The Market Needs Chain Abstraction
Contrary to popular belief, "chain abstraction" isn't just a concept concocted by venture capitalists. Given the increasingly competitive environments of high-performance Layer 1 chains, parallel EVMs, Layer 2 RaaS, Layer 3 application chains, and cross-chain technologies, modularization and chain abstraction are two complementary ideas. I firmly believe that the modularization process requires chain abstraction at some point.
Layer 1 Chains Face Intense Competition
Layer 1 public chains are in fierce competition, and EVM-compatible chains dominated the previous cycle. However, with EVM's limitations becoming clear, newer high-performance Layer 1 chains, emphasizing parallel transaction processing, have emerged (e.g., Solana, Sui, Aptos). Parallel EVM chains like Monad and Artela have rebuilt their architecture from scratch.
Evolving Layer 2 Ecosystem
Layer 2 networks have evolved beyond pure EVM-centric stories, leading to the Bitcoin Layer 2 ecosystem. For instance, BSquare is an EVM-compatible Layer 2 while CKB offers a UTXO-based system. Furthermore, highly modular Layer 2 networks have emerged, such as Celestia (focused on data availability) and Eclipse (Solana VM-based).
As the number of chains increases and competition tightens, interoperability issues arise between chains due to varying base languages, account models, and contract standards:
Development Languages: Move, Rust, and Solidity are challenging for developers to learn and adapt to.
Account Models: Integrating Ethereum's EOA accounts with Bitcoin's UTXO model is tough.
Contract Standards: ERC-20 and ERC-721 standards aren't well-suited for Move-based chains.
Relayers and Communication: Relayers struggle to enable seamless cross-chain communication.
Other differences include consensus mechanisms (PoW vs. PoS), governance, scalability, and trust/security frameworks.
Impact on User Experience
This intricate web of chain differences presents significant user experience challenges:
Unified Addresses: Users can't maintain a single, consistent address across EVM and non-EVM chains.
Signature Norms: Signature norms across account types vary widely, requiring signature aggregation.
Gas Fees: Gas fee structures differ significantly across chains, making conversion a challenge.
Liquidity Management: Users lack a cohesive liquidity management system.
Chain abstraction aims to conceal these technicalities behind a user-friendly interface. One notable initiative is @ParticleNtwrk's BTC Connect, enabling direct EVM access via Unisat. This forms just one part of their chain abstraction framework:
Cosmos SDK Architecture: Using Cosmos SDK, Particle connects with EVM, BTC UTXO, Solana, and other high-throughput chains, leveraging Cosmos' IBC and relayer features.
Keystore Contracts: These enable full-chain account abstraction by managing heterogeneous accounts across chains.
Intent Solvers: Decentralized bundlers convert user commands into executable transactions via a sophisticated intent-solving mechanism.
Cross-Chain Relayers: Relayers monitor cross-chain transactions and facilitate liquidity.
Unified Gas Token: Plans for a $PARTI token aim to unify gas usage across chains.
While some have criticized the user experience of account abstraction, it's worth noting that over 60 chains (BearChain and opBNB among them) have adopted Particle’s abstraction solution. However, expecting Particle to solve all compatibility issues on its own isn't practical.
Conclusion
In essence, Particle exemplifies how a modular Layer 1 chain can tackle the complexities of chain abstraction. Other solutions, such as @LightDotSo and NEAR Protocol, may offer unique paths but share a common aim: integration and seamless user interaction. As modularization is celebrated, we are beginning to understand the irrational complexity and appreciate chain abstraction's value. Its potential will fully reveal itself with increased adoption and market consolidation.