From Multi-Chain to Chain Abstraction: The Evolution of On-chain UX

After years of development, blockchain technology has evolved into a competitive landscape of multiple coexisting chains. This has led to the emergence of concepts such as cross-chain, interoperability, and intents, aimed at unifying different chains into a seamless front-end interaction experience.

Chain abstraction embodies this approach, allowing users to initiate an intent on one chain and execute it on another. For example, a user can submit an intent on Chain A, perform some operations, and ultimately achieve the result on the target chain or back in the same wallet.

The Challenge of Multi-Chain

Currently, some significant user experience challenges have emerged from the diverse blockchain ecosystem. Each blockchain has its strengths and weaknesses, facing the “blockchain trilemma” of balancing scalability, decentralization, and security.

To address these issues, we can consider from both internal and external sides. Internally, Layer 1 (L1) chains can serve as the foundational settlement or consensus layers, with specialized Layer 2 (L2) networks abstracted on top. L2s efficiently bundle multiple transactions, while L1s perform batch processing.

Externally, L1/L2 collaboration only partially addresses scalability issues. Interaction between different chains requires a horizontal expansion approach, linking various blockchain ecosystems. Cross-chain bridges, which transfer assets between blockchains by locking, burning, or minting assets, are essential for this.

Chain Abstraction: A Comprehensive Solution

Chain abstraction aims to provide a seamless Web3 experience, complete interoperability, minimized fragmentation, and improved user experience. However, it faces several key challenges:

• Fragmentation: The core issue for chain abstraction is addressing the fragmentation of the cryptocurrency market, where too many chains and rollups lead to liquidity fragmentation and poor user experiences.
• Cross-Chain Compatibility: Interoperability and compatibility between different chains are complex issues, especially given the new chains’ emerging and fierce competition.
• Centralization Trade-offs: Chain abstraction might introduce certain centralization trade-offs, as the decentralization level of the stack is limited.
• User Experience: Despite aiming for a better user experience, implementing chain abstraction may encounter various technical and social challenges.

To ensure the security and efficiency of cross-chain transactions, chain abstraction networks need to integrate multiple technical and strategic considerations, including complex risk management strategies to handle crises. This may involve monitoring cross-chain transactions to detect suspicious activities and halting the network if necessary, which can lead to centralization issues. Independent monitoring mechanisms are crucial to eliminating single errors.

Eliminating single errors is vital for maximizing the security, reliability, and independence of cross-chain protocols. A decentralized architecture with multiple nodes makes internal malicious attacks more difficult and prevents central entities from controlling the network.

The most typical example is the Bitcoin network mechanism, where any third party or node attempting to control the network would need to acquire at least 51% of the computing power. Given the high costs involved, this is nearly impossible to achieve. However, most new blockchain projects find it difficult to compete with the economic security logic of Bitcoin or Ethereum.

Therefore, adopting “soft” methods such as optimizing consensus algorithms is more feasible. Consensus algorithms are the core mechanism of blockchain networks and have a significant impact on cross-chain efficiency. By optimizing these algorithms, the speed and security of cross-chain transaction confirmations can be improved.

Consensus algorithms are a fundamental part of blockchain technology, helping nodes in the network reach agreement on the validity of transactions and the order of blocks. The mainstream consensus algorithms currently are PoW, PoS, and various BFT (Byzantine Fault Tolerance) mechanism variants.

Key consensus algorithms include:

• Proof of Work (PoW): Used by Bitcoin, requiring miners to solve complex mathematical problems to add new blocks, but consumes a lot of energy.
• Proof of Stake (PoS): Selects validators based on their cryptocurrency holdings, with lower energy consumption.
• Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT): Ensures the network operates and reaches consensus even with errors or malicious nodes.
• Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT): Suitable for enterprise-level blockchains, offering high fault tolerance but requiring significant computation.
• Delegated Byzantine Fault Tolerance (dBFT): Combines BFT with Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS), using a voting system and limited validator elections to reach consensus.

Enhancing node security, preventing 51% attacks, auditing smart contracts, protecting data privacy, and enhancing security awareness are effective measures to improve the security of blockchain systems.

The Competitive Landscape

While chain abstraction simplifies user interaction in a multi-chain environment, the sector itself is becoming crowded. Generally, it can be divided into three layers: access, solution, and settlement. The settlement layer resembles the role of public chains in the L1/L2 vertical layering. However, from a chain abstraction perspective, even cross-chain protocols and exchanges can be included.

Notable players like NEAR and Particle Network initially focused on other areas before moving into the chain abstraction sector. NEAR joined the competition as a sharded chain, while Particle Network started with wallet SaaS tools for GameFi. Their unique attributes have shaped the current landscape of chain abstraction.

Both NEAR and Particle Network aim to enable dApps to execute orders on any chain without requiring users to switch networks, sign transactions on different chains, or pay gas fees on other chains. This allows users to interact with dApps seamlessly using any supported token without leaving the user interface.

Differentiating Approaches

• NEAR: Provides a unified interface, simplifying user interactions across different blockchains by abstracting underlying complexities. This allows seamless transactions, asset management, and other operations without network switching or varying gas fees.
• Particle Network: Focuses on account abstraction, offering social login and wallet suites to improve access for users entering the blockchain space. It enhances the underlying structure of on-chain accounts, improving interaction efficiency and addressing the fragmented experience of multi-chain ecosystems.

Conclusion

With the increasing number of blockchains, cross-chain bridges alone are insufficient. Interoperability, the ability to transfer data across networks, is crucial for decentralized ecosystems. As early-stage cross-chain bridges faced frequent security issues, chain abstraction emerged as a potential solution to address both cross-chain asset transfers and user experience challenges.

Chain abstraction is expected to bring a more comprehensive solution for Web3, enabling a seamless, interoperable, and user-friendly experience across multiple blockchains.