Original author: Biteye core contributor Viee
Original editor: Biteye core contributor Crush
Recently, discussions about chain abstraction have surged in both Chinese and English communities, with founders of projects like Uniswap and Safe expressing their views. Biteye, in conjunction with researcher @HelloLydia's chain abstraction series articles, summarized the nine major misconceptions surrounding chain abstraction.
Before we begin the main text, let's define chain abstraction (Chain Abstraction) in one sentence — a user experience that avoids manual interaction with multiple chains.
01 Is chain abstraction = cross-chain bridge?
The underlying logic of chain abstraction is completely different from that of cross-chain bridges.
Cross-chain bridges are essentially tools that users must use additionally to achieve a specific interaction goal.
Chain abstraction eliminates this extra barrier, allowing users to directly use their entire on-chain balance to complete dApp usage or transfers — users no longer have the concept of 'crossing'.
In this sense, chain abstraction can be seen as the end of cross-chain bridges.
02 Is chain abstraction = multi-chain wallet?
The biggest difference between chain abstraction and multi-chain wallets is liquidity integration.
A multi-chain wallet only plays a 'aggregating' role at the user entry point; users still need to manually switch between different chains when using dApps.
Chain abstraction truly 'integrates' multi-chain liquidity, as assets owned by users on any chain are equivalent from a purchasing power perspective, and can also use any token to pay gas, so users only need to focus on interacting with the dApp itself.
In summary:
Multi-chain wallet → a wallet that allows for easier switching between chains for asset management.
Chain abstraction → skip chains and directly manage assets and interact with dApps.
03 Is chain abstraction = account abstraction?
From a non-technical perspective, as an analogy:
Account abstraction is like looking for nails with a hammer; it is a predetermined technical upgrade regarding account structure (ERC-4337, EIP-3074, EIP-7702, EIP-7560) initiated by the Ethereum Foundation from the supply side.
Chain abstraction is discovering nails and finding a hammer; it addresses a very straightforward problem in the industry: too many chains and fragmented infrastructure.
The visible problem scenarios of chain abstraction are clear, which is currently the most scarce in Web3, as only real demand can lead to the actual adoption rate of track projects and the value capture ability of tokens.
04 Is chain abstraction = intention?
Chain abstraction and intention exist in completely different dimensions.
The broad intention is still a vague concept, while chain abstraction is a mature track with clear conceptual definitions, problem scenarios, research frameworks, and track maps.
Narrowly defined intention focuses on technical details, while chain abstraction is a more high-level concept that can serve any form of dApp.
Intention can work together with account abstraction and interoperability protocols as a key technology for achieving chain abstraction.
05 Is chain abstraction = UX optimization?
Chain abstraction is not simply a user experience optimization. It fundamentally transforms the traditional TVL model (solidified, asynchronous, and non-real-time, requiring assets to be transferred to a specific chain in advance for use) into a fluid, real-time multi-chain ecosystem (assets can be used anytime and anywhere).
This fundamentally redefines the concept of liquidity — making multi-chain liquidity truly 'flow'.
For public chains: new public chains no longer need to acquire and lock TVL in advance but can focus on specific businesses such as payments, gaming, and trading from the start.
For users: the concept of multi-chain asset distribution will no longer exist, and there is no need to deposit money on each chain; they can simply look at the total account balance and withdraw it at any time.
For developers: developing products in a closed and isolated ecosystem by 'reinventing the wheel' will be infeasible; genuine points of innovation must exist.
06 Is chain abstraction gas too high?
This question can be answered from two aspects:
Has it increased the transaction costs on each chain: No. The costs incurred from chain abstraction transactions on each chain are the same as the costs of manually moving assets across each chain.
Has it added extra gas: Depends on different chain abstraction solutions and dApps. For example, in the case of Pariticle Network, the total gas paid by users includes the gas paid to its underlying L1, but this part is very, very low compared to external chains and can almost be ignored.
Additionally, chain abstraction allows project teams to subsidize gas. Some projects may be able to reduce gas costs by optimizing underlying interactions (such as introducing liquidation layers, transaction packaging, etc.).
In summary: costs are nearly consistent (may be lower in the future), but the experience is significantly better.
07 Will chain abstraction lead to interaction security issues?
This question can be answered from three aspects:
Has it interfered with user decisions: No. Chain abstraction does not interfere with user decisions; it merely enhances interaction efficiency after the user's decision.
Has the user's right to know and control been deprived: No. Under the transaction logic of chain abstraction, users retain the right to know about the underlying interaction logic of each transaction, and they still possess exclusive control over different on-chain assets.
Has it introduced additional security risks: Depends on different chain abstraction solutions and dApps. Well-designed chain abstraction solutions can fully maintain decentralization and transparency.
In summary, the starting point of chain abstraction is not to interfere with the user's decision on which dApp to interact with, but to make it easier and more efficient for users to execute well-informed decisions; throughout this process, the user's rights are not sacrificed, and a well-designed chain abstraction solution is very secure.
08 Is it unnecessary to have chain abstraction because only one or two top chains have traffic?
The current situation is not 'only top chains have traffic'. The perception of social media traffic by end-users does not equate to the actual operational status of chains.
Besides Base and Solana, several L2s like Arbitrum and Mantle, which are currently not obvious to some end-users, have accumulated substantial TVL; TON and Aptos have monthly active users exceeding Ethereum; Polygon, Blast, and Starknet can generate $20-30 million in fee revenue annually. It is unreasonable to claim that these chains have 'no traffic'.
The future cannot be built on a single chain, nor will there be 'only top chains with traffic'.
The idea of a single-chain future is impossible because the scalability of a single chain cannot be infinite and will face serious risk concentration issues, so it is impossible to build all of Web3 on a single state machine.
The reason why there won't be 'only top chains and applications with traffic' in the future is that we see the increasingly diverse L2 ecosystem within the Ethereum ecosystem (Unichain, Movement), the strong rise of new EVM L1s (Monad, Sei, Berachain), the activity of non-EVM ecosystems (Sonic, Sui, Aptos), and the continuously decreasing deployment thresholds for Appchains (monthly operating costs as low as $1,000).
In summary, we are facing an irreversible multi-chain future, and the arrival of chain abstraction is not subject to any individual's will.
09 Has chain abstraction fundamentally not solved the fragmentation problem?
We define the solution to the fragmentation problem from two target audiences.
For users, the most direct issue brought by fragmentation is that they need to manually bridge between multiple chains, prepare different gas tokens, and frequently manage balances across multiple chains. Chain abstraction has already solved this problem.
For developers, there are two approaches to solving the fragmentation problem: 1) deploy smart contracts across the entire chain, but the user-side experience remains fractured. 2) deploy only on one chain, but make it accessible to users from any chain, seamlessly introducing liquidity from other chains. This is the solution provided by chain abstraction.
Thus, chain abstraction can already address fragmentation issues from both user and developer perspectives.
Completely unifying the underlying blockchain liquidity is not feasible. There are fundamental differences between different blockchains, and atomic equivalence cannot be achieved.
10 Summary
There are various interpretations of chain abstraction, and different groups emphasize different aspects, which may explain why @HelloLydia chose to clarify misconceptions about chain abstraction from the opposite perspective first. Only by clarifying the source can the truth be increasingly clear.
In summary, unlike purely 'air narratives', chain abstraction is a rapidly developing track with real demand and clear definitions. We believe that chain abstraction will eventually benefit everyone and lead the industry’s next wave of innovation.