User clicks “Stake 500 USDC” they expect one outcome.
What they get instead:
switch chain → find gas → bridge → swap → approve → stake → track 3 txs.
These aren’t UX bugs. But consequences of one architectural constraint.
Most multichain apps are built on chain‑local state + chain‑bound execution.
So UX fragments by design 👇
Every chain maintains its own isolated:
- balances
- contract storage
- liquidity
- fee market
- execution context
So your “single app” is actually N different apps, each running against a different local state.
These 5 issues aren't UI flaws, they're physics under today's architecture:
- Chain-specific UX — Liquidity, quotes, and even features differ per chain → unpredictable results.
- Forced network switching — Tx must execute inside a chain's rules → user is forced to change context.
- Fragmented fees — Each chain has its own gas token + pricing → "wrong token" errors.
- Bridge → Swap → Stake — User becomes the routing engine, manually navigating state islands.
- Local wallet logic — App state ≠ wallet state ≠ RPC state → "works on my machine" failures.
You can redesign the UI forever, the architecture won't cooperate.
Chain-specific UX: the most visible symptom
Even before network switching or gas issues, users feel this one first:
the same action behaves differently on each chain.
Because every chain holds its own liquidity, balances, storage, and routing paths, apps quietly drift into N different versions of themselves.
- deeper pool on Chain A
- empty pool on Chain B
- different slippage on Chain C
- feature missing entirely on Chain D
One UI → four different realities → zero predictability.
Why network switching exists?
Everyone blames wallet UX.
It’s not the wallet.
It’s the fact that verification + execution must happen inside one chain’s domain:
- the signer binds to a chain
- the txn must follow that chain’s rules
- the state it touches lives only on that chain
So “switch network” is really:
→ switch verification domain
→ switch execution context
→ switch state machine
The Fix: Universal Verification Layer (UVL)
Sign once → verify once → not bound to a chain.
Why fees feel chaotic?
A single “Stake 100 USDC” intent touches multiple fee systems:
- different gas tokens
- different L2/L1 pricing
- different DA costs
- different mempools
Users end up needing gas on 2–3 chains for one outcome.
The UX feels random because the underlying fee markets are random.
The Fix: Fee Abstraction + Solver Model
User sees one all-in cost.
Solvers handle gas routing.
Apps can sponsor when needed.
Conversion killer: “Bridge → Swap → Stake”
This flow exists because you’re asking the user to manually cross isolated states:
bridge → wait → swap → approve → stake → reconcile
Each hop = new chain context, new gas token, new failure point.
This is where users drop.
The Fix: UEA (Universal Execution Architecture)
UEA treats the entire flow as one intent, not a sequence of user-driven hops.
Human-readable intent:
“Stake 100 USDC with 0.5% slippage, deadline 10 min.”
UEA coordinates the cross-chain work under the hood.
Why “Local Wallet Logic” fails?
Wallets today compute chain context locally:
- active network
- RPC endpoint
- pending tx tracking
- cached balances
- event subscriptions
Different devices = different behaviors = unpredictable UX.
The Fix: Shared State + Unified Receipts
Move session state + execution tracking off the device and into a shared execution model.
The app no longer depends on the fragility of per-device chain context.
Everything maps back to one idea:
UX follows state. Fix the state model and the UX collapses to one chain-level simplicity.
Push Chain makes multichain apps behave like single-chain apps, not by hiding fragmentation, but by eliminating the architecture that causes it.
If you want to explore the primitives mentioned above UVL, UEA, shared-state, fee abstraction.
push.org/docs is the best place to start.