Hot word analysis: Nine misunderstandings around chain abstraction

Author: Biteye core contributor Viee

Recently, the discussion of chain abstraction in the Chinese and English communities has been heating up, and the founders of projects such as Uniswap and Safe have also expressed their views on this. Biteye combined with the chain abstraction series of articles by researcher @HelloLydia13 to summarize the nine major misunderstandings surrounding chain abstraction.

https://x.com/HelloLydia13

Before starting the main text, let me define chain abstraction in one sentence - a user experience that is free from manual interaction with multiple chains.

01 Chain abstraction = cross-chain bridge?

Chain abstraction is completely different from the underlying logic of cross-chain bridges.

Cross-chain bridges are essentially tools that users have to use in order to achieve a certain interactive goal.

Chain abstraction removes this additional obstacle, allowing users to directly use the entire on-chain balance to complete dApp use or transfer, etc. - Users no longer have the concept of "cross".

In this sense, chain abstraction can be regarded as the end of cross-chain bridges.

02 Chain abstraction = multi-chain wallet?

The biggest difference between chain abstraction and multi-chain wallet is liquidity integration.

Multi-chain wallet only plays a role of "aggregation" at the user entrance, and users still have to manually switch different chains when using dApp.

Chain abstraction truly "integrates" multi-chain liquidity, because the assets of any chain owned by the user are equivalent from the perspective of purchasing power, and any token can be used to pay gas, so users only need to focus on the interaction with the dApp itself.

In summary:

• Multi-chain wallet → A wallet that can more conveniently switch chains to do asset management.

• Chain abstraction → Skip the chain and directly manage assets and interact with dApp.

03 Chain abstraction = account abstraction?

Let’s use a non-technical perspective as an analogy:

• Account abstraction is like looking for a nail with a hammer, which is the established technical upgrade of the account structure by the Ethereum Foundation from the supply side (ERC-4337, EIP-3074, EIP-7702, EIP-7560).

• Chain abstraction is like looking for a hammer after finding a nail, which solves a very straightforward problem in the current industry: too many chains and too fragmented infrastructure.

It can be seen that the problem scenario of chain abstraction is clear, which is the most scarce in the current Web3, because only real demand can bring about the actual adoption rate of track projects and the value capture ability of tokens.

04 Chain abstraction = intention?

Chain abstraction and intention are in completely different dimensions.

Broad intention is still a vague concept, while chain abstraction is a mature track, with clear concept definitions, problem scenarios, research frameworks and track maps.

Narrow intention focuses on technical details, while chain abstraction is a more high-level concept that can serve any form of dApp.

Intent can be used as a key technology to achieve chain abstraction together with account abstraction and interoperability protocol.

05 Chain abstraction = UX optimization?

Chain abstraction is not a simple user experience optimization. It fundamentally transforms the traditional TVL model (solidified, asynchronous and non-real-time, requiring assets to be transferred to a specific chain in advance before use) into a fluid, real-time multi-chain ecosystem (assets can be used anytime, anywhere).

This basically redefines the concept of liquidity - making multi-chain liquidity truly "flow".

• For public chains:New public chains no longer need to obtain and lock TVL in advance, but can focus on specific businesses such as payment, games, and transactions from the beginning.

• For users:The concept of multi-chain asset distribution will no longer exist, and there is no need to deposit money on each chain. You can use it at any time by looking at the total account balance.

• For developers:It will not be feasible to "reinvent the wheel" to develop products in a closed and isolated ecosystem. There must be real innovation.

06 Chain abstraction gas is very high?

This question can be answered from two aspects:

• Does it increase the transaction costs on the original chains: No.The cost of chain abstraction transactions on each chain is the same as the cost of users manually moving assets to each chain.

• Does it add extra gas:It depends on different chain abstraction solutions and dApps. Taking Pariticle Network as an example, the total gas paid by users will include the gas paid to its underlying L1, butthis part is very, very low compared to external chains and can be almost ignored.

In addition, chain abstraction also allows project parties to subsidize gas. Some projects may be able to reduce gas costs by optimizing underlying interactions (such as introducing a clearing layer, transaction packaging, etc.).

In summary: The cost is almost the same (it may be lower in the future), but the experience is obviously better.

07 Will chain abstraction bring interactive security issues?

This question can be answered from three aspects:

• Does it interfere with user decisions: No. Chain abstraction does not interfere with user decisions, but only improves the interaction efficiency after the user makes a decision.

• Does it deprive users of the right to know and control: No. Under the transaction logic of chain abstraction, users have the right to know the underlying interaction logic of each transaction, and users still have the sole control over assets on different chains.

• Whether additional security risks are introduced:Depends on different chain abstraction solutions and dApps. A well-designed chain abstraction solution can remain decentralized and transparent.

In summary, the starting point of chain abstraction is not to interfere with the user's decision on which dApp to interact with, but to make the user's decision more imperceptible and more efficient. In this process, the user's rights are not sacrificed. A well-designed chain abstraction solution is very safe.

08 Anyway, only one or two head chains have traffic, so chain abstraction is unnecessary?

The current situation is not "only the head chain has traffic". The social media traffic perception of C-end users is not equal to the actual operation of the chain.

In addition to Base and Solana, some L2s that are not currently perceived by C-end users, such as Arbitrum, Mantle, etc., have accumulated a large amount of TVL; the monthly active users of TON and Aptos have exceeded Ethereum; Polygon, Blast, and Starknet can also generate 20-30 million US dollars in fee income a year. It is unreasonable to think that these chains have "no traffic".

The future cannot be built on a single chain, nor will "only the head chain have traffic".

The reason why a single-chain future is impossible is that the expansion of a single chain cannot be unlimited, and it will face serious risk concentration problems, so it is impossible to build the entire Web3 on a state machine.

In the future, "only the head chain and applications have traffic" because we have seen the increasingly diverse L2 ecosystem (Unichain, Movement) within the Ethereum ecosystem, the strong rise of the new EVM L1 (Monad, Sei, Berachain), the active non-EVM ecosystem (Sonic, Sui, Aptos), and the continued reduction of the threshold for Appchain deployment (monthly operating costs as low as $1,000).

In summary, we are facing an irreversible multi-chain future, and the arrival of chain abstraction is not subject to any personal will.

09 Chain abstraction does not fundamentally solve the fragmentation problem?

We define the solution to the fragmentation problem from the perspective of two audience groups.

• For users, the most direct problem caused by fragmentation is: the need to manually bridge between multiple chains, the need to prepare different gas tokens, and the need to frequently manage balances between multiple chains. Chain abstraction has solved this problem.

• For developers, there are two ways to solve the fragmentation problem: 1) Deploy smart contracts on the entire chain, but the user-side experience is still fragmented. 2) Deploy on only one chain, but can be accessed by users of any chain, and can seamlessly introduce liquidity from other chains. This is the solution of chain abstraction.

So chain abstraction can solve the fragmentation problem from both the user side and the developer side.

It is not feasible to completely unify the underlying blockchain liquidity. There are fundamental differences between different blockchains, and it is impossible to achieve atomic equivalence.

10 Conclusion

There are many different opinions on the understanding of chain abstraction. Different groups have their own focus when talking about chain abstraction. This may be why @HelloLydia13 first chose to clarify the misunderstanding about chain abstraction from the opposite side. Only by correcting the source first can the truth become clearer and clearer.

In summary, unlike pure "air narrative", chain abstraction is a track with real needs, clear definitions, and rapid development. We believe that chain abstraction will eventually benefit everyone and lead the next wave of innovation in the industry.