2024 é sem dúvida o primeiro ano de abstração da cadeia. Assistimos ao desenvolvimento desta narrativa desde o início até ao lançamento do produto. Após 12 meses de trabalho árduo, a experiência nos provou que nem a teoria de que a abstração em cadeia é inútil, nem a teoria de que a abstração em cadeia é uma vitória rápida estão erradas. A transformação do paradigma das transações em cadeia será uma batalha prolongada.
Minha história: de pesquisador de abstração em cadeia a construtor
Meu interesse pela abstração de cadeia surgiu de uma conversa com @coin_casanova em julho. Naquela época, eu trabalhava como pesquisador na Mint Ventures e ganhei uma pequena onda de atenção com alguns relatórios de pesquisa.
One day, Casa suggested that I research $ACX (the token of Across Protocol, which went live on Binance in the last month of 2024). At first glance, it seemed like a cross-chain bridge, feeling like an artifact from the last cycle, but after a closer look, I found that Across uses an 'intention-based architecture' and really achieves faster speeds and lower prices than other cross-chain solutions. The Across team also collaborated with Uniswap to launch the cross-chain intention standard ERC-7683.
Source: ForesightNews
As I delved deeper into my research on $ACX, I found myself falling into a rabbit hole of new concepts: cross-chain bridges, cross-chain communication, interoperability, intentions, chain abstraction... it was bewildering. As a researcher, I am very picky about the choice and use of concepts, but at that time, whether in the Chinese or English-speaking community, I couldn't find any articles that could help clarify the relationships between these concepts. Thus, I simply rolled up my sleeves and wrote one myself, titled '(Using Problems as a Method: A New Framework for Understanding Chain Abstraction)'.
Source: ForesightNews
The reason for choosing 'chain abstraction' instead of cross-chain or interoperability as the research object is that in my classification, chain abstraction is a very high-dimensional narrative that encompasses many specific technical paths, so I included cross-chain and interoperability within chain abstraction. Moreover, in this research report, I have expressed optimism about the adoption of intention architecture and direct user-facing chain abstraction solutions — following the clue, you can find Across Protocol above and UniversalX @UseUniversalX, which was just launched less than a month ago, below.
Interestingly, during the writing process of this research report, I noticed that Particle Network's Blog (@CarlosCanCab, @TABASCOWeb3) covers a wealth of very professional research on chain abstraction, combined with Li.Fi's Blog (@arjunnchand), which basically helped me complete the foundational knowledge from the most classical cross-chain bridges to the latest chain abstractions. I was also pleased to include Particle Network in my chain abstraction project illustration.
Source: ForesightNews
On a day in October, the CEO of Particle Network @0xpengyu contacted me through mutual friends, and after a real and unorthodox collision of ideas, my enthusiasm for the chain abstraction endeavor grew to the point where I felt the need to immediately dive into the field. The gears of fate were set in motion, and that's how I joined Particle Network, serving as a researcher while also being responsible for the overall construction of the Chinese community.
Two rebuttals: The theory of the uselessness of chain abstraction is wrong, and the theory of quick victories is also wrong.
My research journey at Particle Network began with the 'Misunderstanding Clarification' series. This is because although chain abstraction has already developed a mature system in the West, a large amount of research content has not been systematically disseminated to the Chinese-speaking community, leading to many misunderstandings derived from the literal meanings. Therefore, I wrote four articles in a row, outlining nine major misunderstandings about chain abstraction (vs cross-chain bridges, intentions, multi-chain wallets, etc.), and provided a formal definition.
(Common Misunderstandings about 'Chain Abstraction' (1))
(Common Misunderstandings about 'Chain Abstraction' (2))
(Common Misunderstandings about 'Chain Abstraction' (3))
(What exactly is chain abstraction? A formal definition)
Source: ForesightNews
Refuting 'the theory of the uselessness of chain abstraction'
These articles later became the opportunities and driving forces for me to engage in discussions about chain abstraction. Sure enough, in the context of the overall market's indifference to narratives, pushing forward a new narrative of chain abstraction first attracted a wave of 'theory of the uselessness of chain abstraction' criticisms. The views of this part of the people are merely what I summarized and analyzed in the three common misunderstandings: I understand chain abstraction; it is just xxx... old wine in a new bottle... not necessary...
The reason why the 'theory of the uselessness of chain abstraction' is wrong is that their understanding of chain abstraction comes from a one-sided, mechanical, and static perspective, simply equating chain abstraction with things they have seen and are familiar with before, and refusing to see the innovative points and progressive significance of chain abstraction without understanding the evolution of the track.
Here, we can further subdivide into two types of errors:
One type is fundamental errors, indicating a systemic bias and blindness, the most representative being the belief that there will only be one or two chains in the future of Web3. The response to such errors is simple — you cannot build the entire Web3 on a single state machine. However, correcting such views is difficult because it fundamentally refuses to see other possibilities beyond one's own position.
Another type of error is accidental, such as confusing chain abstraction with multi-chain wallets, cross-chain bridges, and intentions. These types of errors can generally be resolved by reading my articles, which is also the main significance of our continuous publicizing of chain abstraction.
Refuting 'the theory of chain abstraction's quick victory'
With the advancement of the narrative of chain abstraction, as well as the delivery progress of chain abstraction products from leading projects such as Near, Uniswap, Safe, and Particle Network, chain abstraction has successfully attracted more attention from CEXs and CEX users, and a wave of chain abstraction enthusiasm is expected to surge at the end of 2024. Overnight, chain abstraction seems to have become a consensus for the future, but beneath the hype, we see another layer of crisis — 'the theory of the quick victory of chain abstraction.'
Specifically, some people underestimate the objective technical difficulties of achieving chain abstraction, ignoring that chain abstraction is a complex, systemic project that involves the restructuring and optimization of infrastructure, middleware, application layers, etc. They essentially still hold the outdated view that 'chain abstraction is just a re-packaging of xxx', so they have unrealistic optimistic thoughts about the speed of chain abstraction's popularity — the xxx project can do it too; it just hasn't done it yet, and it will be quick once it starts.
There are also some people who acknowledge that chain abstraction is a track with thresholds, but they are overly pessimistic about the current players in the market, and thus turn to hope for the wallet teams of exchanges to 'enter the field' and 'strike from a lower dimension' to quickly unify the market. They do not understand that chain abstraction has never been an isolated infra narrative, nor a simple feature stacking, but a mature track that has developed with clear traces as the infrastructure of AA, modularization, solver networks, AltVM, Appchain, etc., matures, where the accumulation of leading players is very profound.
To summarize the problem:
Is chain abstraction useless? — No. This idea is a shortsighted mistake, a case of seeing only a leaf and missing the whole tree. Chain abstraction will eventually be realized.
So, can chain abstraction achieve quick victory? — No. This idea again makes the error of being myopic, thinking it is lofty and superior. The transformation of the on-chain trading paradigm represented by chain abstraction is a protracted battle.
Phase analysis: Why is the transformation of the on-chain trading paradigm a protracted battle?
The universality and particularity of contradictions
Let's first analyze from the universality of contradictions. Like all forms of new and old alternation, the penetration of chain abstraction applications takes time, and the shift of the on-chain trading paradigm requires time. In this process, we will see that the old, fragmented multi-chain ecology is difficult to sustain, and the applications built on it face increasingly obvious bottlenecks, while more and more dApps adopting chain abstraction architecture will gradually emerge, and unknowingly, chain abstraction becomes the standard configuration for almost all on-chain scenarios, and there will definitely be a scenario where the potential of chain abstraction + dApp will explode completely.
Having discussed universality, let's talk about the particularity of chain abstraction + on-chain trading. Why do we believe that trading scenarios are the opportunity for the explosion of chain abstraction? Because this scenario is like the adult industry in Web2; it is the first foothold for all emerging technologies (VR, AR, mobile networks, AI). The reconstruction of Web3 trading scenarios is the most anticipated native narrative of 2025, with the biggest opportunity being the possibility of a fully on-chain CEX brought by chain abstraction. DEX assets do not require permission + self-custody accounts + CEX-level liquidity experience = the next generation of on-chain trading platforms. All three requirements are indispensable.
The basis and phases of the protracted battle
Then, some may ask, how long will the protracted battle last? Chain abstraction's logic is so coherent; when will it explode? — No one can give an accurate prediction here, but we can analyze the multiple parties involved and observe the changes in their power.
We must first acknowledge that the transformation of the on-chain trading paradigm relies on the continuous prosperity of new assets and new users on-chain. Since the inception of Pump.fun, there has been an explosive growth of on-chain assets, and memes and AI agents have provided enough hype points and opportunities for benefit, leading users to start migrating from CEX to on-chain. At this point, the main contradiction becomes between the significant growth in trading demand from the explosive growth of assets and the centralized exchanges' 'editorial selection' listing model, which cannot cover hot spots in large quantities and in a timely manner. In terms of the appeal of spot business, Trading Bots, DEX aggregators, and in-wallet trading functions have taken a share from centralized exchanges below Tier 1.
However, at this point, it is still too early to sing the demise of exchanges, believing that DEX will completely replace CEX. Tier 1 exchanges still enjoy coin listing credits and deep liquidity, and perpetuals are also an important source of revenue for most CEXs. Clearly, users of Binance Square do not all need to transform into on-chain P little generals to make money, that's one point.
Moreover, as fat applications gradually replace fat protocols, more and more applications will choose to launch using Appchain or App Rollup in the future, making the multi-chain future a foregone conclusion. However, the currently fragmented multi-chain environment greatly hinders users' exploration and management of multi-chain assets. Although there has been progress in AA and interoperability protocols within various ecosystems, user education, developer education, and product adoption are not achieved overnight; this is the second point.
So, although the on-chain assets are significantly enriched, users are migrating on-chain, and the general direction of the future multi-chain is determined, the situation during the process is continually changing. However, as long as we analyze the trends, we can clearly find the foundation of chain abstraction products — seamlessly connecting and exploring the potential of a multi-chain world, including liquidity, users, and developers. For example, UniversalX's fundamental competitive advantage lies in the liquidity layer; understanding this point allows us to identify the most promising multi-chain trading user group and convert them into UniversalX's most loyal users (guess how many times I've heard the user feedback that 'once you use UniversalX, you can't go back').
Source: ForesightNews
As the ultimate chain abstraction exchange
Next, let's discuss why time will ultimately stand on the side of chain abstraction exchanges represented by UniversalX? Why not multi-chain wallets, Trading Bots, and aggregators?
First, there is the non-custodial attribute, which is relative to the custodial wallet of Trading Bots. We are not saying that custodial wallets should not exist or will disappear, but rather that they cannot exist alone. Users ultimately need to transfer their assets to non-custodial wallets. With the rise of on-chain security awareness, we believe that products insisting on non-custodial attributes will increase.
Secondly, there is the chain abstraction attribute, which is relative to multi-chain wallets and aggregators. The current multi-chain wallets merely 'connect' to multiple chains, serving as an aggregator. Although many wallets have also launched some optimizations regarding gas payments, essentially, users' assets are still scattered across different chains without being integrated. During the usage process, there is still a need to manually switch between different chains and transfer assets. However, we cannot expect every user to be well-versed in managing private keys to new chain cross-chain knowledge. I previously conducted a popularization of a multi-chain wallet, and its complexity was quite headache-inducing even for someone like me who prides myself on being knowledgeable. As for aggregators, currently, most only support single chains, and a small portion supports multi-chain, covering a limited range of assets, far from achieving the effect of 'connecting multiple chains.'
Source: ForesightNews
Finally, we arrive at the specific competitive aspects. The market for on-chain trading products is likely to repeat a three-phase model:
Demand competition;
Fee competition;
Business model competition.
The emergence of new tools and products proves that we are still in the first stage of demand competition, but specific product features such as smart money, address monitoring, and chip analysis have already shown signs of commercialization. When the user demand is mostly satisfied by market products, we will enter the second stage, which is the fee competition stage. To capture the market, products will engage in a 'price war' until a relatively stable state is reached. The final stage, which tests the long-term operational capabilities of projects the most, is the competition of business models.
The demand that UniversalX meets has been analyzed previously — firmly grasping the foundation of seamless multi-chain liquidity, while not affecting the integration of increasingly commoditized advanced data functions.
The more the multi-chain trend is confirmed, the clearer the demand for UniversalX becomes; the clearer the demand for UniversalX, the more the multi-chain trend will be confirmed. This positive spiral will grant UniversalX a bargaining power distinct from non-chain abstraction products, giving it an advantage in the fee competition stage.
In the final stage of business model competition, UniversalX's answer is also very clear — L1 + infrastructure + flagship applications. L1 Particle Chain is a public chain business model, the chain abstraction infrastructure Universal Account is a B2B2C business model, and UniversalX is a typical 2C exchange model, with each layer being very clear and mutually supportive.
Source: ForesightNews
Conclusion
With this, my discussion is almost at an end. This is a long piece but not a milk article; what I hope to convey is merely two points:
As builders, we never lack struggles and doubts, but we always choose to believe and move forward.
The realization of chain abstraction is a protracted battle, and the transformation of the on-chain trading paradigm has just begun.
My research and viewpoints have their shortcomings, and I hope to receive corrections and additions from everyone. I look forward to attention and support!
This article is reprinted with permission from: (ForesightNews)
Original author: HelloLydia¹³
'2025 Chain Abstraction Situation Analysis! On-chain Trading Paradigm Shift, How to Move from Concept to Practice?' This article was first published in 'Crypto City'
