The views on chain abstraction have been covered quite a bit in the past few months, but when it comes to specific projects, besides the previous statistics, the two that have been discussed in depth are:

(1) Particle Network

(2) XION

A very interesting phenomenon is that these two projects are tagged with exactly the same labels on the Rootdata data website: Chain Abstraction, Infrastructure, Layer 1, and Modularization.

This is a coincidence that occurred when this website defined the chain abstraction track, and coincidentally, I happened to discuss both of them.

Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to horizontally compare the two and see some of the detailed differences between the two chain abstraction solutions, as well as their respective advantages from my perspective.

1. Project Progress 🔻

Firstly, both are currently in a pre-TGE state and are in the testing phase. XION had news earlier this year in Q1 about entering the mainnet, but later it was postponed. Perhaps it can log into the mainnet in Q4?

Particle previously announced in Q2 that the project as a whole had entered the final stage before the mainnet, and it is estimated that it will enter the mainnet in Q4, so the progress of both parties in this regard is quite similar.

During the financing phase of the entire project, according to publicly available information, Particle's timeline spans from May 2022 to the present, while XION spans from May 2021 to the present. Particle disclosed in a financing round in 2023 that it completed the round at a valuation of $150 million, while XION did not disclose its valuation.

In terms of valuation, Particle publicly disclosed actual financing funds of $23.5 million, while XION secured $36 million. However, Particle's strategic round and the last round of investment involving Binance Labs did not announce any funding-related information. Both also have significant overlaps in institutional lineups, with Binance Labs only announcing support for Particle.

2. Terminology Explanation 🔻

- Layer 1

Firstly, both are Layer 1 built on the Cosmos SDK, and both adopting this framework is understandable, as it helps developers build customized blockchains, allowing them to choose and combine different modules based on their needs.

However, I believe there are slight differences in development tendencies; Particle leans more towards integration with the EVM ecosystem, while XION has more of a Cosmos flavor.

Of course, this is just my perspective on the focus of the solutions, rather than suggesting that they only engage in 'buying and selling' within that ecosystem.

Additionally, in terms of security models, XION is based on CometBFT as its network and consensus layer, thus adopting a more traditional Proof of Stake (POS); while Particle has designed dual asset staking based on single asset staking, incorporating $BTC as its foundational network security guarantee.

Finally, although both are Layer 1, Particle currently does not see plans to develop into a generalized L1, while XION is taking a more traditional route, developing its own third-party chain abstraction ecosystem on its chain.

- Modularization

Both Particle and XION's L1 are modular designs, but there are also significant differences in how they interpret this modularization label.

Particle focuses more on describing its modularity, which aligns more with the mainstream narrative of modularization in the market, such as aggregated third-party independent DA solutions, which are not mentioned in XION's documentation.

  • Supporting Particle's independent DA are currently mainstream solutions: Celestia, Avail, NEAR DA. By combining these solutions, maximum security and stability can be achieved.

XION's modularization may refer to the ability for customized development granted to a chain by the Cosmos SDK, as well as various functional modules related to chain abstraction provided for on-chain applications.

  • XION has utilized nearly all of the Cosmos development toolkits, including CometBFT consensus mechanism, Cosmos SDK, IBC, and CosmWasm.

3. Chain Abstraction Solutions 🔻

Next, we will explore some differences between the two L1s in the field of chain abstraction:

- Account Design

In both solutions, there are designs related to [accounts]. In Particle, this function is called [Unified Account], while in XION it is called [Meta Account]. Both support social login methods, which are similar to the current Web2 login methods, and both have done well in this aspect.

However, in terms of specific implementations, Particle's solution is undoubtedly more complete than XION's. At least in the documentation, XION's [Meta Account] solution seems more like a user-end wallet account abstraction entry, while Particle's [Universal Account] also involves backend universal liquidity aggregation, allowing users to access balances from multiple chains through one account.

- GAS Payment

This is a fundamental difference between the two solutions, as the different tendencies on GAS allow both solutions to have their respective advantages:

(1) Particle adopts a [Universal GAS] solution, allowing users to comprehensively utilize fragment GAS from multiple chains. This solution can further reduce wear and tear, providing users with a more flexible on-chain experience.

(2) Unlike Particle, XION adopts a unified GAS solution, using $USDC as the on-chain GAS payment method. This U-based unified pricing allows XION's scenarios to potentially focus more on the consumer sector, which XION also positions itself as.

Although the two adopt different approaches in their solutions, the feedback on token utility is ultimately the same; the final backend will still trade GAS with the protocol's base currency, but this trading step does not require user interaction.

The general principle is shown in the diagram; this method can retain the economic value of the tokens to a certain extent while not restricting the front-end use cases.

4. Comprehensive Summary 🔻

Overall, the current progress of the two solutions towards the mainnet and TGE may occur around the same time in Q4. From the most fundamental perspective, although both are L1, XION is clearly more traditional, whether in terms of construction methods or consensus adoption, while Particle is more innovative in this regard, both in terms of modular DA adoption and using $BTC as an asset for participating in security consensus.

Currently, it is hard to evaluate which approach is better. The traditional path can ensure that the solution is market-validated, while the innovative path, despite surpassing the traditional in description during this cycle, still needs market validation.

In terms of business related to chain abstraction, it can be said that Particle is clearly ahead in this regard, especially in the description of liquidity calls in multi-chain scenarios, where we can see the details more intuitively in the documentation.

Both parties should currently be in the final testing phase, and the initial competition for chain abstraction solutions may begin in Q4, with the answers revealed soon~