Discussions surrounding chain abstraction have seen a surge in popularity recently in both Chinese and English-speaking blockchain communities. Founders from projects like Uniswap and Safe have weighed in with their perspectives. Biteye, drawing on researcher @HelloLydia13’s series of articles on chain abstraction, has summarized the nine prevalent misconceptions about this concept.

Source link to @HelloLydia13 on X

Before diving into the details, here’s a one-sentence definition of chain abstraction:

Chain Abstraction refers to a user experience that eliminates the need for manual interaction with multiple blockchains.

Chain Abstraction = Cross-Chain Bridge?

No, the underlying logic of chain abstraction is fundamentally different from that of cross-chain bridges.

A cross-chain bridge is essentially an additional tool that users must rely on to achieve specific interaction goals. In contrast, chain abstraction removes this extra layer of complexity, enabling users to directly utilize their entire on-chain balance for activities like interacting with dApps or making transfers—without any sense of “crossing” between chains.

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

Is Chain Abstraction the Same as a Multi-Chain Wallet?

The biggest difference between chain abstraction and a multi-chain wallet lies in liquidity integration.

• A multi-chain wallet functions as an aggregation tool at the user entry point. However, users must still manually switch between different chains when interacting with dApps.
• Chain abstraction, on the other hand, genuinely integrates multi-chain liquidity. This means that assets on any chain are equivalent in terms of purchasing power. Users can even pay for gas fees using any token. As a result, users only need to focus on their interactions with the dApp itself, without worrying about the underlying chain.

In summary:

• Multi-Chain Wallet → A wallet that makes switching between chains easier for asset management.
• Chain Abstraction → Skips the chain-switching step entirely, directly managing assets and enabling seamless dApp interaction.

Is Chain Abstraction the Same as Account Abstraction?

To simplify the distinction:

• Account abstraction is like holding a hammer and searching for nails. It’s a supply-side solution proposed by the Ethereum Foundation to upgrade account structures through technical standards (e.g., ERC-4337, EIP-3074, EIP-7702, EIP-7560).
• Chain abstraction is like identifying a nail and then finding the right hammer. It addresses a straightforward issue in the current industry: too many chains and fragmented infrastructure.

The problem chain abstraction solves is clear-cut, which is especially rare in today’s Web3 landscape. Only by addressing genuine needs can projects gain adoption, and tokens capture tangible value.

Is Chain Abstraction the Same as Intent?

No, chain abstraction and intent operate on completely different levels.

• In its broad sense, intent remains a vague concept.
• Chain abstraction, by contrast, is a mature field with clearly defined concepts, problem scenarios, research frameworks, and a structured roadmap for development.

In a narrow sense, intent focuses on technical details, while chain abstraction is a more high-level concept designed to serve any form of dApp.

Intent can work alongside account abstraction and interoperability protocols as a key technology for realizing chain abstraction.

Is Chain Abstraction Just a UX Optimization?

No, chain abstraction is not merely a user experience (UX) optimization. It fundamentally transforms the traditional TVL (Total Value Locked) model into a fluid, real-time multi-chain ecosystem.

Traditional TVL Model:

Static, asynchronous, and non-real-time.

Users must pre-transfer assets to a specific chain before using them.

Chain Abstraction Model:

Dynamic, synchronous, and real-time.

Assets can be accessed and utilized anytime, anywhere.

This fundamentally redefines the concept of liquidity by making multi-chain liquidity truly “flow.”

Implications of Chain Abstraction

For Public Blockchains:

New chains will no longer need to pre-acquire or lock TVL.

They can focus directly on specific use cases like payments, gaming, or trading from the outset.

For Users:

The concept of multi-chain asset distribution will disappear.

Users won’t need to deposit funds onto individual chains; they can simply access their total account balance and use assets seamlessly.

For Developers:

Developing products within isolated, siloed ecosystems by “reinventing the wheel” will become obsolete.

Developers will need to innovate genuinely to stand out.

Does Chain Abstraction Result in High Gas Costs?

This question can be answered from two perspectives:

1. Does it increase the transaction costs on individual chains? No. The gas cost for chain abstraction transactions on each chain is the same as the cost of users manually moving assets between chains.
2. Does it add extra gas costs? This depends on the specific chain abstraction solution and the dApp.
   • For example, in the case of Particle Network, the total gas users pay includes the gas for the underlying L1 chain. However, this cost is significantly lower than that for external chains—almost negligible.
   • Furthermore, chain abstraction allows project teams to subsidize gas. Some projects, by optimizing underlying interactions (e.g., introducing clearing layers or transaction bundling), may even reduce gas costs.

Does Chain Abstraction Introduce Interaction Security Issues?

This question can also be addressed from three perspectives:

1. Does it interfere with user decisions? No. Chain abstraction does not interfere with user decisions; it only enhances the efficiency of interactions after a decision is made.
2. Does it deprive users of their right to know or control? No. Under chain abstraction, users retain full visibility into the underlying interaction logic of every transaction. They also maintain sole control over their assets on different chains.
3. Does it introduce additional security risks? This depends on the specific chain abstraction solution and the dApp. Well-designed chain abstraction systems can maintain decentralization and transparency, ensuring security.

Only a Few Top Chains Have Traffic, So Is Chain Abstraction Unnecessary?

This is not the case. The perception of traffic by end-users on social media does not align with the actual operational status of chains.

Aside from Base and Solana, some Layer 2s like Arbitrum and Mantle, which are less visible to end-users, have accumulated significant TVL. TON and Aptos have monthly active users exceeding Ethereum. Chains like Polygon, Blast, and Starknet generate $20–30 million in annual fee revenue. It is unreasonable to say these chains “have no traffic.”

The future cannot be built on a single chain, nor will “only top chains have traffic.”

A single-chain future is impossible because the scalability of any single chain is inherently limited. It would also face severe risk concentration issues, making it unfeasible to base the entire Web3 ecosystem on one state machine.

The reason why the future will not only belong to top chains and applications is evidenced by the increasingly diverse Layer 2 ecosystem within Ethereum (e.g., Unichain and Movement), the strong rise of new EVM-compatible Layer 1s (e.g., Monad, Sei, Berachain), the active growth of non-EVM ecosystems (e.g., Sonic, Sui, Aptos), and the continuously lowering deployment barriers for appchains (monthly operating costs as low as $1,000).

We are facing an irreversible multi-chain future, and the arrival of chain abstraction is not subject to anyone’s individual will.

Chain abstraction hasn’t fundamentally solved the fragmentation problem?

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

• For users, the most direct problems caused by fragmentation are: The need to manually bridge assets between multiple chains. The need to prepare different gas tokens. Frequently managing balances across multiple chains. Chain abstraction has already solved these issues.
• For developers, there are two approaches to solving the fragmentation problem: Deploy smart contracts on all chains, but the fragmented user experience persists. Deploy on a single chain, but allow access from users on any chain and seamlessly integrate liquidity from other chains. This is the solution provided by chain abstraction.

Thus, chain abstraction can already solve the fragmentation problem for both users and developers.

Completely unifying liquidity across blockchains is infeasible. Fundamental differences exist between blockchains, making atomic equivalence impossible.

Summary

The understanding of chain abstraction varies widely, with different groups emphasizing different aspects. This may explain why @HelloLydia13 chose to start by clarifying common misconceptions about chain abstraction. By addressing these misunderstandings, a clearer understanding of the truth emerges.

Unlike purely speculative “hype narratives,” chain abstraction represents a tangible need, a well-defined concept, and a rapidly growing field. We believe chain abstraction will ultimately benefit everyone and drive the next wave of innovation in the industry.

💡 Risk Disclaimer: The above is shared for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Readers should comply with local laws and regulations.

Disclaimer:

1. This article is a repost from [Biteye], with copyright belonging to the original author [Viee]. If there are objections to this repost, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute investment advice.
3. The Gate Learn team translated the article into other languages. Copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited unless mentioned.