If you were puzzled when first encountering the concept of “chain abstraction,” you’re not alone.

— It seems important, with many projects and substantial funding all claiming to be the standard… yet its practical utility remains unclear. Is “chain abstraction” just another buzzword in the Web3 pipeline?

This article will delve into the concept from the ground up, aiming to extract valuable insights from the sea of ambiguity.

TL;DR:

• The goal of abstraction is to hide complexity. In the Web3 context, the level of abstraction often exceeds that of Web2, making it more challenging.
• Modularization lowers the barriers to constructing public blockchains, while chain abstraction involves restructuring blockchain relationships and improving user/developer experience.
• Differentiating cross-chain asset transfers, cross-chain communication, interoperability, and chain abstraction: a set of interconnected concepts centered on coordinating state changes (transactions) across multiple chains, though practical implementation often blurs these distinctions.
• Intent-based chain abstraction solutions are becoming popular architectures, with many component-based products gradually forming the final shape of chain abstraction.
• The discourse and progress around chain abstraction are still constrained by an infrastructure-first approach. For chain abstraction to evolve into a significant issue, it requires heightened on-chain activity, advances in modularization, and a growing base of users and developers.
• The future of chain abstraction is not a straightforward path and requires consideration of its impact on long-tail blockchains and exploration of non-DeFi applications.

What Is Chain Abstraction?

1. Is chain abstraction a real problem?
2. If so, what category of problems does it fall into?
3. What are the differences between cross-chain, interoperability, and chain abstraction?

Is Chain Abstraction a Real Problem?

— Not necessarily. The validity of a problem depends on its context, much like asking people 500 years ago about the energy crisis.

So, where does our discussion of chain abstraction come from?

Different perspectives might include keywords such as Ethereum roadmap, modularization, intent, and mass adoption… The most explanatory view currently seems to be that chain abstraction represents the latter half of modularization.

To understand this view, it’s essential to define chain abstraction.

In computer science, “abstraction” refers to the process of separating high-level operations and concepts from underlying processes, intending to simplify understanding by hiding complexity. For example, most Web2 users only need to know about browsers and ChatGPT, without needing to understand the underlying abstract content or concepts.

Similarly:

• Account Abstraction: Hides internal information such as blockchain account addresses, private keys, and mnemonic phrases to achieve a seamless user experience.
• Chain Abstraction: Hides internal information like consensus mechanisms, gas fees, and native tokens of various chains to achieve a seamless experience across chains.

In traditional software development, abstraction and modularization are closely related concepts. Abstraction defines the system’s layers and architecture, while modularization is the method for implementing this architecture. Specifically, each module represents a level of abstraction, and interactions between modules obscure their internal complexity, facilitating code expansion, reuse, and maintenance. Without abstraction, the boundaries between modules would become complex and difficult to manage.

Source: https://web.cs.ucla.edu/classes/winter12/cs111/scribe/3a/

It’s important to note that Web2 typically handles abstraction and modularization within closed or semi-closed ecosystems, with abstraction layers concentrated within a single platform or application. The environment is relatively controlled, and issues of cross-platform or cross-system compatibility are generally not required to be addressed. However, in the Web3 context, driven by the pursuit of decentralization and open ecosystems, the relationship between modularization and abstraction becomes more complex.

Currently, while modularization helps address abstraction issues within individual public blockchains and lowers the barriers to blockchain development, user and developer experience abstraction in a multi-chain landscape remains an area not fully covered by modularization. There is a notable island effect between different public blockchains and ecosystems, manifesting in terms of liquidity and the dispersion of developers and users. The concept of chain abstraction involves rearchitecting the relationships between blockchains to achieve connection, integration, and compatibility across multiple chains, as evidenced by Near’s article published earlier this year.

We can consider the urgency of chain abstraction as a real problem to be closely related to the following conditions:

• On-Chain Activity: Whether more dApps are bringing increased user activity on-chain.
• Progress in Modular Blockchains: Whether more active on-chain behavior is driving the development of additional rollups and app chains.
• Barriers to Entry for New Users and Developers: How much the current blockchain landscape impede the influx of new participants, focusing on the friction experienced during growth phases rather than periods of stagnation.

What Category of Problem Does Chain Abstraction Belong To?

Chain abstraction itself is an abstract concept with a higher level of narrative within Web3, which may partly explain why it appears multifaceted and somewhat elusive. Specifically, it is not a solution per se but rather a guiding philosophy.

Another example is Bitcoin today. After undergoing several halving events, dramatic price fluctuations, and the introduction of ETFs, Bitcoin has evolved beyond a mere technical solution or asset class. It has become a cross-temporal ideological system and industry totem, representing a series of core cryptographic values and will continue to guide innovation and development in the industry for the foreseeable future.

What are the Differences and Connections Between Cross-Chain, Interoperability, and Chain Abstraction?

We can understand cross-chain, interoperability, and chain abstraction through a spectrum from the concrete to the abstract. Although they form a subset of concepts centered on coordinating state changes (transactions) across different chains, they often overlap and blur in practical applications.

Applications and protocols related to cross-chain can generally be categorized into two types:

1. Cross-Chain Asset Transfer: Includes cross-chain bridges, cross-chain AMMs, cross-chain aggregators, etc.
2. Cross-Chain Communication: Includes protocols like LayerZero, Wormhole, Cosmos IBC, etc.

Asset transfers rely on message passing. The message-passing layer for cross-chain asset transfer applications typically consists of a set of on-chain smart contracts and state update logic. Abstracting this messaging functionality into a general, protocol-level solution is what cross-chain communication protocols aim to achieve.

Cross-chain communication protocols handle more complex cross-chain operations, such as governance, liquidity mining, NFT trading, token issuance, and game operations. Interoperability protocols build on this foundation, addressing deeper levels of data processing, consensus, and verification to ensure consistency and compatibility between different blockchains. In practice, these two concepts often overlap and can be used interchangeably depending on the context.

Chain abstraction encompasses blockchain interoperability but adds a layer of user and developer experience improvements. This is related to the emerging narrative of intent. The combination of intent and chain abstraction will be discussed further below.

What specific issues does chain abstraction encompass?

1. How can chain abstraction be implemented?
2. Why should we focus on the integration of chain abstraction and intent-based systems?

How to Achieve Chain Abstraction?

Different projects approach chain abstraction differently. Here, we categorize them into two schools: the classical school, which evolves from interoperability protocols and is closer to developer-side abstraction, and the intent-based school, which combines emerging intent architectures and focuses more on user-side abstraction.

The classical school’s history dates back to Cosmos and Polkadot, which predate the concept of chain abstraction. Newer entrants like OP Superchain and Polygon Aggregator are currently focusing on liquidity aggregation and interoperability within the Ethereum L2 ecosystem. Cross-chain communication protocol providers like LayerZero, Wormhole, and Axelar are also expanding to more chains, seeking broader adoption to enhance their network effects.

The intent-based school includes Layer 1 projects like Near and Particle Network, which aim to provide comprehensive chain abstraction solutions, as well as component-based projects that address specific issues, primarily within DeFi protocols, such as UniswapX, 1inch, and Across Protocol.

Whether from the classical or intent-based school, their core design focuses on secure and efficient cross-chain interactions, including but not limited to unified user interfaces, seamless dApp cross-chain functionality, and gas sponsorship and management.

Why Focus on the Integration of Chain Abstraction and Intent?

The proliferation of “intent-based xx protocols” has sparked significant interest. This section will explore the reasons and potential behind its emergence as a popular product architecture.

Similar to abstraction and modularity, intent is not a native Web3 concept. Intent recognition has been a topic in natural language processing for decades and has been extensively studied in human-computer dialogue.

In the context of Web3, research on intent is closely associated with the well-known Paradigm paper. Although similar design concepts have been reflected in products like CoWSwap, 1inch, and Telegram Bot, the core of the intent architecture was formally introduced in this paper—users need only specify their desired outcome without worrying about the process, ideally outsourcing the complex task execution to third parties. This aligns well with the user experience improvements that chain abstraction aims to address and provides a more concrete solution approach.

The market features various architectural classifications for chain abstraction. Notable among them is the CAKE framework (Chain Abstraction Key Elements) developed by Frontier Research. This framework integrates intent architecture and divides the elements of chain abstraction into the permission layer, solving layer, and settlement layer. Other frameworks, such as Everclear, have made adjustments to this structure by adding a clearing function between the solving layer and settlement layer.

Source: Frontier Research

Specifically:

• Permission Layer: The core is account abstraction, which serves as the user entry point for dAPPs, allowing users to specify their intents for quotes.
• Solver Layer: This typically consists of off-chain third-party solvers that fulfill user intents. These solvers compete for orders.
• Settlement Layer: After users approve transactions, mechanisms such as oracles and cross-chain bridges are invoked to ensure the transaction’s execution. Users receive the expected results, and solvers are compensated.

Solvers in the Solver Layer are off-chain third-party entities, often referred to as solvers, resolvers, searchers, fillers, takers, relayers, etc., across different protocols. Solvers typically need to stake assets as collateral to qualify for competing orders.

The process of using intent-based products is akin to placing a limit order. In cross-chain contexts, to expedite the fulfillment of user intents, solvers often provide upfront funding and charge a risk fee upon settlement (this model is similar to a short-term loan, where the loan term = blockchain state synchronization time and interest = service fee).

Comprehensive intent solutions, exemplified by Near, aim to integrate the permission, solving, and settlement layers into a unified infrastructure product. Currently, these solutions are in the early stages of proof of concept, making it challenging to directly observe and evaluate their effectiveness.

In contrast, component-based intent solutions represented by cross-chain DeFi protocols have already shown significant advantages over traditional cross-chain models (such as Lock & Mint, Burn & Mint). For example, Across Protocol’s flagship product, Across Bridge, leverages intent-based architecture to achieve top-tier speed, low cost, and fee capabilities among cross-chain bridges in the EVM ecosystem, with notable advantages in small-scale cross-chain scenarios.

Cross-chain speeds and fees for different products displayed by aggregator
Source: Jumper

Across Protocol vs. Stargate: Speed and Cost Comparison in L2-L1 Scenarios

Source: https://dune.com/sandman2797/across-vs-stargate-taxi-vs-bus-eth

Across Protocol has Higher Fee Capabilities (Source: DefiLlama)

According to the roadmap, Across Protocol is set to launch its cross-chain intent settlement layer in Phase 3. ERC-7683, proposed jointly by Uniswap Labs and Across Protocol, aims to lower the entry barriers for solvers through standardized intent expression and build a universal network for solvers. Many component-based products may gradually piece together the final form of chain abstraction.

What Are the Issues with Our Understanding and Practice of Chain Abstraction?

1. What problems has infra-centrism created?
2. What other questions are worth considering about chain abstraction?

What problems has infra-centrism created?

As leaders in interoperability protocols, Layerzero has raised $290 million, and Wormhole has raised $225 million. With FDV often reaching into the billions and low circulation volumes, their tokens have become emblematic of VC-backed projects criticized in this cycle, undermining confidence in the chain abstraction space.

Returning to the comic at the beginning of the article, chain abstraction projects each possess a technical stack and token standards. In a market environment lacking external growth, they are inevitably criticized as “air infrastructure.” The disparity in data before and after Layerzero’s airdrop has also led to skepticism about the true demand for “cross-chain communication.”

Significant Data Discrepancy Before and After Layerzero’s Airdrop

Source: https://dune.com/cryptoded/layerzero

On the ERC-7683 forum page, in response to criticisms that cross-chain asset transfer functions are too minor, not universal enough, and support too few ecosystems, developers have discussed the role of ERC standards. Advocates of minimalist ERCs argue that tool-level standards are sufficient to address current issues and can be combined with existing standards with relatively low resistance.

Given that the design philosophy of intent architecture is largely application-centric, “universal, full-stack, compatible” protocol standards can sometimes become “too vague and meaningless” or “too cumbersome to solve practical problems,” leading to a somewhat ironic situation—chain abstraction protocols designed to address fragmentation end up delivering fragmented solutions.

Source: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc-7683-cross-chain-intents-standard/19619/18

What Other Questions Are Worth Considering About Chain Abstraction?

• For new or long-tail chains, chain abstraction increases the difficulty of retaining TVL (similar to the impact of globalization on underdeveloped regions). What effect might this have on the adoption of chain abstraction?
• A study by Variant suggests that UniswapX will lead long-tail tokens towards AMMs, while mainstream tokens are increasingly filled by off-chain solvers. Is this the future trend for DEXs? Will a global solver layer be added on top of the global liquidity layer?
• What forms might intent-based product architectures take beyond DeFi protocols?
• Will chain abstraction become a major trend or a significant bubble after modularity?

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reproduced from [mintventures], and the copyright belongs to the original author [Lydia Wu], if you have any objection to the reprint, please contact Gate Learn Team, the team will handle it as soon as possible according to relevant procedures.
2. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article represent only the author’s personal views and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.