Hot word analysis: Nine misunderstandings around chain abstraction

Recently, chain abstraction has been widely used in Chinese and English.CommunityAs the discussion heats up, founders of projects such as Uniswap and Safe have also expressed their views on this. @HelloLydia13The chain abstraction series of articles summarizes the nine major misunderstandings surrounding chain abstraction.

Before we get started, let me first define Chain Abstraction in one sentence — a user experience that avoids having to manually interact with multiple chains.

1. Chain abstraction = cross-chain bridge?

The chain abstraction is completely different from the underlying logic of the cross-chain bridge.

• A cross-chain bridge is essentially an additional tool that users have to use in order to achieve a certain interaction goal.

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

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

2. Chain Abstraction = Multiple Chainswallet?

Chain abstraction and multi-chainwalletThe biggest difference is liquidity integration.

多链钱包只是在用户入口处起到一个“聚合” 的作用，用户在使用 dApp 时还是要手动去切换不同的链。

Chain abstraction truly “integrates” multi-chain liquidity, because the assets of any chain owned by the user are equivalent in terms of purchasing power, and can also be used in any chain.TokenTo pay gas, users only need to focus on interacting with the dApp itself.

In summary:

• Multi-chain wallet → A wallet that allows you to switch chains more conveniently to manage assets.

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

3. Chain abstraction = account abstraction?

Here’s an analogy from a non-technical perspective:

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

• Chain abstraction is like finding a hammer when there is a nail. It solves a very straightforward problem in the industry today: there are too many chains and the infrastructure is too fragmented.

The problem scenarios of the visible chain abstraction are clear, which is the most scarce in the current Web3, because only real demand can bring about the actual adoption rate andTokenvalue capture capabilities.

4. Chain abstraction = intention?

Chain abstraction and intent are in a completely different dimension.

• Broad intention is still a vague concept, while chain abstraction is a mature track with clear concept definition, problem scenarios, research framework and track map.

• Narrow intent 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.

5. 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 they can be used) 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 "flowing".

• For public chains: new public chains no longer need to acquire 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 just look at the total account balance and access it at any time.

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

6. Chain abstraction gas is very high?

There are two ways to answer this question:

• 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.

• Whether additional gas is added: 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, but this part is very, very low compared to external chains and can be almost ignored.

In addition, chain abstraction also allows projects 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 (may be lower in the future), but the experience is obviously better.

7. Chain abstraction brings interactionSafetyquestion?

There are three ways to answer this question:

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

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

• Are additionalSafetyRisk: Depends on different chain abstraction solutions and dApps. A well-designed chain abstraction solution can remain completely 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 subtle and efficient. In this process, the user's rights are not sacrificed. A well-designed chain abstraction solution is verySafetyof.

8. Anyway, there are only one or two head chains with traffic, so chain abstraction is unnecessary?

The current situation is not that “only the top chains have traffic”. The social media traffic perception of C-end users is not equal to the actual operation status of the chain.

In addition to Base and Solana, some C-end users are not aware of L2 For example, Arbitrum and Mantle have accumulated a large amount of TVL; TON and Aptos have monthly active users that exceed Ethereum; Polygon, Blast, and Starknet can also generate $20-30 million in fee income per 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 infinite and will face serious risk concentration problems, so it is impossible to build the entire Web3 on a state machine.

The reason why “only the head chain and applications have traffic” in the future is that we have seen the increasing diversity within the Ethereum ecosystem. L2 Ecosystem (Unichain, Movement), the strong rise of new EVM L1 (Monad, Sei, Berachain), the activeness of non-EVM ecology (Sonic, Sui, Aptos), and the continuous reduction of Appchain deployment threshold (monthly operating costs as low as US$1,000).

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

9. Chain abstraction does not fundamentally solve the fragmentation problem?

We define the solution to the fragmentation problem based on two audience groups.

• 对于用户来说，碎片化带来的最直接的问题就是：需要在多链之间手动桥接，需要准备不同的 gas Token，需要频繁在多链之间管理余额。链抽象已经解决了这个问题。

• For developers, there are two ways to solve the fragmentation problem: 1) Full-chain deployment intelligencecontract, but the fragmentation of user experience still exists. 2) Deployed on only one chain, but accessible to users of any chain, and can seamlessly introduce liquidity from other chains, this is the chain abstraction solution.

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

Completely unified bottom layerBlockchainLiquidity is not feasible. DifferentBlockchainThere are fundamental differences between them, and it is impossible to achieve atomic equivalence.

Summarize

There are many different opinions on chain abstraction. Different groups have different focuses when talking about chain abstraction. This may be why @HelloLydia13First, I chose to clarify the misunderstanding about chain abstraction from the opposite side. Only by clarifying the source first can the truth become 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.

The article comes from the Internet:Hot word analysis: Nine misunderstandings around chain abstraction

Related recommendations: Dialogue with Initia Lianchuang: Influenced by Apple’s design concept, simplifying the user’s on-chain experience

Stan explained the design philosophy of Initia, emphasizing that their initial concept was to take into account the mobility of users between different applications. Compiled & compiled by Xiaobai Navigation Coderworld Guests: Stan Liu, Initia Co-founder; Ezaan Mangalji, Initia Co-founder Host: De…