed in the background. This involves the concept we often talk about — 'chain abstraction' — which means users no longer need to care about which chain their assets are on, but only focus on the applications they use.
From this perspective, the real 'bridge' decision-makers are the technical developers, not the end users. Development teams will choose the most suitable bridge as the underlying infrastructure based on factors such as the bridge's security, level of decentralization, and permission openness.
Whether it's stablecoins or RWAs, as long as it involves cross-chain circulation, bridges are the key support behind them.
Kristen: Can you give an example? What are the most common practical application scenarios for cross-chain bridges now?
Seun: The most common and clearly needed right now is cross-chain transfers of stablecoins.
This is quite natural. Users will not choose to transfer assets with significant price volatility across chains due to the risk of depreciation. Stablecoins, being relatively stable in value, are the most ideal cross-chain assets. Therefore, many users will first exchange other assets for stablecoins, then transfer them across chains, and operate on the target chain.
Therefore, we are now very focused on integrating stablecoins. If Hyperbridge wants to become mainstream cross-chain infrastructure, it must support more stablecoins and the intercommunication and compatibility of stablecoin-related protocols. Kristen: Speaking of stablecoins, we have indeed seen a clear wave of compliance recently. As you mentioned, the market's demand for stablecoin cross-chain transfers is growing stronger. For example, the company behind Tether announced that it would launch its own blockchain to better manage stablecoin assets.
Kristen: What do you think about the future demand for cross-chain stablecoin transfers? Will this trend continue? How do you view the development of the entire industry?
Seun: I have always believed that no single blockchain can dominate the global market. That actually contradicts the idea of decentralization.
The more realistic situation is that different blockchains will each occupy advantages in different verticals, regions, and economies. This will also be influenced by regulatory environments in various places.
You will find that in Africa, BNB Chain and Tron are widely used, but Arbitrum has few users; in North America, Base and other Ethereum scaling chains are more popular; the mainstream chains in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East vary as well. These differences reflect the geographic distribution, market strategies, and user habits of blockchain globally.
So, from a global perspective, cross-chain infrastructure is essential — it must connect blockchain networks spread across different economies to enable the free flow of value. As long as the blockchain remains a 'multi-chain world,' bridges will be needed to break down barriers between them.
Especially in the context of the rise of DeFi and on-chain applications, the demand for stablecoin cross-chain interactions will continue to be very strong. Because users often transfer funds from one chain to another to participate in borrowing, trading, or investment activities in specific ecosystems.
Kristen: What do you think about the current state of cross-chain stablecoin transfers?
Seun: I feel we are at a clear turning point. More and more users are starting to migrate from centralized services to decentralized protocols. The comparison of trading volumes between DEX (decentralized exchanges) and CEX (centralized exchanges) also shows that: the market share of DEX has been steadily increasing and now accounts for about 36% to 37% of the entire market.
While centralized exchanges have their advantages, such as familiarity and low entry barriers, as regulations tighten, KYC (Know Your Customer), and tax reporting requirements become stricter, more and more users are moving towards protocols that do not require permission or identity verification.
I believe this will also affect the choice of 'bridges': people do not want to submit identity information every time they make a transfer, nor do they want every step to be regulated or recorded. Therefore, decentralized bridges become a more attractive option.
Moreover, from a user experience perspective, many DEX experiences are now no worse than CEX. This trend will continue.
Kristen: Hearing you say that is uplifting; this round of market activity has indeed made more users active in decentralized applications.
Seun: That's right, we can clearly feel this change.
This is also related to many incidents of centralized exchanges collapsing, which have prompted people to rethink trust issues. After all, exchanges are 'crypto banks' — and our original intention in building the blockchain was to hope to no longer rely on a banking-style trust system.
As more and more people master blockchain knowledge, the popularity of decentralized applications will only accelerate.
Kristen: Besides stablecoins, I also want to discuss another recent hot trend — tokenized stocks. What role do you think bridges will play in this direction?
Seun: I believe that the circulation of real-world assets (RWA) also highly depends on bridge technology.
Recently I had a conversation with a digital asset leader from Swiss bank UBS. They are exploring issuing various financial products on-chain, such as tokenized ETFs, bonds, and index funds. These assets are currently mainly deployed on Ethereum, but they also hope to expand to more networks and reach more users.
To achieve this goal, bridges are essential infrastructure. They must rely on bridges to migrate assets from Ethereum to other chains, covering a wider user base.
So, whether it's stablecoins, tokenized stocks, or equity-type assets, as long as it involves cross-chain circulation, bridges will be the key support behind them.
Currently, you can see trading of tokenized stocks on some centralized platforms, like Bybit. But we are also gradually seeing more on-chain issuance cases, such as assets launched by Robinhood or X Token on Solana.
Although these assets can also circulate on centralized exchanges, their availability is limited by the platform. Once fully on-chain and combined with decentralized bridges, these restrictions will be broken, and asset accessibility will be significantly enhanced.
I think I am 51% engineer and 49% philosopher.
Kristen: We just talked a lot about technology and industry trends; how about we switch to a lighter topic now? I have prepared some easy questions.
For example, do you ever miss your life before entering the crypto industry? Those simpler, quieter days with less internet exposure?
Seun: To be honest, no. I don't miss that time.
Before entering the crypto industry, my life was quite passionless. At that time, I had no clear goals and lacked a sense of direction. Working for big companies to expand their market share, to be honest, I found that kind of life a bit sad.
And cryptocurrency is one of the most revolutionary technologies I've ever seen. It genuinely has the capability to promote decentralization and bring new opportunities to ordinary people. I even believe its impact on society may be more profound than that of artificial intelligence.
So I am very passionate about my work in the crypto industry, and I can assure you that I will continue to stick to it in the foreseeable future.
Kristen: Do you identify more as an engineer or as a philosopher?
Seun: I think I am 51% engineer and 49% philosopher.
I believe that the combination of both is very important. If there is only engineering without philosophical thinking, it is easy to create a centralized system that lacks value orientation; if there is only philosophy without practical implementation, it will ultimately remain empty talk on social media and cannot actually change the world.
So I feel like I am a 'healthy combination' — possessing both technical skills and philosophy-driven motivation.
Kristen: Have you ever experienced that moment late at night where you stare at the protocol code and suddenly realize, 'Humans are really crazy?'
Seun: Yes, too many! Hahaha.
I often spend time reviewing the code of other cross-chain bridge protocols. It was these moments that made me determined to rebuild a new, safer bridge myself.
As I said, if a protocol lacks philosophical design logic, it will either become reckless or may ultimately become harmful — even if the developer's original intention is not so. This situation of 'unintentionally building dangerous systems' is actually not uncommon in the industry.
It is this awareness that continues to drive me to engage in the development of Hyperbridge and makes me willing to deeply participate in the Polkadot project. I have always believed that protocols should be decentralized and must eliminate dependence on intermediaries. Systems that rely on intermediaries to function will not be stable in the long run.
Kristen: If you weren't working in blockchain or the crypto industry, what do you think you would be doing?
Seun: That's a very interesting question, I haven't really thought about it carefully.
But if I don't do encryption, I think I would get into robotics or automation, especially in engineering systems aimed at 'scalability.'
I am very interested in capacity expansion and process automation in manufacturing. I believe that making complex technologies replicable, popular, and affordable is key to driving social change.
So if I hadn't entered the blockchain industry, I would likely have chosen to work on robotics system development.
Kristen: Awesome! This interview was very informative and also brought a lot of insights. That's all for today's program. We will continue to follow your progress and that of Hyperbridge, and we hope to invite you back in the future.
Seun: Of course, of course! Kristen, it's always a pleasure chatting with you.
Kristen: Thank you for your participation!
Seun: Thank you, see you next time ~
Kristen: See you next time!
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffvVttdjxWA