Is chain abstraction the end of cross-chain bridges? How does chain abstraction redefine liquidity? Is chain abstraction safe? This article is derived from HelloLydia13's series on chain abstraction, organized and translated by Biteye. (Background: Nine Predictions for the Crypto Market in 2025: 95% of meme coins will go to zero, RWA will grow at least three times, emergence of chain abstraction...) (Background Supplement: Crypto Topic Heat Ranking) AI continues to be the champion, chain abstraction is growing the fastest, BRC-20 is bubbling...) Recently, discussions around 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 @HelloLydia13's series on chain abstraction, summarizes the nine major misconceptions surrounding chain abstraction. Before diving into the main text, let's define chain abstraction in one sentence — a user experience that frees users from manually interacting with multiple chains. 1. Chain abstraction = cross-chain bridge? The underlying logic of chain abstraction is completely different from that of cross-chain bridges. A cross-chain bridge is essentially a tool that users have to use additionally to achieve a certain interaction goal. Chain abstraction eliminates this extra barrier, allowing users to directly use their entire balance on the chain 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. 2. Chain abstraction = multi-chain wallet? The biggest difference between chain abstraction and multi-chain wallets lies in liquidity integration. A multi-chain wallet only serves as an 'aggregator' at the user entry point, requiring users to manually switch between different chains when using dApps. Chain abstraction truly 'integrates' multi-chain liquidity, as assets from any chain that users own are equivalent in terms of purchasing power, and can be used to pay gas with any token, so users only need to focus on interacting with the dApp itself. In summary: Multi-chain wallet → a wallet that allows for more convenient switching of chains for asset management. Chain abstraction → skipping chains, directly managing assets and interacting with dApps. 3. Chain abstraction = account abstraction? From a non-technical perspective: Account abstraction is like finding a nail with a hammer; it is a predetermined technical upgrade (ERC-4337, EIP-3074, EIP-7702, EIP-7560) about account structure from the supply side by the Ethereum Foundation. Chain abstraction is discovering the hammer to find the nail, solving a very straightforward problem in the industry: there are too many chains and the infrastructure is too fragmented. It is clear that the problem scenario for chain abstraction is well-defined, and this is currently the most scarce in Web3, as only true demand can bring about actual adoption rates for track projects and the value capture capability of tokens. 4. Chain abstraction = intent? Chain abstraction and intent are in completely different dimensions. Broadly, intent remains a vague concept, while chain abstraction is a mature track with clear conceptual definitions, problem scenarios, research frameworks, and track maps. Narrowly, intent focuses on technical details, while chain abstraction is a more high-level concept that can serve any form of dApp. Intent can work alongside account abstraction and interoperability protocols as a key technology for achieving chain abstraction. 5. Chain abstraction = UX optimization? Chain abstraction is not a simple user experience optimization. It fundamentally transforms the traditional TVL model (solidified, asynchronous, and non-real-time, requiring assets to be pre-transferred to specific chains for use) into a fluid, real-time multi-chain ecosystem (assets can be used anytime and anywhere). This essentially redefines the concept of liquidity — making multi-chain liquidity truly 'liquid'. For public chains: new public chains no longer need to acquire and lock TVL in advance, but can focus on specific businesses like payments, gaming, trading, etc., from the start. For users: the concept of multi-chain asset distribution will cease to exist, and there will be no need to deposit money on various chains; they can simply check their total account balance and access it anytime. For developers: developing products in a closed, isolated ecosystem by 'reinventing the wheel' will be infeasible; there must be real innovative points. 6. Is the gas for chain abstraction very high? This question can be answered from two aspects: Has it increased the transaction costs on various chains? No. The costs incurred by chain abstraction transactions on various chains are the same as the corresponding costs for users to manually move assets across chains. Has it added extra gas? This depends on different chain abstraction solutions and dApps. For example, in the case of Particle Network, the total gas paid by users will include gas paid to its underlying L1, but this part is very, very low compared to external chains, almost negligible. Additionally, chain abstraction allows project parties to subsidize gas. Some projects may reduce gas costs by optimizing underlying interactions (e.g., introducing a liquidation layer, transaction bundling, etc.). In summary: costs are almost consistent (potentially lower in the future), but the experience is significantly better. 7. Will chain abstraction bring interaction security issues? This question can be answered from three aspects: Does it interfere with user decisions? No. Chain abstraction does not interfere with user decisions; it merely enhances interaction efficiency after user decisions are made. Does it deprive users of their right to know and control? No. Under the transaction logic of chain abstraction, users retain the right to know the underlying interaction logic of each transaction and still have unique control over assets on different chains. Does it introduce additional security risks? This depends on different chain abstraction solutions and dApps. Carefully designed chain abstraction schemes can completely maintain decentralization and transparency. In summary, the starting point of chain abstraction is not to interfere with users' decisions about which dApp to interact with, but rather to make users' well-made decisions feel more seamless and executed more efficiently; in this process, users' rights have not been sacrificed, and well-designed chain abstraction schemes are very safe. 8. Anyway, only one or two leading chains have traffic, so there's no need for chain abstraction? The current situation is not that 'only leading chains have traffic'. The perception of social media traffic among C-end users does not equate to the actual operational status of chains. Besides Base and Solana, some L2s that C-end users currently perceive as not obvious, such as Arbitrum and Mantle, have accumulated a large amount of TVL; the monthly active users of TON and Aptos exceed that of Ethereum; Polygon, Blast, and Starknet can generate income of 20-30 million USD in a year. It is unreasonable to believe that these chains 'have no traffic'. The future cannot be built on a single chain, nor will there only be 'leading chains with traffic'. The impossibility of a single chain in the future is because the scalability of a single-chain cannot be infinite, and it will face serious risk concentration issues, so it is impossible to build the entire Web3 on a single state machine. The future will not only have 'leading chains and applications with traffic' because we see a increasingly diverse L2 ecosystem within the Ethereum ecosystem (Unichain, Movement), the strong rise of new EVM L1s (Monad, Sei, Berachain), and the vibrancy of non-EVM ecosystems (Sonic, Sui, Apto...)