According to PANews, chain abstraction (CA) and intent-centric solutions are two architectural approaches aimed at addressing the same fundamental issue: achieving automated asynchronous interoperability between heterogeneous trust domains.

Both methods introduce the concepts of 'transaction parties' and 'cross-chain proofs' to solve this problem, but they differ significantly in how these elements are constructed.

Chain abstraction adopts a chain-centric perspective where a single blockchain acts as the user's 'decentralized event counterparty.' Users interact with the same counterparty—the chain abstraction blockchain. The blockchain and its 'off-chain components within the protocol' are responsible for generating the desired outcomes for users. The cross-chain proof process always flows from the chain abstraction blockchain to the target chain, enforced through proof verification on the target chain, allowing resources to be minted or spent on the target chain. User abstraction typically manifests as requests for computation or transactions on the target chain. Scaling this system generally requires a universal proof system that can be verified on-chain across various target chains, potentially using MPC solutions. Latency is determined by the confirmation rules enforced by the universal proof system and does not vary by request.

In contrast, intent-centric solutions adopt a state-centric perspective where an open solver network acts as the user's 'distributed state counterparty.' Users interact with a runtime-selected counterparty, usually chosen based on which counterparty can deliver the best results for the user. The selected counterparty is obligated to deliver the expected results for the user, whether through a reputation system or a commitment system. The cross-chain proof process is reversed, flowing from the target chain to the user's main chain, enforced through proof verification on the main chain, allowing the use of the user's resources on the main chain. User abstraction presents as proof obligations regarding the account state on the target chain. Scalability relies on a programmable proof verification system supporting heterogeneous proof methods for each target chain, most likely a 'resource locking' system. Latency is determined by the confirmation rules perceived by the solver, allowing optimization as part of counterparty selection.

Intent abstraction provides solvers with a heterogeneous proof obligation abstraction, similar to how chain abstraction offers users an execution abstraction across heterogeneous domains. Developers need to compose, orchestrate, and guide the proof process for solvers in the context of intent abstraction, just as they do for users in cross-domain computation execution.

In summary, the concept of 'chain abstraction' is still evolving, encompassing various approaches from 'chain-centric' to 'state-centric.' For simplicity and comparison, 'chain abstraction' is defined here as 'chain-centric,' aligning more closely with the architecture of some of the initial proponents of chain abstraction. However, many newer architectures combine elements of both 'pure chain-centric' and 'pure state-centric' models.

The intent-centric approach offers a better architectural direction, providing users with outcome-based guarantees, optimizing result states and latency through counterparty selection, and offering greater scalability in customizing target chains. Achieving this requires reversing the proof process and placing proof obligations on the solver network. While the complexity and heterogeneity of target chains remain, the integration burden shifts from pre-set hubs of on-chain computation composition to a distributed network of off-chain solvers handling proof composition.