Chain Abstraction: A New Understanding Framework

If you feel confused when you first encounter the concept of "chain abstraction", you are not alone. This seemingly important and highly regarded concept, with numerous projects and hot funding, often leaves people unsure of its purpose. This article will start from the concept, return to the fundamental questions, and attempt to provide a clear framework for this abstract idea.

Key Points Overview:

• The purpose of abstraction is to hide complexity, and the level of abstraction in Web3 is often higher than that of Web2, making it more difficult (.
• Modularization lowers the threshold for building public chains, while chain abstraction involves the restructuring of public chain relationships and the improvement of user/developer experience.
• Cross-chain asset transfer, cross-chain communication, interoperability, and chain abstraction: a set of related concepts centered around coordinating state modifications across different chains ) transactions (, but often overlap in practical applications ).
• Intent-based chain abstraction solutions are becoming a popular architecture, and multiple component-class products may gradually build up the final form of chain abstraction.
• The current discussions and developments in the industry regarding chain abstraction have not yet escaped the excessive focus on infrastructure. For chain abstraction to be established as a practical issue, it requires on-chain activity, modular progress, and the involvement of new users and developers.
• The future development of blockchain abstraction is not smooth sailing; it requires consideration of the impact on small public chains and the exploration of applications in non-financial fields.

What kind of problems does chain abstraction address?

Is chain abstraction a real problem?

Not necessarily. The existence of a problem requires a specific context, just as it would be inappropriate to ask ancient people about their views on the energy crisis.

Currently, a more reasonable view is that chain abstraction is the next stage of modular development.

To understand this point, it is necessary to explain the definition of chain abstraction.

In computer science, "abstraction" refers to the process of separating high-level operations and concepts from underlying processes, with the aim of simplifying understanding by hiding complexity. For example, most internet users only need to know how to use browsers and smart assistants, without needing to be aware of the underlying abstractions.

Similarly:

• Account Abstraction: Hiding internal information of blockchain accounts such as addresses, private keys, and mnemonic phrases to achieve seamless account usage.
• Chain abstraction: Hiding the internal information of each chain such as consensus mechanisms, transaction fees, native tokens, etc., to achieve a seamless experience on the chain.

It is worth noting that Web2 typically abstracts and modularizes within closed or semi-closed ecosystems, with the abstraction level concentrated within a single platform or application, resulting in a more controllable environment that usually does not require addressing compatibility issues across platforms or systems. However, in the context of Web3, due to the pursuit of decentralization and open ecosystems, the relationship between modularization and abstraction is more complex.

Currently, it seems that while modularization helps to address the abstraction issues within a single public chain and lowers the barriers to building public chains, the user/developer experience abstraction in a multi-chain landscape is an area that modularization has not fully covered. There are obvious island effects between different public chains and ecosystems, manifested in the dispersion of liquidity, developers, and users. The proposal of chain abstraction includes a restructuring of the relationships between public chains to achieve connection, integration, and compatibility among multiple chains.

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

• On-chain activity: Are there more decentralized applications bringing more user on-chain activity?
• Progress of Modular Blockchain: Has more active on-chain behavior driven the construction of more scaling solutions and application-specific chains?
• Barriers for new users and developers: To what extent does the current blockchain environment hinder the influx of new users and developers ###, pointing to resistance in the upward trend rather than blaming the stagnant state (.

What category of problem does chain abstraction belong to?

Chain abstraction itself is an abstract concept, and the narrative level within Web3 is relatively high-dimensional, which may partly explain why chain abstraction presents a comprehensive and even elusive appearance. Specifically, it is not a concrete solution but rather a guiding ideology.

Another example is the current Bitcoin, which has undergone multiple halving events, significant rises and falls, and the listing of ETFs. Bitcoin is no longer just a technical solution or asset class; it has become a philosophical system and industry symbol that transcends time, representing a series of core values in cryptocurrency, and it will continue to guide innovation and development in the industry for the foreseeable future.

What are the similarities and differences between cross-chain, interoperability, and chain abstraction?

We can also understand cross-chain, interoperability, and chain abstraction on a spectrum from the concrete to the abstract. Morphologically, they are a set of related concepts centered around coordinating state modifications across different chains ) transactions (, but in practical use, there are often overlaps.

![Taking Problems as Methods: A New Framework for Understanding Chain Abstractions])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-37bee837b65c11feda8cdfc6d6b4cf02.webp###

Cross-chain related applications and protocols can be roughly divided into two categories:

• Cross-chain asset transfer: cross-chain bridges, cross-chain automated market makers, cross-chain aggregators, etc.
• Cross-chain communication: certain cross-chain protocols, etc.

The transfer of assets also relies on message passing. The messaging layer of cross-chain asset transfer applications generally consists of a set of on-chain smart contracts and state update logic. Abstracting this messaging functionality into a generic, protocol-level solution is the cross-chain communication protocol.

Cross-chain communication protocols can handle more complex cross-chain operations, such as governance, liquidity mining, non-fungible token trading, token issuance, and gaming operations. Interoperability protocols take this a step further, involving deeper data processing, consensus, and verification, ensuring consistency and compatibility between different blockchains at the blockchain system level. However, in practical use, these two concepts often complement each other and can be used interchangeably depending on the context.

The essence of chain abstraction includes the interoperability of blockchains, but the use context adds a layer of experience improvement for users and developers, which is not unrelated to the narrative of intent that has emerged in this cycle.

What specific issues does chain abstraction contain?

How to achieve chain abstraction?

Different projects have varying understandings and entry points regarding chain abstraction. Here, we categorize them into the traditional school, which evolves from interoperability protocols and is closer to developer-end abstraction, and the intentional school, which combines emerging intent architectures and places more emphasis on user-end abstraction.

The history of the traditional camp can be traced back to certain cross-chain ecosystems, which were born long before the abstract concept of chains. Some emerging scaling solutions, as latecomers, are currently focused on liquidity aggregation and interoperability within a specific public chain ecosystem. Some projects that originated from cross-chain communication protocols are also expanding to more chains in order to attract more customer adoption, aiming to enhance their own network effects.

The Intent派 includes certain public chains dedicated to providing comprehensive solutions for chain abstraction, as well as component classes that start from solving specific problems, currently focused on decentralized finance protocols, represented by certain trading protocols.

Whether traditionalists or intentionalists, secure and fast cross-chain interactions, as well as user-friendly interactions, are at the core of the design, including but not limited to a unified user interface, seamless cross-chain applications, transaction fee sponsorship, and management.

Why focus on the combination of chain abstraction and intent?

"Intention-based certain protocol" are emerging one after another, and this section will explore the reasons and potential for its popularity as a product architecture.

Similar to abstraction and modularization, intent is not a native concept of Web3. Intent recognition has been around in the field of natural language processing for decades and has been extensively researched in human-computer dialogue.

When it comes to the study of intent in the Web3 field, it is inseparable from a famous paper by a certain investment institution. Although similar design concepts have already been reflected in some products, the core of the intent architecture was formally proposed in this article — users only need to specify the desired outcome without caring about the process, and the complex process of achieving the task is best outsourced to third parties. This aligns with the user experience improvement that chain abstraction focuses on and provides a more concrete solution approach.

There are many classifications of chain abstraction architectures in the market, among which a framework developed by a certain research institution is quite well-known. This framework combines intent architecture and categorizes various technologies and solutions that constitute chain abstraction into permission layer, solving layer, and settlement layer. There are also other frameworks that make slight adjustments based on this, such as adding a clearing function layer between the solving layer and the settlement layer.

Specifically:

• Permission Layer: The core is account abstraction, serving as the user entry point for decentralized applications to request intent quotes - users express their intentions.
• Solver Layer: Usually an off-chain third-party solver layer used to satisfy user intent - solver competitive orders.
• Settlement Layer: After the user approves the transaction, it calls oracles, cross-chain bridges, and other solutions to ensure the execution of the transaction - the user receives the expected outcome, and the solver receives a reward.

The solver of the solving layer is a group of third-party off-chain entities, which are referred to as solvers, parsers, seekers, fillers, receivers, relayers, etc. in different protocols. Solvers typically need to stake assets as collateral to qualify for competitive orders.

The process of users utilizing intention-based products is similar to filling out a limit order. In a cross-chain context, in order to satisfy users' intentions as quickly as possible, solvers typically advance funds first and charge a certain risk fee at settlement. This model is akin to a short-term loan, where the loan term equals the blockchain state synchronization time, and the interest equals the service fee.

The comprehensive intent solution represented by a certain public chain hopes to combine the permission layer, solving layer, and settlement layer into a unified infrastructure product. It is currently in the early stage of proof of concept, making it difficult to directly observe and evaluate its utility.

Components-based intention-driven solutions represented by cross-chain decentralized finance protocols have shown significant advantages compared to traditional cross-chain models ### such as locking and minting, burning and minting (. As a flagship product of a certain protocol, its intention-based architecture for cross-chain bridges gives it first-tier speed, low cost, and fee capabilities within a certain ecosystem, with advantages particularly evident in small-amount cross-chain scenarios.

According to the roadmap, a certain protocol will launch a cross-chain intent settlement layer in the third phase. The standard proposed by a certain trading platform together with a certain protocol aims to lower the entry barriers for solvers through standardized intent expression and to build a universal network for solvers. Many component-type products may gradually take the form of a puzzle to achieve the final shape of chain abstraction.

![Taking Questions as Methods: A New Framework for Understanding Chain Abstractions])https://img-cdn.gateio.im/webp-social/moments-68bf4fd80f0fd13261e315be9c77c29c.webp###

What issues do we have in our understanding and practice of chain abstraction?

What problems has the infrastructure-backed currency brought?

As a leader in interoperability protocols, certain projects have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, with fully diluted valuations often reaching tens of billions and low circulation volumes, making their tokens representative of the criticized venture capital coins of this cycle, dampening market confidence in the layer abstraction track.

The various blockchain abstraction projects are proposing their own technical solutions and token standards, but in a market environment lacking external increments, they are inevitably criticized as castles in the air. The data discrepancy before and after airdrops for a certain project has also raised doubts in the market about the real demand for "cross-chain communication."

On a certain standard forum page, facing doubts from those who feel that the cross-chain asset transfer function is too minor, not universal enough, and lacks support from a wide enough ecosystem.