Author: HelloLydia13 Source: X, @HelloLydia13

1. Only the tail chain and application need chain abstraction, the head does not need it

The strong always become stronger, while the weak always remain weak. In the future, there will only be 1-2 chains with traffic, and other chains will die, so chain abstraction is unnecessary.

Second, the chain abstraction also abstracts the risk, which will bring security issues

Chain abstraction allows users to be unaware of the underlying chain interaction logic, and users may interact with unsafe dApps.

3. The chain abstraction does not fundamentally solve the problem of fragmentation.

At the end of the day, chain abstraction simply unifies the Liquidity experience from the user side, without fundamentally changing the fragmentation of the underlying blockchain.

We discuss one by one.

I. Only the tail chain and application need chain abstraction, the head does not.

We demonstrate the fallacy of this concept from two perspectives:

• The current situation is not "only the head chain and application have traffic".
• The future cannot be built on a single chain, nor will there be "only head chains and applications with traffic".

The current multi-chain ecosystem is not "only the head chain and applications have traffic, so there is no need for chain abstraction".

It is important to clarify that the perception of social media traffic by C-end users is not equivalent to the actual operation of the chain.

The real volume of the popular Base chain started in March, and it has only an 8-month history. From the number of blobs submitted to the Ethereum, the advantage of Base is not overwhelming.

2. From the perspective of TVL, some L2 solutions that are not currently perceived by C-end users, such as Arbitrum and Mantle, have accumulated a large amount of TVL, and ChainAbstractionLayer can truly utilize this accumulated Liquidity.

3. From the perspective of monthly active users, Solana is far ahead, with 9 public chains with over 5 million monthly active users, TON and Aptos both surpassing Ethereum.

4. From the perspective of cost, the top 5 are Ethereum, Tron, Bitcoin, Solana and BNB, even beyond the top 10, Polygon, Blast, TON, Starknet can generate an annual revenue of 20-30 million USD, thinking that these chains have "no traffic" is unreasonable.

In the face of the broken multi-chain status quo, there are two ways of "defragmentation":

• One believes that multi-chain is the future, and chain abstraction helps solve the problem of fragmentation, allowing users to freely navigate between multiple chains.
• One believes that the single chain is the future, and all the current small fragments will perish, so resources should be concentrated to develop a strong L1.

It is obvious that the future of a single chain is untenable.

1. The scaling of any individual chain is not infinite. If you have confidence in the future of Web3, you will not naively believe that the entire Web3 can be built on a single state machine.

2. There is no perfect chain, and there is always a trade-off among the blockchain The Impossible Triangle, and the advantages of different chains are relative to the scenarios.

3. Relying on a single chain = centralized risk, if there is a problem, the entire ecosystem may be seriously affected.

4. A single, centralized ecosystem is a stifling and departure from the spirit of innovation and Decentralization.

In the future, it is also impossible to have only head chains and applications with traffic, so chain abstraction is not needed.

1. The increasingly diverse L2 ecosystem: Currently, L2 Beat has included over 100 L2s, with over 80 more waiting to go live. Unichain, Movement, and others will also make their debut, and we cannot predict whether the top three L2s a year from now will still be the same as today.

2. The Rise of New EVM L1: Emerging parallel EVM L1s such as Monad, SEI, etc. have gained widespread follow and capital favor due to their scalability advantages. Berachain has also attracted a large number of community members.

3. Non-EVM ecosystem activity: In Solana, there are EVM-compatible L2 projects like Sonic. Sui and Aptos, the Move language, are highly favored for their technological innovations, and the ecosystem is also starting to take shape.

4. The deployment threshold for Appchain continues to drop: @AndreCronjeTech once wrote that the complexity of building L2/Appchain was underestimated, while @ItsAlwaysZonny and @0xkatz in the comments section were able to deploy an andrechain in just over ten minutes and said that the monthly operating cost was only $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.

2. The chain abstraction also abstracts the risk, which will bring security issues

The answer to this question includes three key points:

• Under the abstracted transaction logic of the chain, users retain the right to know the underlying interaction logic of each transaction.
• The starting point of chain abstraction is not to interfere with the user's decision to interact with any dApp, but to make the decisions made by the user more seamless and efficiently executed.
• There are many solutions that can help users determine whether or not to trust dApps.

Firstly, chain abstraction does not deprive users of the right to know, or conceal underlying interactions. Users can check the details of every transaction at any time.

Secondly, chain abstraction will not increase the willingness and frequency of interaction between users and so-called insecure dApps for no reason.

One fact is: when users plan to use a dApp, they default to the fact that "the dApp will choose a trusted chain and generate trusted interactions".

It is the user's trust that drives them to make decisions to interact with dApps. The chain abstraction does not interfere with user decisions, but only improves interaction efficiency after user decisions.

So the core of the security issue lies in how users make decisions, rather than how to execute decisions. There are already many solutions to help users consider and decide whether to trust a certain dApp, and the risk control layer of the chain abstraction scheme is one of them.

3. The chain abstraction does not fundamentally solve the problem of fragmentation.

The raising of this issue has similarities with the chain chauvinism of large orders. In other words, this is not an abstract problem of the chain, but rather the illusion of the questioner.

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

For users, the most direct problem brought by fragmentation is the need to manually bridge between multiple chains, prepare different gas Tokens, and frequently manage balances between multiple chains.

And ChainAbstractionLayer has already solved this problem, allowing users to interact with any Token balance on any chain and any dApp, and any on-chain Liquidity in purchasing power is equivalent.

For developers, there are two approaches to solving the problem of fragmentation:

1. Full chain deployment of Smart Contracts, but the fragmentation of user experience still exists.

2. Only deployed on one on-chain, but can be accessed by users of any chain, and can seamlessly introduce Liquidity from other chains, which is the solution of chain abstraction.

So blockchain abstraction can already solve the problem of fragmentation from both the user side and the developer side.

As for the so-called completely unified underlying blockchain Liquidity, it is not feasible. There are fundamental differences between different blockchains, such as Consensus Mechanism, data structure, and economic model. It is impossible to achieve atomic equivalence. Otherwise, it will return to the problem of building the entire Web3 on a single chain.