When discussing the architecture design of a certain protocol, a key question always arises: why must data validation be done on an independent network? Can't applications handle their own validation?

In fact, this is not a functionality issue, but rather about how to most reasonably divide system responsibilities.

Off-chain data is almost always present in applications. Historical states, interaction records, large-scale content—these things are simply not feasible to put directly on the chain. If each application develops its own validation logic, it may seem feasible in the short term, but as the ecosystem grows explosively and complexity continues to increase, problems emerge. Fragmented efforts lead to chaotic standards, duplicated costs, and security boundaries can easily be breached.

From an architectural perspective, an independent validation layer can clearly define the trust boundaries. On-chain systems focus on final state confirmation and execution, while the independent network ensures that data has been validated before entering the on-chain logic. This division of labor prevents trust from scattering across various applications and significantly reduces risks caused by implementation discrepancies.

Especially in ecosystems with high concurrency and object-oriented management, this independence becomes even more critical. The faster applications expand, the higher the demand for the stability of underlying data infrastructure. If validation logic is too tightly coupled with applications, long-term system evolution becomes increasingly difficult.

From a long-term operational standpoint, an independent validation network is not an unnecessary burden but a necessary condition for scaling the system. Clear division of responsibilities allows each layer to function properly, and the overall complexity won't erode each other. Such a design makes the validation layer more like a fundamental component rather than an embellishment.