Thoughts on Chain Abstraction

My thoughts on the recent chain abstraction (CA) discourse after building an appchain platform for a couple months:

First of all, let's all admit to ourselves that we don't really know what CA looks like in practice when mass-adopted.
Abstraction (whether chain, account, or a hybrid), like decentralization, is a spectrum.

Every CA startup has a different approach and definition on how it'll change crypto's UX (and, they're all awesome and noteworthy).

What we do know, is that most (if not all) crypto applications have a glaring blockchain smell.
And CA aims to reduce this blockchain smell as much as the users and applications would like.

This article isn't about nitpicking the definition of chain abstraction, but rather addressing the current and future relationship between CA and other well-established protocols, apps, and users. Let's get into it.

Do chains want chain abstraction?

No, of course not. Because most of the current chains are general-purpose chains (or app-specific trying to hit general-purpose growth metrics).
Chains are too married to the TVL metric and don't want users to easily interoperate between their chain and others, aka, bring your liquidity here but please don't leave .

Since the emergence of the rollup-centric roadmap, there has been an uncanny focus on making blockchains sticky .
I believe this is an incorrect approach. This "make chains/protocols sticky" philosophy has led to many claims of too much infrastructure and not enough apps.

Why are we trying to make our chains sticky?

Because in the current state of crypto, users DO have to make a decision on which chain to use.
The wallet/txn UX still requires a "select network" step. And chains are still fighting for users to select their network over others.

This is the way of thinking of chain operators and, until the "select network" step becomes irrelevant, chains are going to continue to focus on making their chain sticky.

Weird behavior if you ask me.

Do users want chain abstraction?

Also, no! Because "users" right now are crypto-native and sophisticated. They don't have problems to be solved by CA.
The "select network" step is perfectly normal to them, the same way that needing everyone to be off the phone in order to use the internet was a normal step.

Crypto users have been around long enough to just be okay with how things are now. They only need to actually use 2-4 chains, and then airdrop farm all the others.
Annoying? Yeah a little, especially during tax season. But that's just how things are.

Users are always oddly satisfied with how things are. Thus, they don't want/need chain abstraction.

But when has tech ever been fully satisfied with how things are?

So why Chain Abstraction?

Clearly, chain abstraction isn't needed, right? No one's asking for it, everyone's fine.

"Users SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE their chain because all chains are a little bit different, and that changes the risk profile of the money stored onchain." – someone, probably

The truth is, chain abstraction isn't solving a current problem as much as it's preparing to solve a future problem .

The Appchain Thesis

We've all heard the "too much infra, not enough apps" claim one too many times. The reason for this is that protocol-specific growth metrics are glorified, and application-specific metrics are not.
Why would anyone build a consumer app when TVL is the only thing that matters?

TVL is a legacy metric; along with many other KPIs measured by general-purpose chains.

As more and more apps become appchains, there is going to be a merge between infra and apps such that they are considered the same thing. Apps will no longer be deployed on chains, they will deploy as chains.

In this future, liquidity MUST freely flow seamlessly between many chains at once.

When Uniswap becomes an appchain, users need to easily and cheaply be able to move onto that chain, execute their swap, then move off and back to whatever SocialFi appchain they were previously using.

This is what our crypto future will soon look like; this is the crypto future chain abstraction is solving for.

The appchain thesis needs to become best friends with the chain abstraction narrative.
The chain abstraction narrative needs the appchain thesis, and vice versa.

If we're going to see true mass adoption (meaning billions of daily users), applications should not share blockspace with other apps.
Customize your execution layer, own your blockspace, and make stickier applications because of it. Then use Chain Abstraction to help your appchain reach the world.

This is the way forward.

Conclusion

Though true that no one is asking for it, Chain Abstraction is beating the inevitable Appchain thesis to the punch.
But in order for appchains to be viable, we need to change our way of thinking.

I am pleading you to stop making protocol-stickiness the goal.

Successful consumer crypto apps hardly exist because, to users, they all just look like new ways to use a blockchain. The blockchain smell is horrid and inconvenient.

To reduce the blockchain smell, and still be onchain, consumer apps should launch as appchains.
But in order to do that, chain abstraction is necessary.

Let's make application-stickiness our goal once again, and create great infra to empower developers to build sticky applications .

Shameless Plug

At @monea_xyz , we're doing just that.

The Appchain Thesis is going to birth a new class of developer: The Appchain Developer.

This new role will require new ways of thinking, new technical skillsets, and, thus, new tooling .

So we're building @monea_xyz , the Appchain platform with managed infrastructure and developer tooling that makes launching custom, application-specific rollups easier.

And we're partnering with various Chain Abstraction protocols to ensure appchain developers can build sticky onchain applications.

If you'd like to partner with us, invest in the idea, or join the private builders telegram, send me a DM or email at jacob@monea.xyz. 🫡