橋樑之戰：鏈抽象協議會是 Web3 跨鏈互操作性的未來嗎？

現今用戶經常得同時管理多個獨立的 區塊鏈 —— 各 自有錢包、代幣及應用 —— 跨鏈操作非常麻煩，這種碎片化被廣泛認為是大規模採用的障礙。事實上，分析師也 指出：「用戶及流動性在不同鏈間分散，正越來越成為 Web3 應用的障礙。」

當每條鏈像是孤島，轉移代幣或資料往往需依賴複雜的橋樑或手動兌換，手續費高且安全風險大。舉例來說，2022 年僅跨鏈橋樑攻擊就占當年被盜加密貨幣的約 69%，凸顯傳統橋樑成為高風險瓶頸。

鏈抽象協議的目標就是消除多錢包、多鏈管理的困擾，讓用戶有如在一個地方就能操作所有鏈資產。所謂「鏈抽象」，就 是「移除用戶體驗摩擦」，讓用戶跨鏈使用錢包如同資產統一在一起。不需再手動選鏈與分別付費，協議在背後自動 代勞。

以下我們將探討鏈抽象協議的運作方式，與傳統橋樑的比較，並思考這種新模式能否成為 Web3 跨鏈互操作性的下一世代。

傳統橋樑的侷限

對許多早期用戶而言，橋樑一度是解決區塊鏈碎片化的首選工具。跨鏈橋樑本質是專業應用，能連接兩條或多條區塊鏈，實現代幣或資料轉移。一般橋樑做法是將來源鏈上的代幣鎖定（或銷毀），同時目標鏈鑄造（或解鎖）等值代幣，即「橋接」鏈上價值。例如，若要把 ETH 從以太坊轉到幣安智能鏈（BSC），你可能將 ETH 打入以太坊橋樑合約，然後在 BSC 上獲得 1:1 的鏡像 ETH。這確實帶來新功能 —— 用戶可跨網絡轉移資產、調用不同鏈的流動性。

但橋接本身需要用戶主動參與，且充滿權衡。用戶通常必須挑對橋樑、指定來源與目標鏈、分別管理每條鏈的 Gas 費，有時還得等多次鏈上確認。Arcana Network 稱這種模式為「推送式」橋接，用戶做大部分工作：選擇橋樑、鏈、每步手動遞送。每一流程都增加複雜度與延遲。比如，資產打進 A 鏈的橋樑後，用戶往往還需等 B 鏈簽名，然後手動提領或解鎖資產。一旦任何鏈網壅塞或延誤，整個流程都會拖慢。

安全性亦是橋樑的一大隱憂。傳統橋樑往往依賴特定合約或驗證人託管鎖定資產，極易成駭客目標。Chainalysis 報告 2022 年約 70% 加密貨幣被盜來自橋樑攻擊。知名事件如 Wormhole 漏洞（2022 年 2 月損失 3.21 億美元）等，皆說明中心化弱點一旦被攻破就會造成災難。只要有一個驗證節點或私鑰外洩，或智能合約有漏洞，攻擊者就可能竊取資金。Chainalysis 警告指：「跨鏈橋樑……常常形成集中的資金存放點，極易成目標。」

開發者與用戶其實都感受到橋接摩擦。每新增一條鏈，往往就產生新橋樑（甚至多個競爭橋），錢包和代幣又更多。要將資產搬到另一鏈或調用對方智能合約，必須經過多步驟橋接，這導致用戶和流動性高度割裂：每條鏈的用戶基本都留在本鏈，不太願意忍受繁雜的橋接。正因如此，許多用戶乾脆只用一條網絡，儘量不碰橋樑 —— 這就是互操作性想解決的碎片化問題。簡而言之，橋樑雖可行，但代價高昂：複雜、慢且有安全疑慮。

鏈抽象協議登場

鏈抽象協議則完全不同。它們採「拉取式」模型：用戶僅需說明意圖或最終目標，其餘跨鏈細節由協議基礎設施自動處理。高層來說，鏈抽象意指「更根本地簡化用戶體驗，加強互操作性」，直接把多鏈的細節隱藏。實際操作上，這通常以單一介面或賬戶形式呈現，可對任意受支持鏈互動，並以智能化機制自動路由或批次處理跨鏈事務。

比如，用鏈抽象達成跨鏈轉帳時，用戶不需手動用橋樑，而是直接告訴跨鏈應用「發 100 USDC 到 Bob 在鏈 Z」。鏈抽象層（多仰賴智能合約及鏈下中繼者）會自動判斷最佳路徑、換幣、於適合的鏈支付 gas，然後把款項送到對方 —— 用戶只需見到一次「發送」交易，底層則可能串聯多步驟橋接。這種「基於意圖」的流程，是許多鏈抽象設計的核心特色，讓開發者和用戶把多條鏈當作一條用。

鏈抽象協議試圖解決當今 Web3 的兩大痛點：一，大幅簡化用戶體驗（UX）。再也不用分別管理一堆錢包或支付各網絡的 gas 代幣。有了統一賬戶或介面，交易感覺就像底層只有一條鏈。Blockworks 說明，鏈抽象是將「區塊鏈基礎架構與用戶體驗解耦」，多鏈交互成為「背景細節，用戶幾乎無需關心」。在這模式下，用戶只需一次登入 dApp，應用就會於 Ethereum、Polygon 或 Avalanche 背景自動執行所需交易 —— 用戶不用手動換網絡或分別啟用錢包。這種跨鏈簡潔，常被比擬為如今網際網路：你上網用服務根本不用在意底層協議。

二，鏈抽象有助打破流動性及開發者的碎片化。在分裂環境下，應用開發者常只能選一條鏈（用戶和資產都受限），或為每條鏈各自維護版本。但鏈抽象允許單一 dApp 同步接觸所有支持鏈的用戶和流動性。Blockworks 稱之為將流動性變成了「全球通用資源」，而非各鏈獨有且難以移動的資產。一個建立於鏈抽象的 DeFi 協議可自動從多鏈池子拿到最佳匯率。

開發者能專注於功能無需重複移植，多鏈用戶與資產合而為一，帶動網絡效應成長；Blockworks 也認為，鏈抽象啟動應用「即時接觸全生態系的價值與用戶」，能依據每個功能自動選最合適的鏈以最優成本和延展性達成。換言之，若 A 鏈借貸手續費低、B 鏈流動性深，協議可將 swap 指令送 B，同時把借貸調用發到 A，全都由單一用戶介面完成。

簡言之，鏈抽象將多鏈雜亂統一成用戶眼中的「單一邏輯鏈」。用戶持有一個「整合錢包」，隨時一鍵跨鏈 swap 或發消息；開發者則只需部署一次應用，不用重寫多套鏈程式。若能真正實現，這些協議有望帶來早期區塊鏈所期待的用戶友好體驗：一般人跟用普通網站一樣用區塊鏈應用，根本不管底層跨了多少鏈。

鏈抽象協議怎麼運作

雖然細節有別，大多數鏈抽象協議都有類似架構。一般來說有三層（有時稱為權限層、解算層、結算層），協同處理用戶「意圖」直到執行完成。

• 權限層（賬戶抽象）：常由智能合約錢包或賬戶抽象機制構成，做為全能賬戶。用戶只用一個賬戶簽署並說明意圖（如「轉帳到鏈 Z」）。賬戶抽象層會驗證請求並轉給解算網絡，也能統一 gas 支付（可用任意代幣甚至預付）。

• 解算層（鏈下中繼或「解算者」）：由一組獨立節點或服務組成，負責競價執行用戶意圖（有時會質押保證金）。解算者會整合一或多條鏈的必要操作兌現意圖，必要時墊付資金。它們像專業經紀或市值撮合者。例如 Alice 想在 X 鏈換 Token A 為 Y 鏈的 Token B，解算者會在 X 借出 Token A，橋到 Y 鏈換成 Token B … on Y, and deliver it – all atomically, then claim payment for its service. Users may pay a tiny fee or the solver takes a spread. This off-chain solver model is what enables the “pull” approach: users don’t need to find or trust any single bridge themselves – they just define their goal.
  在 Y 上，並以原子性地完成這些操作後，向用戶收取服務費。用戶可能會付一筆微小的費用，或讓解算者賺取價差。這種鏈下解算者模型就是實現「拉取」（pull）方式的關鍵：用戶無需自己尋找或信任特定橋接，只需定義自己的目標即可。

• Settlement layer (Cross-chain execution): Once a solver has packaged the required transactions, they use actual cross-chain messaging or bridging infrastructure to execute them. This might involve locking tokens in a bridge contract, using an oracle protocol like CCIP, or even using built-in light-client validation. The settlement ensures the end result: tokens have moved and final blockchain states match the user’s intent. Security at this layer still depends on the underlying mechanism (multi-sigs, proof networks, etc.), but because the user offloads complexity, it often looks like just one seamless transaction from their perspective.

• 結算層（跨鏈執行）：當解算者打包好所需的交易後，會利用真實的跨鏈訊息傳遞或橋接基礎設施來執行這些操作。這可能包括將代幣鎖定於橋接合約、使用如 CCIP 之類的預言機協議，甚至用內建的輕客戶端驗證。結算層確保最終結果：代幣成功轉移，且最終區塊鏈狀態與用戶意圖相符。這一層的安全性依然取決於底層機制（多簽、證明網路等），但由於用戶不用處理復雜細節，從他們的視角看起來經常就像是一筆無縫的交易。

Chain abstraction protocols differ in how each layer is implemented. Some, like LayerZero and Axelar, focus on lightweight messaging protocols for the settlement layer. Others, like Across or Router, emphasize the solver network and economic incentives. Chainlink’s CCIP is an oracle-based messaging standard, while Hyperlane (formerly Abacus) is focused on permissionless, modular cross-chain message passing. Some newer designs (sometimes called “Intent-based” protocols) may incorporate advanced features like flash executions or integrated swaps.
鏈抽象協議在每層的具體實現方式上各有不同。有些像 LayerZero 和 Axelar，專注於為結算層提供輕量級的訊息傳遞協議；其他如 Across 或 Router，則強調解算者網絡與經濟激勵。Chainlink 的 CCIP 屬於預言機驅動的訊息標準，而 Hyperlane（前稱 Abacus）則致力於無許可、模組化的跨鏈訊息傳遞。有些新設計（有時稱為「意圖型」協議）可能還會納入閃電執行或整合交換等進階功能。

What they share is the goal of shifting work from users to the protocol. Instead of a user manually bridging assets, these systems orchestrate the operations across chains automatically. For instance, if a user simply indicates “send 5 USDC to Chain B,” the chain abstraction service might handle swapping any USDC subtype, paying gas on Chain B, and then delivering the tokens, all invisibly. The user never sees intermediate steps.
他們的共同目標是將繁複操作由用戶轉移到協議本身。這些系統能自動協調跨鏈操作，用戶無需手動橋接資產。舉例來說，用戶只需指示「發送 5 USDC 到鏈 B」，鏈抽象服務便會自動處理各類 USDC 兌換、支付鏈 B 上的手續費，並完成代幣交付，所有中間步驟對用戶都是無感的。用戶看不到中途細節，只需關注最終結果。

Bridges vs. Abstraction: A Comparison

To understand the “battle” between bridges and abstraction, it helps to compare their trade-offs directly. Arcana Network’s analysis frames this well. Traditional bridges use a push model: users actively push their assets into a bridge, specify source and destination, and then manually claim on the other side. Chain abstraction uses a pull model: the user issues an intent (a destination and an action) and the system pulls funds and executes on their behalf.
要理解「橋接」與「抽象化」這場「大戰」，直接比較兩者的權衡點會很有幫助。Arcana Network 的分析就很好地做出了框架。傳統橋接採用「推」模式：用戶主動將資產推送到橋接合約，指定來源與目的地，並在對方鏈上手動領取。而鏈抽象則使用「拉」模式：用戶只需發出意圖（目標鏈和動作），系統便會自動拉取資金、代表用戶執行任務。

In practice, this means bridging can give the user full control and choice (which bridge contract to use, exact chains, etc.), but at the cost of
complexity and multi-step procedures. Chain abstraction, by contrast, simplifies steps: the user only chooses the final outcome, and the protocol “pulls” the right chains and fees. Arcana notes, for example, that with chain abstraction “the abstraction layer handles selecting the appropriate chains, managing gas fees, and executing the transaction through intents,” whereas with a regular bridge the user must manually handle each part.
實際上，橋接讓用戶能完全掌控（選擇哪條橋、具體哪兩條鏈……），但代價是流程繁複且步驟多。鏈抽象則反之，把流程簡化：用戶只須決定最終目標，其餘由協議自動「拉取」合適的鏈及手續費。Arcana 指出，鏈抽象下，「抽象層會自動選擇合適鏈、管理 Gas 費，用意圖驅動執行交易」，而傳統橋接則需用戶親自處理每個環節。

Security considerations also diverge. Bridges, by design, often centralize risk (a locked vault, multisig, or set of validators), making hacks lucrative. Yet they can be made relatively simple and specific for asset transfers. Chain abstraction protocols reduce direct user exposure by handling chains through relayers. Arcana argues that this “reduces the attack surface area by minimizing direct user interactions with multiple chains”. With abstraction, the user’s wallet doesn’t directly call every chain’s contract; instead, it authorizes a single abstract transaction. However, this puts more trust in the abstraction layer’s infrastructure (the relayers and oracles). If those are compromised, cross-chain actions can still fail or be hijacked. In short, both models require careful design: bridging has historically been costly when it fails, but abstraction still depends on robust protocol security.
安全性考量也呈現不同路線。橋接因為常集中風險（如集中金庫、多簽或驗證者集合），成為駭客的熱門目標，但設計上可以針對資產轉移做得比較簡單。鏈抽象協議透過中繼者處理多條鏈，減少用戶直接暴露於多鏈環境。Arcana 認為這「透過減少用戶與多條鏈直接互動來降低攻擊面」。抽象化下，用戶錢包不再直接調用每條鏈的合約，而是授權一個抽象交易。不過，這會提高對抽象層基礎設施（如中繼者和預言機）的信任需求。如果這些組件出問題，跨鏈操作仍然可能失敗或遭劫持。總之，兩者都需謹慎設計：橋接失敗代價高昂由來已久，抽象化雖然減少風險，仍依賴強健協議安全。

Performance and cost also shift. Bridges require two on-chain transactions (lock and unlock) plus confirmations on each chain, so they can be slow (often minutes or more). Chain abstraction can be faster by using atomic or batched operations: a single user request can trigger fewer user-visible steps. Solver networks can optimize routes to avoid congested chains and even negotiate fees. Arcana points out that chain abstraction’s competitive solvers can dynamically find the fastest, lowest-cost paths, potentially making swaps or transfers more efficient. In some designs, multiple solvers bid to complete an intent, pushing costs down.
在效能與成本方面也有差異。橋接需要兩次鏈上交易（鎖定和解鎖）以及各鏈確認，速度通常較慢（屢有數分鐘以上情況）。鏈抽象則可透過原子性或批次操作提速：用戶只需一次請求即可減少外顯步驟。解算者網路還可以優化路由，避免擁堵鏈、甚至協商手續費。Arcana 指出，鏈抽象下的解算者會競爭地尋找速度最快、費用最低的路徑，讓換幣或轉帳更有效率。有些設計中，多位解算者投標完成意圖，壓低成本。

However, chain abstraction systems are more complex architecturally. They often involve off-chain components, staking incentives for solvers, and sometimes novel economic schemes. This complexity can make them harder to analyze and build trust in. Bridges, in comparison, are relatively simple smart contracts (though as we’ve seen, that simplicity can invite hacks).
但鏈抽象架構上較為複雜。它們通常牽涉鏈下元件、解算者質押獎勵、甚至嶄新經濟機制。這種複雜性也讓安全審查和建立信任更具挑戰。相較下，傳統橋接多是相對簡單的智能合約（雖然正因如此，有時反而容易被駭）。

In summary, traditional bridges offer direct but cumbersome cross-chain transfers, while chain abstraction offers a sleek UX at the cost of extra protocol layers. The key question is whether users and developers will trade simplicity for new infrastructure trust. As one researcher put it, chain abstraction is meant to simplify UX and interoperability, “but the underlying process and technology” remain intricate.
總結來看，傳統橋接提供直接但繁瑣的跨鏈轉帳，鏈抽象則以多一層協議的代價換來更流暢的用戶體驗。關鍵問題在於用戶和開發者是否願意用簡單性換取對新基礎設施的信任。正如一位研究人員所言，鏈抽象是為簡化用戶體驗和互通性而生，「但其底層流程與技術仍高度複雜」。

Notable Chain Abstraction Projects

A variety of projects are pioneering chain abstraction and related interoperability. Many started as bridges or messaging protocols and evolved.
眾多項目正在開創鏈抽象以及相關互操作性路線，許多最初只是橋接或訊息協議，後來逐步演進。

Key examples include:
主要範例如下：

• LayerZero: One of the most-discussed abstraction layers, LayerZero provides an “omnichain” messaging protocol. It uses an oracle-and-relayer design: each endpoint chain runs a light node and trustlessly checks messages from the other chain, while an off-chain relayer (like Chainlink) helps transmit the data. This design lets contracts communicate directly across chains without needing a two-step transfer. LayerZero co-founder Sandeep Nailwal describes it as a “lightweight cross-chain information transmission” system where security is guaranteed by both chains verifying each other’s messages. It has been integrated into many protocols, allowing them to support multiple chains seamlessly. LayerZero aims to abstract the choice of network away from users, providing a unified messaging layer for DApps.

• LayerZero：LayerZero 是討論度最高的鏈抽象協議之一，提供「全鏈」訊息協議。它採用預言機＋中繼者設計：每條端點鏈運行輕節點，能信任地檢查來自其他鏈的訊息，鏈下的中繼者（例如 Chainlink）則協助資料傳輸。這讓合約可直接跨鏈通信，無需兩步轉帳。共同創辦人 Sandeep Nailwal 形容其為「輕量級跨鏈信息傳輸」系統，安全性由雙鏈互驗消息保證。LayerZero 已被許多協議集成，使其可無縫支援多鏈。LayerZero 的願景是為 DApp 提供統一訊息層，將網路選擇抽象化，用戶感知不到不同鏈的區別。

• Axelar: Built with Cosmos technology, Axelar is a decentralized network of validators that connects many blockchains. Axelar advertises “full-chain deployment,” meaning a DApp built on Axelar can run on any supported chain out of the box. Axelar’s interchain protocol lets developers deploy one application and automatically have it available on dozens of networks. Under the hood, Axelar validators participate in cross-chain API calls and token transfers, enabling abstracted commands like “transfer USDC from BSC to Ethereum” with one function call. Because of its broad coverage, Axelar claims to support the most public chains of any abstraction layer. This wide reach helps both user experience (fewer choices to make) and liquidity (aggregating tokens across chains).

• Axelar：Axelar 以 Cosmos 技術構建，是一個去中心化驗證者網絡，連接著多條區塊鏈。Axelar 主打「全鏈部署」：DApp 只要建在 Axelar 上，就能即刻運行於所有支援鏈。其跨鏈協議允許開發者只部署一次應用，自動觸及多個網絡。幕後機制是 Axelar 驗證者協同處理跨鏈 API 與幣轉，使「BSC 轉 USDC 至 Ethereum」這類抽象命令“一鍵實現”。由於涵蓋範圍廣，Axelar 宣稱是所有抽象協議中支援最多公鏈者。這種廣度提升了用戶體驗（減少選擇）和資金流動性（跨鏈聚合代幣）。

• Wormhole: Originating as the bridge between Solana and Ethereum, Wormhole has expanded into a network of “core contracts” and guardian nodes that connect multiple chains (Solana, Ethereum, Terra, BSC, etc.). A trusted quorum of guardians signs off on messages; each blockchain runs a Wormhole contract that emits or reads these signed messages. Wormhole functions both as a token bridge and a generalized messaging fabric. Because Solana was one of the initial supported chains, Wormhole has quickly accumulated high volume. However, it too relies on guardian signatures (and was the target of one of crypto’s largest exploits). Wormhole represents an intermediate model: more decentralized than a single bridge contract, but still a multi-sig system.

• Wormhole：Wormhole 起初是 Solana 和 Ethereum 之間的橋，現已擴展為由「核心合約」與守護節點組成的多鏈網路（支援 Solana、Ethereum、Terra、BSC 等）。一組可信守護節點以法定人數簽名訊息，每條鏈都運行一個 Wormhole 合約，用以發送/接收這些訊息。Wormhole 兼具代幣橋與通用訊息協議功能。由於 Solana 是早期支援鏈之一，Wormhole 很快實現高交易量。不過其運作仍仰賴守護者簽名（也曾發生過最大規模的加密駭客事件之一）。Wormhole 屬於中間模式：比單一橋合約去中心，但本質仍為多簽體系。

• ZetaChain: Launched more recently, ZetaChain is a Cosmos-SDK chain that natively runs smart contracts which can operate on multiple networks. It’s essentially a standalone blockchain designed for interoperability. ZetaChain’s goal is “full-chain smart contracts,” meaning a dApp running on ZetaChain can interact simultaneously with Ethereum, Bitcoin, and other chains within one contract’s logic. As the Binance summary notes, ZetaChain is similar to Axelar in architecture but explicitly includes Bitcoin (via a special node) and targets on-chain composability across all chains. It’s an ambitious example of building abstraction into a new layer-1 blockchain.

• ZetaChain：ZetaChain 是較新推出的 Cosmos-SDK 區塊鏈，原生支援可跨多鏈運行的智能合約。其本質是一條為互操作設計的獨立公鏈。ZetaChain 的目標是「全鏈智能合約」，即 DApp 在 ZetaChain 上一次部署，便能於 Ethereum、Bitcoin 等多鏈同時互動（單一合約邏輯即可）。據幣安總結，ZetaChain 架構類似 Axelar，但明確支援 Bitcoin（透過特殊節點），並致力於跨鏈鏈上組合性。這是將抽象化內建至新 Layer 1 區塊鏈中的雄心範例。

• Chainlink CCIP (Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol): Rather than its own network, Chainlink is extending its oracle framework into interoperability. CCIP is an open standard that uses Chainlink’s decentralized oracle and its new Risk Management Network to relay messages and tokens between chains. In essence, it provides a universal bridge mechanism accessible to any developer. According to Chainlink, CCIP will underpin tools like a “Programmable Token Bridge” to move tokens across any blockchain in a “highly secure, scalable” way. Because it leverages Chainlink’s large operator pool, CCIP promises robust verification and a built-in dispute/prevention layer. It aims to hide cross-chain intricacies by letting developers make one CCIP call instead of multiple bridged steps.

• Chainlink CCIP（跨鏈互操作協議）：Chainlink 並非建立自己的網路，而是將其預言機體系擴展至互操作層。CCIP 是一套開放標準，利用 Chainlink 去中心化預言機和新風控網絡傳遞跨鏈訊息及資產。實務上，它提供一種通用橋接機制，任何開發者都可接入。Chainlink 稱，CCIP 將支援「可編程代幣橋」之類工具，讓代幣能以「高度安全、可擴展」方式跨任意區塊鏈。由於採用 Chainlink 多營運者網絡，CCIP 呈現出強大的驗證與爭議預防層，讓開發者只需一次 CCIP 調用，即隱去繁瑣跨鏈細節。

• Hyperlane (formerly Abacus): Hyperlane provides a modular cross-chain messaging system that can be self-hosted by any chain or app. Unlike LayerZero’s chain-native design or Axelar’s validator network, Hyperlane lets developers self-deploy a Hyperlane instance on their chain to connect to others. It emphasizes “permissionless expansion”: once one uses Hyperlane on a given blockchain, it automatically gains connectivity to all chains already using it. Hyperlane reports that it has “140+ chains connected” and has bridged over $8 billion across its network. It supports multiple virtual machines and encourages users to “own your interop”

• Hyperlane（前稱 Abacus）：Hyperlane 提供一套模組化跨鏈訊息系統，任何鏈或應用均可自主管理。不同於 LayerZero 的鏈原生設計或 Axelar 的驗證網路，Hyperlane 允許開發者在自家鏈上自建 Hyperlane 實例聯通其他鏈。它強調「無許可擴展」：一條鏈一旦用上 Hyperlane，即自動連接所有已用 Hyperlane 的鏈。Hyperlane 宣稱「已連接 140+ 條鏈」，跨橋累積資產逾 80 億美元。它支援多種虛擬機，強調「互操作權由你掌控」。by running their own Hyperlane nodes. This architecture offers flexibility and uses open-source bridges (Warp Routes) for token transfers with low slippage. Hyperlane’s focus is on giving developers customizable security modules, hinting that users can choose how trust is managed for each connection.
  透過運行他們自己的 Hyperlane 節點。這種架構提供高度彈性，並利用開源橋接（Warp Routes）來進行低滑價的代幣轉移。Hyperlane 著重於為開發者提供可自訂的安全模組，這意味著用戶可以針對每一個連線選擇不同的信任管理方式。

• DeFi Bridges with Abstraction: Several DeFi protocols have integrated abstraction-like features. For instance, the Synapse and Celer cBridge systems began as liquidity bridges but now offer SDKs and “any-to-any” swaps that hide many details from users. Uniswap’s upcoming UniswapX (leveraging BLOB protocol) and the Across bridge are using “intent-based” designs: users simply request a swap and off-chain solvers execute it optimally. These services blur the lines between a simple bridge and a full abstraction layer, because they often involve relayers and shared liquidity pools.

• 具抽象層的 DeFi 橋接：多個 DeFi 協議已經整合了類似抽象層的功能。例如，Synapse 和 Celer cBridge 系統最初是流動性橋，但現在已提供 SDK 及「任意對任意」的兌換功能，讓使用者無需管控細節。Uniswap 即將推出的 UniswapX（採用 BLOB 協議）以及 Across bridge 都採用「意圖導向」設計：用戶只需發出兌換請求，鏈下解算方就會最佳化執行。這些服務讓簡單的橋接與完整抽象層的界線變得模糊，因為它們常涉及中繼者以及共享流動性池。

• Polkadot and Cosmos (Foundation Projects): While not usually labeled under “chain abstraction,” the architectures of Polkadot and Cosmos historically embody abstraction principles. Polkadot’s parachains share a relay chain and use XCMP messaging so that chains can interoperate without separate bridges. Cosmos’ IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) protocol is a built-in standard that lets independent chains send packets of data and tokens to each other. Both systems essentially create ecosystems where chains talk natively instead of via third-party bridges. In Polkadot’s case, developers build on one unified network; in Cosmos, chains install IBC modules to connect. These projects show that abstraction can be achieved at the protocol level (a custom hub chain or native messaging layer), not only at the app level. For example, Cosmos aims to be an “Internet of Blockchains,” where users can send tokens between chains like Terra and Osmosis with IBC without extra steps.

• Polkadot 和 Cosmos（基礎架構型項目）：雖然它們不常被歸類為「鏈抽象」，但 Polkadot 和 Cosmos 的架構歷來體現了抽象原則。Polkadot 的平行鏈共用一條中繼鏈，並通過 XCMP 訊息，讓各鏈無需獨立橋接就能互通。Cosmos 的 IBC（跨鏈通訊協議）是內建標準，使獨立鏈可傳送資料包和代幣給彼此。兩者都本質上打造出鏈原生溝通的生態，而非只靠第三方橋樑。以 Polkadot 而言，開發者建構於同一統一網路；Cosmos 則是各鏈裝設 IBC 模組對接。這些項目說明抽象可以在協議層（自訂中央鏈或原生訊息層）實現，不僅僅侷限於應用層。例如 Cosmos 目標是「區塊鏈的網際網路」，用戶能使用 IBC 無縫在 Terra、Osmosis 等鏈間轉幣，無需多餘操作。

Each of these projects takes a slice of the abstraction puzzle. Some focus on accounts (one wallet for many chains), others on messaging protocols, and others on liquidity routing. But the common theme is that they move cross-chain logic into infrastructure instead of user hands.
每個項目都解決了抽象拼圖中的一部分。有的著重於帳號（多鏈共用一錢包）、有的專注於通訊協議、也有聚焦於流動性路由。但共同之處在於，它們都致力於將跨鏈邏輯放進基礎設施內，而不是讓用戶親自處理。

Potential Benefits of Abstraction

Chain abstraction’s promise is multifold. For users, the biggest gain is simplicity. A user logs into a wallet or dApp and no longer needs to know which chain they are using. In the vision of protocols like zkCross (as shared in a recent AMA), chain abstraction makes trading and asset management feel as easy as one-click multi-chain swaps. Users are “freed from complexities like wallets, addresses, and transactions,” so they feel like they are in “a unified blockchain ecosystem”. Instead of juggling ETH gas on Ethereum and BNB on Binance Smart Chain, the abstraction layer might let them pay gas in the token they have, or even in a stablecoin, behind the scenes handling conversions. Interactions like voting, lending, or NFT transfers across chains happen through one interface. All this lowers barriers for non-technical users to try cross-chain Web3.
鏈抽象的承諾是多層次的。對用戶而言，最大優勢是簡單性。用戶登入錢包或 dApp 時，無需再關心自己使用哪一條鏈。有如 zkCross 等協議（近期 AMA 中提及）的願景，鏈抽象會讓交易與資產管理變得猶如一鍵多鏈兌換般容易。用戶「不再被錢包、地址、交易等複雜性困擾」，會覺得自己處於「統一的區塊鏈生態系」中。不需要同時備妥 Ethereum 上的 ETH gas 與 BNB Chain 上的 BNB，抽象層可以直接用手上任何代幣，甚至穩定幣支付手續費，由系統在背後處理兌換。像是跨鏈投票、借貸或 NFT 轉移，都能在同一介面完成。這讓非技術用戶參與跨鏈 Web3 的門檻大幅降低。

For developers and protocols, abstraction expands reach. A decentralized exchange or yield aggregator built on an abstraction layer can tap liquidity pools on any connected chain. For instance, a borrowing app could source collateral from many chains and offer a single credit line. Blockworks highlights that developers “can build dApps that are not tied to the liquidity limitations or user base of a specific blockchain,” greatly increasing network effects. This can lead to more capital-efficient applications. In theory, a single Solidity codebase deployed on an abstraction platform might automatically run on Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, and more, with the platform handling the environmental differences. This also simplifies devOps – no need to integrate multiple bridge contracts manually. In practice, several abstraction platforms are providing developer SDKs and universal accounts (like Particle Network and zkCross) to enable these cross-chain dApps.
對開發者與協議來說，抽象層則擴展了應用觸及範圍。一個建立在抽象層上的去中心化交易所或收益聚合器，可以即時使用任意鏈上的流動性池。例如，借貸服務可以從多條鏈匯集抵押品，並給用戶單一信貸額度。Blockworks 指出，開發者可以「打造不受單一區塊鏈流動性和用戶規模限制的 dApp」，大幅提升網路效應，有助於應用的資本效率提升。理論上，只需部署一份 Solidity 程式碼於抽象平台，平台就能自動處理和 Ethereum、Polygon、Avalanche 等不同鏈的環境差異。同時這也簡化了運維，無需手動整合多個跨鏈橋協議。實際上，已有多個抽象平台（如 Particle Network、zkCross）提供開發者 SDK 與通用帳號，加速這種跨鏈 dApp 的落地。

Abstraction could also optimize performance and costs. Since these protocols can choose the fastest chain and bundle transactions, they might avoid the congestion and high fees that plague any single network. As Blockworks notes, developers could pick “the most cost-effective and scalable blockchain for specific tasks without regard for their social or economic power”. For example, an NFT marketplace might mint on a low-fee chain while settling final payments on another. Because chain abstraction pools resources, users might get better execution prices (global price pooling) and faster confirmations (parallel settlement). If done well, the system dynamically routes around chokepoints. Some projects even promise cheaper cross-chain transfers via competitive solver bidding.
抽象還能提升效能並降低成本。透過選擇最快的鏈和合併交易，這些協議能避開單一網路壅塞和高昂手續費。正如 Blockworks 所言，開發者可以「針對特定任務選用成本最低且可擴展的區塊鏈，不受其社交或經濟能量限制」。比如 NFT 市場可以在低費用鏈鑄造，最終結算則走另一條鏈。由於鏈抽象可集中資源，用戶能享有全球價格池帶來的更佳報價及平行結算速度。如果設計得宜，系統能動態繞開壅塞點。有些項目甚至承諾透過競標型解算方機制提供更低的跨鏈轉帳費用。

Finally, abstraction pushes innovation in UX. Concepts like cross-chain user accounts become real. Imagine logging into a game and having assets from Ethereum, Solana and others all visible at once. Or consider governance: a DAO could have members from any chain vote in one interface. Abstract wallets and signatures are emerging (e.g. NEAR’s “chain signatures” allow one account to sign on multiple blockchains). All of these start to feel like the original promise of Web3 – one decentralized ecosystem rather than siloed silos. If chain abstraction can deliver these, it might greatly accelerate adoption by making crypto tools more familiar and less intimidating.
最後，抽象首次實現 UX 創新。跨鏈用戶帳號等概念變成現實。想像你登入一款遊戲，同時看到來自 Ethereum、Solana 等鏈上的資產。治理方面，DAO 成員來自任一條鏈，都能在同一介面投票。抽象錢包和簽章也已出現（例如 NEAR 的「鏈上簽章」允許一個帳號跨多鏈簽署）。這一切讓 Web3 開始兌現原先承諾 —— 不再是孤島，而是統一去中心生態。倘若鏈抽象真的做得到，有望大幅推動普及，減低加密新手使用門檻。

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite the hype, experts caution that chain abstraction is not a panacea. In fact, it may introduce new forms of fragmentation or risk. One notable voice is Avail co-founder Anurag Arjun, who observes that “most current chain abstraction techniques create even more fragmentation” in crypto. His point is that every abstraction protocol is itself an independent ecosystem with its own security model. Each connected chain has distinct validators or nodes, so unifying them still requires trust across domains. This complexity “is the main bottleneck” in true interoperability.
儘管充滿話題性，專家也提醒，鏈抽象並非萬靈丹。事實上它可能引入新的碎片化或風險。Avail 聯合創辦人 Anurag Arjun 指出，「當前大多數鏈抽象技術反而讓加密世界的碎片化更加嚴重」。他的看法是，每個抽象協議本質上又是一個獨立生態，並有自己的安全體系。連接到網路的每條鏈都有不同的驗證者或節點，要真正整合還是必須跨領域信任。這種複雜性「也是跨鏈互操作性的關鍵瓶頸」。

In practice, a user-facing solution might hide chains, but underneath there are still multiple verification schemes that must coordinate. So far, even promising abstraction projects rely on assumptions (like trusting an oracle network or set of relayers) that not all users may like.
實際上，即便對使用者而言介面上隱藏了多條鏈，底層還是有多套驗證邏輯必須協調。到目前為止，即使是很有前景的抽象協議也依賴一些假設（如可信預言機網路或特定中繼方），未必每個用戶都能接受。

Experts also note that past attempts at interoperability (mostly via bridges) mostly moved liquidity but not governance or application logic, which kept ecosystems siloed. Chain abstraction aims to change that, but it must overcome similar issues. Arjun points out that bridging has been plagued by security issues and “high costs,” and user funds are locked in “siloed” pools under the old model. Abstraction layers still have to solve these problems in new ways. For example, who pays for bridges in an abstraction? If the protocol fronts gas fees, how does it recoup them fairly? Many solutions involve out-of-band payments or revenue sharing with solvers. This economic layer is still nascent and under study.
也有專家認為，過去的跨鏈嘗試（多為橋接協議）僅解決流動性問題，治理及應用邏輯仍受困於各自生態。鏈抽象想改變這種狀況，但仍需克服類似問題。Arjun 指出傳統橋接一直飽受安全問題與「高成本」困擾，用戶資金多被關在「孤島」流動性池中。抽象層必須用新方式解決這些難題。例如，抽象協議下誰來為橋接買單？如果協議先墊付 gas，如何公平回收？不少方案涉及場外收費或和解算方分潤。這類經濟模型仍處早期，要持續觀察。

There is also a danger of centralization. To work efficiently, some abstraction protocols might rely on a relatively small set of validator or relayer nodes (at least initially). If those entities collude or get hacked, cross-chain actions could fail. While providers promise to decentralize these over time, early stages often involve a team or consortium. Critics worry: replacing “bridge validators” with “abstraction validators” may not eliminate trust issues – it could just shift them. And if one abstraction protocol becomes dominant, it could become a new chokepoint (or single point of failure) for Web3 apps.
中心化風險也是隱憂之一。為提高效率，有些抽象協議一開始可能只依賴少數驗證者或中繼節點。如果這些被串通或被攻擊，跨鏈操作就會失效。雖然服務方承諾日後會分散驗證權，現階段通常還是由團隊或聯盟主導。批評者質疑：把「橋接驗證者」換成「抽象驗證者」，未必就真正解決信任問題，可能只是角色替換。如果未來某個抽象協議一統江湖，反而會成為 Web3 應用的新瓶頸（或單點故障）。

Another concern is fragmented standards. Several groups are racing to define cross-chain intents and messages (Frontier’s CAKE framework, Ethereum’s ERC-7683, Chainlink CCIP standard, etc.). The market is still deciding on universal protocols. Until there are shared standards or adapters, different abstraction platforms may not interoperate with each other. This could create a new “chain of abstraction” problem: instead of many blockchain silos, we might have many abstraction silos. One developer joked that the era of abstraction might add its own complexity layer. As Mint Ventures puts it, paradoxically “the chain abstraction protocols, which are born to solve fragmentation issues, end up providing fragmented solutions themselves”. In other words, adopting a single abstraction network does not yet eliminate the underlying fragmentation of blockchains; it simply makes it less visible.
另一大疑慮是標準碎片化。許多團隊正搶著定義跨鏈意圖與訊息（如 Frontier 的 CAKE 框架、以太坊 ERC-7683、Chainlink CCIP 標準等），市場尚未決定通行協議。標準未統一前，各抽象平台之間未必能互通，有可能出現全新「抽象鏈孤島」問題 —— 原本是許多區塊鏈孤島，現在變成許多抽象層孤島。曾有開發者打趣：「抽象層時代反而創造新一層複雜度。」Mint Ventures 甚至指出，弔詭的是「生來為了解決碎片化的鏈抽象協議，結果反倒自己碎片化」。換言之，採用單一抽象網路並不會把底層區塊鏈的碎片完全消除，只是讓用戶難以察覺。

Finally, timing and maturity are factors. Some analysts wonder if chain abstraction is the “next big trend after modularity” or just a hype bubble. Many protocols are in early stages or still testnets. It remains to be seen how fully decentralized and battle-tested they become. Meanwhile, bridges and interoperability issues still exist today, so dApp builders cannot wait indefinitely. For now, developers might use a hybrid: supporting popular bridges while designing for future abstraction networks.
最後，推進時機與成熟度也是考量。有分析師提出，鏈抽象到底會不會是「模組化後的下一波大趨勢」，或只是炒作泡沫，目前仍在觀望。許多協議還處於剛起步或測試網階段，去中心化及耐戰度有待驗證。同時現今橋接與互通問題依舊存在，dApp 團隊不可能無限等待。目前不少開發者會採混合策略：一邊支援主流橋接協議，一邊設計未來能對接抽象網路。

Are Chain Abstraction Protocols the Future?

The promise of chain abstraction is indeed compelling: a frictionless, unified Web3 where users and apps float seamlessly across blockchains. Some major players are betting on this vision. For example, the team behind ZKCross Network envisions acting “as a central hub, unifying critical elements such as messaging systems and liquidity to enable the creation of easy-to-use cross-chain dApps”. They see chain abstraction as akin to how Visa and Mastercard abstract banking networks in traditional finance. Similarly, projects like Particle Network are already offering unified accounts for millions of users across Ethereum-compatible chains, proving that aspects of abstraction can work at scale.
鏈抽象的前景確實引人注目：一個無摩擦、統一的 Web3 世界，用戶與應用可無縫跨鏈流動。不少龍頭項目已經重押這一願景。例如 ZKCross Network 團隊希望成為「中央樞紐，整合訊息系統與流動性等重要元素，推動簡易跨鏈 dApp 誕生」。他們認為鏈抽象類似於傳統金融中 Visa 與 Mastercard 如何抽象化銀行網路。同樣的，Particle Network 等項目已經為數百萬用戶在以太坊相容鏈上提供統一帳號，說明抽象技術確實能規模化落地。

However, it’s too early to declare abstraction protocols a panacea. As developers and academics observe, interoperability has many facets.
然而，現在要說抽象協議是萬靈丹還言之過早。正如開發者和學者們所觀察，所謂的互操作性涉及諸多層面。Early wins have come from both bridges and protocol-level solutions (Polkadot, Cosmos, etc.). It is likely that the future is not one approach exclusively, but a combination. Bridges will continue to connect networks (and they keep getting better secured and optimized), while abstraction layers will grow around them to smooth out UX and liquidity. Over time, standards like IBC or CCIP may interlink many abstraction networks as well, forming a multi-layered web of connectivity.

早期的成功來自跨鏈橋與協議層級的解決方案（如 Polkadot、Cosmos 等）。未來很可能不會只用單一方法，而是多種方式的結合。跨鏈橋仍會持續連結各個網路（而且其安全性和性能也在不斷提升），同時，抽象層會在其周圍逐步擴展，以優化用戶體驗和流動性。隨著時間推移，像 IBC 或 CCIP 等標準，可能也會把許多抽象網路連結起來，形成多層次的連通網絡。

The term “battle of the bridges” suggests competition, but in truth many of these projects complement each other. For instance, Axelar and LayerZero can be thought of as advanced message relays, while Hyperlane and CCIP aim to standardize how those messages look. DeFi apps like Synapse or UniswapX are building user interfaces that will ride on whichever messaging backbone becomes dominant. Meanwhile, engineers continue research on new tech: zero-knowledge proofs to prove cross-chain state, cryptographic light clients in smart contracts, and even blockchain design changes that could eliminate some cross-chain needs.

「跨鏈橋之戰」這個說法暗示著競爭，但實際上，許多專案其實是互補的。例如，Axelar 與 LayerZero 可視為先進的訊息中繼系統，而 Hyperlane 與 CCIP 則力圖標準化這些訊息的格式。像 Synapse 或 UniswapX 這類 DeFi 應用，正在打造能搭載於各種主流訊息骨幹上的使用者介面。與此同時，工程師們也繼續鑽研新技術：利用零知識證明來證明跨鏈狀態，在智慧合約中運用密碼學輕客戶端，甚至是調整區塊鏈設計本身，以消除某些跨鏈需求。

From a user perspective, the coming years should steadily blur chains together. We already see wallets that auto-switch networks, DEXs that source liquidity from multiple chains, and meta-chains like Base or Blast trying to bring projects under one Layer 2 umbrella. Chain abstraction protocols promise to accelerate this convergence by abstracting complexity from the user. If they deliver on their goals, the average crypto user might soon manage assets and use DApps without ever thinking, “Am I on Ethereum or Avalanche right now?” – they’ll just transact, unknowingly spanning chains.

從用戶角度來看，未來幾年將會讓各條鏈之間的界線日益模糊。我們已經看到有錢包能自動切換網路、去中心化交易所從多條鏈匯聚流動性，還有像 Base 或 Blast 這樣的元鏈試圖把專案納入同一個 Layer 2 之下。鏈抽象協議承諾將更進一步，透過為用戶屏蔽複雜性，加速這種融合。如果它們真能實現目標，一般用戶很快就能管理多鏈資產、使用 DApp，而不需要思考「我現在在以太坊還是 Avalanche？」——他們只會不自覺地跨鏈進行交易。

Whether that means chain abstraction is the future of Web3 interoperability is still uncertain. The idea is attractive and backed by serious projects and research, but it must prove itself at scale. Observers will watch metrics like total value locked (TVL) in these systems, real-world app adoption, and whether cross-chain hacks truly fall as reliance shifts. For now, the landscape is in flux: bridges remain vital, protocols like Axelar and Chainlink CCIP are rolling out new features, and experiments by projects like UniswapX are testing off-chain solver approaches.

至於鏈抽象是否就是 Web3 互操作性的最終解答，目前仍無定論。這個理念很有吸引力，也獲得許多重要專案與研究的支持，但還需要在實際規模上證明自己。觀察者們會留意這些系統的總鎖倉價值（TVL）、實際應用採用率，以及在依賴結構轉變下，跨鏈攻擊是否真的減少。現在整個局勢仍在動態變化：跨鏈橋仍然不可或缺，像 Axelar、Chainlink CCIP 等協議不斷推出新功能，而 UniswapX 這樣的專案也在嘗試鏈下解題等不同方向。

In conclusion, chain abstraction protocols represent an exciting evolution in blockchain interoperability. They tackle long-standing issues in novel ways and have garnered significant industry attention. Yet they are also one piece of a larger puzzle. The future of Web3 interoperability will likely be layered: a combination of trust-minimized bridges, standardized messaging protocols, modular blockchains (parachains, rollups), and abstraction layers. Over time, these layers may give the illusion of a single Web3. For now, the “battle” is less about winning outright than advancing collectively toward a seamless multi-chain ecosystem.

總結來說，鏈抽象協議代表了區塊鏈互操作性的一項令人振奮的進化。這些協議用全新的方式解決了長期存在的問題，也引起了業界的高度關注。但它們只是更龐大拼圖中的一塊。Web3 互操作性的未來很可能會是多層式的：包括具最小信任的跨鏈橋、標準化的訊息協議、模組化區塊鏈（平行鏈、Rollup），以及抽象層。隨著時間演變，這些層次可能會給人一種單一 Web3 的錯覺。目前來看，這場「戰爭」重點不在於誰能徹底獲勝，而是大家共同推進，朝向無縫多鏈生態系統邁進。