If you were confused when you first encountered the concept of "chain abstraction", you are not alone.
It seems very important, has a lot of projects, has a lot of financing, and claims to be the standard... but it doesn't know what its use is. Is "chain abstraction" another buzz word on the Web3 new concept pipeline?
This article will start from the concept and return to the basic issues, hoping to scoop out the pearls in the sea of nothingness.
TLS;DR
The purpose of abstraction is to hide complexity, and the level of abstraction in the context of Web3 is often higher than that of Web2 (and therefore more difficult)
Modularization lowers the threshold for public chain construction, and chain abstraction includes the re-architecture of public chain relationships and the improvement of user/developer experience.
Cross-chain asset transfer, cross-chain communication, interoperability and chain abstraction analysis: a subset of concepts centered on coordinating state modifications (transactions) on different chains (but in actual use, it is often full of middle ground)
Intent-based chain abstraction solutions have become a popular architecture, and many component products may gradually reach the final form of chain abstraction in the form of a puzzle.
The current discussion and construction of chain abstraction in the industry has not yet eliminated the superstition of infra-centricity. The establishment of chain abstraction as a real problem cannot be separated from the activity on the chain, the progress of modularization, and the entry of new users and developers.
The future of chain abstraction is not a bright and smooth road. We need to consider the impact on long-tail public chains and the exploration of non-DeFi applications.
What is the problem with chain abstraction?
1. Is chain abstraction a real problem?
2. If so, which of the many questions does it fall into?
3. What are the differences between cross-chain, interoperability, and chain abstraction issues?
Is chain abstraction a real problem?
--uncertain. Questions need context, imagine asking people 500 years ago what they thought about the energy crisis.
So where does our discussion of chain abstractions come from?
The answers given by different people may include several keywords: Ethereum roadmap, modularization, intention, mass adoption... The most explanatory point at present may be: chain abstraction is the second half of modularization.
In order to understand this point, it is necessary to clarify the definition of chain abstraction.
In computer science, "abstraction" refers to the process of separating high-level operations and concepts from background processes, with the goal of simplifying understanding by hiding complexity. For example, most Web2 users only need to know about browsers and ChatGPT, and may know nothing about its abstract content or even the abstract concept itself.
Similarly:
Account abstraction: By hiding the internal information such as the address, private key, and mnemonic phrase of the blockchain account, the account becomes invisible.
Chain abstraction: By hiding internal information such as the consensus mechanism, gas fees, and native tokens of each chain, the chain is made invisible.
In traditional software development, abstraction and modularization are a set of closely related important concepts. Abstraction defines the level and architecture of the system, and modularization is the way to implement this architecture. Specifically, each module represents an abstraction level, and the interaction between modules hides its internal complexity, facilitating the expansion, reuse, and maintenance of program code. Without abstraction, the boundaries between modules would become complex and unmanageable.
It is worth noting that Web2 is usually abstracted and modularized within a closed or partially closed ecosystem. The abstraction level is concentrated within a single platform or application. The environment is relatively controlled and there is usually no need to solve cross-platform or cross-system compatibility. question. However, in the context of Web3, due to the pursuit of decentralization and open ecosystem, the relationship between modularization and abstraction is more complicated.
At present, although modularization can help solve abstraction problems within a single public chain and lower the threshold for public chain construction, the abstraction of user/developer experience in a multi-chain landscape cannot be fully covered by modularization. industry. There is a relatively obvious island effect between different public chains and ecology, which is specifically reflected in the dispersion of liquidity, developers and users. The proposal of chain abstraction includes the re-architecture of public chain relationships to achieve connection, integration and compatibility between multiple chains. This can be confirmed in the article published by Near in January this year.
We can think that the urgency of chain abstraction as a real problem is closely related to the development of the following conditions:
On-chain activity: Will more dAPPs lead to more active on-chain behavior from users?
Progress in modular blockchains: Does more active on-chain behavior drive more rollups and app chain construction?
Barriers to entry for new users and developers: To what extent does the current blockchain environment hinder the influx of new users and developers (referring to wear and tear in an upward trend, rather than anger in a stagnant state)
Which of these problems does chain abstraction belong to?
Chain abstraction itself is an abstract concept, and the narrative level within Web3 is also relatively high-dimensional. This may explain to a certain extent why chain abstraction appears to be all-encompassing and even confusing. Specifically, it is not a solution but a guiding ideology.
Another example is today’s Bitcoin. After experiencing several halvings, rapid rises and falls, and the launch of ETFs, Bitcoin is no longer just a technical solution or asset class, but has also become an idea that transcends time. The system and industry totem represent a series of cryptographic core values and will still guide the innovation and development of the industry in the foreseeable future.
What are the differences and connections between issues such as cross-chain, interoperability, and chain abstraction?
We can also understand cross-chain, interoperability and chain abstraction along a spectrum from concrete to abstract. From a morphological point of view, they are a subset of concepts with the core of coordinating state modifications (transactions) on different chains, but in actual use they are often full of middle ground.
We can roughly divide cross-chain related applications and protocols into two categories:
Cross-chain asset transfer: cross-chain bridge, cross-chain AMM, cross-chain aggregator, etc.
Cross-chain communication: Layerzero, Wormhole, Cosmos IBC, etc.
The transfer of assets is also inseparable from message passing. The messaging layer of cross-chain asset transfer applications generally consists of a set of on-chain smart contracts and status update logic. The solution to abstract this messaging function into a universal, protocol-layer solution is a cross-chain communication protocol.
The cross-chain communication protocol can handle more complex cross-chain operations, such as governance, liquidity mining, NFT transactions, token issuance, game operations, etc. The interoperability protocol goes a step further on this basis and involves deeper data processing, consensus and verification, ensuring consistency and compatibility between different blockchains from the blockchain system level. However, in actual use, these two concepts are often interchangeable and can be substituted for each other depending on the context.
The connotation of chain abstraction includes the interoperability of blockchains, but the usage context adds a layer of experience improvement on the user and developer side, which is not unrelated to the intention narrative that has emerged in this cycle. The combination of intent and chain abstraction will be explained below.
What specific issues are covered by the chain abstraction?
1. How to implement chain abstraction?
2. Why should we care about chain abstraction and intent combination?
How to implement chain abstraction?
Different projects have different understandings and entry points for chain abstraction. Here we divide it into the classical school that evolves from interoperability protocols and is closer to developer-side abstraction, and the classical school that combines emerging intent architecture and pays more attention to the user side. Abstract intentionalism.
Classicalism can be traced back to Cosmos and Polkadot, which predate the concept of chain abstractions. As rising stars, OP superchain and Polygon Agglayer are currently focusing on liquidity aggregation and interoperability within the Ethereum L2 ecosystem. Layerzero, Wormhole and Axelar, which are natives of cross-chain communication protocols, are also expanding their functions to more chains and striving for more customer adoption, hoping to enhance their network effects.
The Intent Group includes Layer 1 such as Near and Particle Network, which are committed to providing comprehensive solutions to chain abstraction, as well as component classes that are based on solving specific problems. Currently, DeFi protocols are the main ones, represented by UniswapX, 1inch and Across Protocol.
Whether it is the classical school or the intentional school, safe and fast cross-chain and friendly interaction are at the core of the design, including but not limited to a unified user interface, DApp seamless cross-chain, Gas sponsorship and management, etc.
Why should we care about the combination of chain abstraction and intent?
"Intent-based xx protocols" are emerging in endlessly, and this section will explore the reasons and potential for them to become a popular product architecture.
Like abstraction and modularity, intent is not a native Web3 concept. Intent recognition has been around in the natural language processing industry for decades and has been extensively studied in human-machine conversations.
When it comes to intent research in the Web3 industry, Paradigm’s famous paper is inseparable. Although similar design concepts have been reflected in products such as CoWSwap, 1inch, Telegram Bot, etc., the core of the intent architecture was formally proposed in this article - users only need to specify the desired results, without caring about the process , the complex process of achieving a task is best outsourced to a third party. This is consistent with the user experience improvement that chain abstraction focuses on, and provides a more specific solution.
There are many types of chain abstraction architectures on the market, and the more well-known one is the CAKE architecture (Chain Abstraction Key Elements) developed by Frontier Research. This architecture combines an intent architecture that divides the various technologies and solutions that make up the chain abstraction into a permissions layer, a solution layer, and a settlement layer. There are also other architectures that have made fine-tuning on this basis. For example, Everclear adds a layer of clearing function between the solution layer and the settlement layer.
Specifically:
Permission Layer: The core is account abstraction, which serves as the user portal of dAPP to request intention quotes - users express their intentions.
Solver Layer: Generally an off-chain third-party solver layer used to satisfy user intentions - solvers compete for 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 gets the expected results and the solvers get paid.
The solvers of the solution layer are a group of third-party off-chain entities, which are called solvers, resolvers, searchers, fillers, takers, relayers, etc. in different protocols. Solvers usually require pledged assets as a deposit to qualify for competing orders.
The process of using the intended product is similar to filling in a limit order. In a cross-chain situation, in order to satisfy the user's intention as soon as possible, solvers usually advance funds first and charge a certain risk fee during settlement (this model is similar to a short-term loan, loan period = blockchain status Synchronization time, interest = service fee).
Comprehensive intent solutions represented by Near hope to combine the permission layer, solution layer, and settlement layer into a unified infrastructure product. They are currently in the early stages of proof of concept, and it is difficult to directly observe and evaluate its effectiveness.
Component-based intent solutions represented by cross-chain DeFi protocols have shown obvious advantages over traditional cross-chain models (such as Lock & Mint, Burn & Mint). As the flagship product of Across Protocol, Across Bridge's intent-based architecture enables it to have the first-tier speed, low price, and charging capabilities among cross-chain bridges in the EVM ecosystem. Its advantages are particularly obvious in small-amount cross-chain scenarios.
Judging from the roadmap, Across Protocol will launch a cross-chain intent settlement layer in the third phase. ERC-7683, proposed by Uniswap Labs and Across Protocol, attempts to lower the entry barrier for solvers through standardized expressions of intent and build a universal network of solvers. Many component products may gradually chain abstraction in the form of a puzzle to the final form.
What's wrong with our understanding and practice of chain abstractions?
What problems does Infra-centricity bring?
Are there any other issues worth thinking about about chain abstraction?
What problems does Infra-centricity bring?
As the leader of interoperability protocols, Layerzero has raised a total of 290 million, and Wormhole has raised 225 million. Billions of FDVs and low circulation have made their tokens the representatives of VC coins that have been criticized this cycle, dampening the market's understanding of the chain. Abstract race track confidence.
Going back to the cartoon at the beginning of the article, chain abstract projects each have a technology stack and a token standard. In a market environment that lacks external increment, they will inevitably be criticized as air infrastructure. The data gap before and after Layerzero’s airdrop also cast doubt on the market’s real demand for “cross-chain communication.”
On the ERC-7683 forum page, developers discussed the responsibilities of the ERC standard itself in the face of doubts that the cross-chain asset transfer function is too small, not versatile enough, and does not support enough ecology. Supporters of minimalist ERC believe that tool-level standards are sufficient to solve current problems and can be combined with existing standards, and the adoption resistance will be relatively small.
Considering that the design concept of intent architecture is largely application-oriented, "universal, full-stack, compatible" protocol standards sometimes become "too general and meaningless" and "too bulky to solve practical problems" ”, resulting in an ironic phenomenon - the chain abstract protocols that were born to solve the problem of fragmentation have themselves delivered fragmented solutions.
Are there any other issues worth thinking about about chain abstraction?
For new public chains/long-tail public chains, chain abstraction makes it more difficult to retain TVL (analogous to the impact of globalization on underdeveloped areas). What impact will this have on the adoption of chain abstraction?
A study by Variant pointed out that UniswapX will lead to a new situation where long-tail tokens are oriented to AMM, and mainstream tokens are more filled through off-chain solvers. Is this the future development trend of DEX? Will there be a global solver layer superimposed on the global liquidity layer in the future?
Beyond DeFi protocols, what might other intent-based product architectures look like?
Will chain abstraction become a hot topic after modularization or a big bubble?
[Disclaimer] There are risks in the market, so investment needs to be cautious. This article does not constitute investment advice, and users should consider whether any opinions, views or conclusions contained in this article are appropriate for their particular circumstances. Invest accordingly and do so at your own risk.
This article is reprinted with permission from: "Deep Wave TechFlow"
Original author: Lydia Wu
