Chain abstraction is not a technology; it is a user experience and product philosophy.
Host: Alex, Research Partner at Mint Ventures
Guest: Lydia, Former Researcher at Mint Ventures, currently a researcher at Particle Network
Recording Date: January 17, 2025
Hello everyone, welcome to WEB3 Mint To Be initiated by Mint Ventures. Here, we continuously question and deeply think, clarifying facts, exploring realities, and seeking consensus in the WEB3 world. We aim to clarify the logic behind hot topics, provide insights that penetrate the events themselves, and introduce diverse perspectives.
This episode is the fourth in the series of podcasts titled "The Current Status and Future of the Web3 Track," where we will discuss chain abstraction. In the previous three episodes, we talked about Crypto AI, Defi, and Hyperliquid. In the upcoming series, we will invite corresponding guests to discuss topics related to MEME, public chains, Depin, gaming & social, Payfi, and Web3 policies.
Disclaimer: The content discussed in this podcast does not represent the views of the institutions of the guests, and the projects mentioned do not constitute any investment advice.
Alex: In this episode, we have invited our former colleague Lydia. She is currently a researcher in the crypto industry and a member of a well-known chain abstraction project. She previously participated in our program on AI topics. Let's have Lydia say hello.
Lydia: Hello everyone, I am Lydia, currently a researcher at Particle Network, and I am also responsible for community building in the Chinese-speaking region.
The Concept of Chain Abstraction and the Problems It Tries to Solve
Alex: Let's start today's official topic. First, the concept of chain abstraction sounds very abstract to many people, including myself, when I first encountered it. Initially, I read a few articles and felt quite confused. If you were to explain what chain abstraction is to a Web3 beginner in very simple terms, how would you do it? What problems does the concept of chain abstraction aim to solve?
Lydia: You mentioned feeling confused after reading a few articles; I had a similar feeling at first. To address this, I even rolled up my sleeves and wrote a research report on chain abstraction. I think the main issue is that chain abstraction is primarily a Western discourse-dominated track, which leads many project teams to translate very mechanical technical documents or directly translate PR drafts when promoting content in other language regions, making it really hard to understand. Now that I am a researcher, I am also working on a localization effort for Western knowledge in the East. At Particle Network, our official definition of chain abstraction is quite simple: "a user experience that frees you from manual interactions with multiple chains." It may still sound a bit academic, so I usually explain it based on the identity of the person I am talking to. If it's a user from a centralized exchange, I would say chain abstraction allows you to interact with the blockchain as if you were using a centralized exchange. If it's a blockchain player, especially someone who just entered the space and may not have even used an exchange, but directly downloaded a Phantom wallet to start playing on-chain, I would explain that chain abstraction means you don't need to manually bridge and manage Gas; you can treat the entire chain as a single chain. If it's a developer, I would explain that chain abstraction allows your application to be accessed by users across multiple chains; you only need to deploy on one chain but can attract users from other chains like SOL and Base.
As for the problems chain abstraction aims to solve, I think there is a vague consensus among everyone that the issues with chain abstraction transactions are quite straightforward and are something we all face daily. However, to acknowledge this problem, one must first recognize a premise: the trend of multi-chain. We are now seeing an increasing number of general-purpose Layer 1, Layer 2, AppChain, and AppRollup emerging. Data shows that over 100 new chains emerged in the first half of 2024, and the total number of chains in the blockchain world should now be in the thousands. Of course, this multi-chain trend is not universally accepted; some enthusiasts of large single chains are likely to disagree and may even experience panic and FUD. Our response to this is generally simple: multi-chain is definitely an inevitable trend; you cannot build the entire Web3 on a single state machine if you believe Web3 has at least the potential of the internet. If we accept the trend of multi-chain, it naturally leads us to realize that the fragmentation of liquidity between chains is real, harmful, and must be addressed. An example of liquidity fragmentation on the user side is the direct experience we all have with on-chain interactions: it seems like every new chain requires a new wallet, and bridging from chain to chain can sometimes take 20 minutes or longer. When you're in a hurry to trade, even if the bridging is done, you might not have Gas, making the management of multiple chains very difficult because your assets are dispersed, and Gas needs to be prepared separately. Transferring Gas back and forth requires you to prepare Gas for the transfer, making asset management quite challenging. In my own experience, whenever I interact with a new chain, I always end up leaving some dust assets in that chain's wallet. Moreover, it can be troublesome because sometimes I genuinely forget about the assets on that chain, and at times I can't even find that wallet. On the developer side, we also see a more profound harm: we are witnessing a phenomenon where they are repeatedly reinventing the wheel across multiple chains, similar to different versions of MEME on various chains or different case versions on different chains. All public chains are guided by TVL, and their liquidity is very rigidly fragmented. Infrastructure is being built repeatedly, often using models from many years ago, which overall appears very outdated and redundant. We believe that, for example, after Polymarket gained popularity, many public chains wanted to create their own prediction markets. However, if you understand the significance and purpose of prediction markets, it is to maximize the wisdom of the majority. Therefore, to enhance the accuracy of Polymarket, it is best to have only one that can be accessed by multi-chain users, aggregating liquidity from many people, rather than creating a small prediction market on every segmented Layer 2 or AppChain. The significance of chain abstraction here is to allow users to navigate seamlessly between multiple chains and enable developers to build truly innovative applications with product-market fit.
Alex: I roughly understand. The ultimate goal is to simplify the high barriers and inconveniences for users and developers in such a multi-chain environment. Currently, what is the mainstream approach of chain abstraction products in the market to address this issue at the product level?
Lydia: Chain abstraction is not a technology; it is a user experience and product philosophy. So when we talk about the chain abstraction track, our philosophy is that all Web3 applications deserve to be done in a chain abstraction way. So when you talk about its product philosophy, it depends on what product it is making. For example, chain abstraction plus prediction markets, chain abstraction plus NFTfi, chain abstraction plus perp dex, and so on.
Alex: For instance, in two simple scenarios, a user currently has only one SOL wallet and wants to instantly buy a MEME on Base; this is a trading scenario. In your Particle Network, how do you implement this functionality in terms of product logic?
Lydia: That is UniversalX. The current product line of Particle Network mainly consists of two parts: one is Universal Accounts, which is the infrastructure we just discussed for developers. The consumer-facing application is UniversalX, which we launched in December and has just been updated. I happened to write an article yesterday introducing the brain of UniversalX, which is the Universal Accounts infrastructure, and it completely addresses what you mentioned. Its operational logic is that we have rebuilt a unified liquidity and unified GAS system. We generate a set of AA addresses for users across all chains, and this AA address is managed by a unified address generated by Particle Network. When a user initiates a transaction on one chain, we first have a bundler that packages the user's transaction and uploads it to Particle Network. Then, the layer 1 of Particle Network coordinates between various chains, and the main role that can drive this coordination is the LP. The LP here acts as a basic intermediary token mover between multiple chains. For example, if I am on Base and want to use ETH to buy a MEME on Solana, the ETH on Base may first be converted into an intermediary token, such as USDC. Then, this LP is somewhat similar to the Solver in the Solver network; it moves USDC between the chains, in this case, between Base and Solana. After the USDC is moved from Base to Solana, it is swapped for the MEME that the user wants to buy, and the user will receive this asset on Solana. All of this operates in the background. What the user experiences is that they approve a transaction, and somehow their ETH on Base magically buys the MEME on Solana.
Alex: I understand. You just mentioned that one problem developers face is that after developing an application, the conventional approach in a multi-chain environment is to deploy the same thing on another chain, with users and funds being on different chains. So how does your chain abstraction solution reduce the need for developers to deploy across multiple chains, or address their current issues?
Lydia: For the product, developers can use our Universal Accounts SDK. By using this, it’s like equipping users with a chain abstraction identity and account system. When users log in with Universal Accounts, assets from other chains can be seamlessly used to interact with the DApp I am currently developing. For example, if my DApp is an AppChain I developed with few assets, if Universal Accounts is used, it doesn’t matter if the user’s assets are concentrated in ETH on Base or SOL on Solana; they can still interact with my DApp without needing to bridge to my AppChain. This means that for developers, acquiring users will not present any liquidity barriers to the users.
Alex: For this purpose to be achieved, is it a prerequisite that the users facing the developers must have Universal Accounts?
Lydia: No, you can integrate it into your product.
Alex: So users are unaware of Universal Accounts when using the product.
Lydia: Yes, it depends on how you log in. If the user already has Universal Accounts, it’s definitely best if they have a balance. If not, we at Particle have also been working on social login and wallet middleware for a long time, allowing users to generate one in the simplest way and transfer a little bit of funds from anywhere to interact with any DApp on any chain.
Market Size and Valuation of Chain Abstraction
Alex: Just now, we asked Lydia to explain her understanding of the definition of chain abstraction, as well as how the product of chain abstraction optimizes and simplifies the experience for C-end users and developers, and how it helps in better user acquisition, discussing some product designs. As you mentioned, chain abstraction is actually a development philosophy or product philosophy in the Web3 world; it is not a specific product or track. If we were to evaluate the market size of chain abstraction, how large do you think this market is and what is its value? For instance, traditional finance might be a market in the tens of trillions, while we believe DeFi is at least a market size in the hundreds of billions in the short term. What is the estimated market size corresponding to the concept of chain abstraction? Is there a way to estimate it?
Lydia: In my view, giving a valuation to such a broad concept as chain abstraction doesn’t hold much significance; it should be based on specific scenarios. In the examples I just mentioned, chain abstraction can be linked to scenarios like prediction markets, DeFi, perp dex, NFTfi, and I believe there will be many products exploring these directions in the future. It’s very likely that people will gradually discover that the chain abstraction framework has become an industry standard; if you create a non-abstract product, people will be surprised as to why you would do that. Let’s take a scenario: chain abstraction plus trading is what we believe is most likely to explode first among all scenarios. This is because, from a cross-cycle perspective, it seems that every significant narrative has made a huge push in the trading scene, whether it’s trading assets or trading efficiency. After all, even AI is now trading DeFi, indicating that trading is a perennial narrative and driving force in Web3. This is also why, after we built the Universal Accounts infrastructure for chain abstraction, the first application we launched was for on-chain trading. As for the trading products represented by UniversalX, they actually gather many buffs; they have the new narrative of chain abstraction, modular Layer 1, the title of next-generation trading products, and the positioning of an on-chain trading entry point. We can think back to the last time a concept from centralized exchanges broke through and took a share of the market, which was Hyper. At that time, when its market cap exceeded 10 billion, everyone was shocked, and now it’s over 20 billion, having remained in the top 30 for so long. It seems that a new paradigm-leading on-chain trading entry point with such a market cap is worth much more than a long-abandoned ghost town Layer 1.
Intent vs. Chain Abstraction
Alex: I understand. Actually, my question was aimed at evaluating specific projects, which is necessary to determine the value of the market problem they solve. The size of the market often determines how high the project’s valuation can go. The perspective you just mentioned is that chain abstraction itself is a user experience optimization, and it may also extend into a good user experience optimization product that could become an entry-level tool for many users, whether for multi-chain products or other experiences. This could improve the experience of many conventional products, such as trading products. The user value brought by this could give the project a higher valuation ceiling, which indeed seems to be a different perspective.
In fact, I recall that before the concept of chain abstraction emerged, in the first half of 2023, there was a concept called intent that was proposed by leading Western capital paradigms. They wrote an article called Intent-Based Architecture and Their Risks, which discussed the infrastructure of chain abstraction and its corresponding risks. When we look at the concept of intent and then at the concept of chain abstraction, there seems to be a lot of relevance. In your understanding, what is the relationship between chain abstraction and intent?
Lydia: This is indeed a common question, perhaps because both concepts sound a bit abstract at first glance. A simple answer to this question is that intent is a specific technology that supports chain abstraction. We just said that chain abstraction is not a technology; it is a philosophy and user experience, while intent is a specific technology that supports chain abstraction. The role of this technology is to drive complex cross-chain workflows to complete asset movements, which is what I mentioned earlier regarding the role of LP in our product. Let’s take a step back and look at what intent is. The English word "intent" refers to what you plan to do, which is clearly a broad concept that encompasses the entire product design of Web2, as almost all mobile internet products directly serve user intent. In Web3, however, the use of intent is not as broad; it essentially points to a very specific, low-dimensional technical concept, which is about asset transfer based on the Solver network, especially in cross-chain scenarios. Chain abstraction is a comprehensive, holistic concept with many projects approaching it from different angles, including account solutions, middleware, and cross-chain communication protocols, with intent being one of them. Under the umbrella of intent, there are projects working on the Solver network and settlement layers, all serving the purpose of making cross-chain asset transfers more efficient. In fact, intent, account abstraction, and interoperability protocols are collectively regarded as the three foundational technical components of chain abstraction.
Alex: I understand. So intent is actually a smaller module under the larger concept of chain abstraction, is that correct?
Lydia: Yes.
Classification of Subordinate Projects under Chain Abstraction
Alex: Based on your description, we see that there are many project types under chain abstraction that address various specific problems. Looking at a complete sector, how do you think the project categories under chain abstraction can be divided? What problems do they each solve, and how are they interconnected?
Lydia: I roughly categorize it into five layers: application layer, account layer, middleware layer, blockchain layer, and cross-chain communication layer. The application layer is the most intuitive, consisting of ToC applications derived from chain abstraction combined with various scenarios, such as UniversalX, which combines chain abstraction with trading. The account layer, which I just mentioned, provides users with a unified identity and balance across multiple chains, represented by NEAR's account abstraction and Particle Network's Universal Accounts. The middleware layer includes various suppliers that build chain abstraction as a service for developers, such as Socket, Aggregate, and Everclear (formerly Context). Particle Network's Universal Accounts have built a unified liquidity and unified GAS system, which will also be opened to external developers in the future. Next is the blockchain layer, which mainly includes protocols aimed at promoting interoperability within the ecosystem, such as Polygon's AggLayer and OP's Stack. Finally, there is the cross-chain communication layer, which includes well-known cross-chain communication protocols like Wormhole and Axelar, which facilitate communication between different blockchains. The entire structure presents a relationship where these five layers support each other, with the blockchain layer and cross-chain communication layer forming the underlying protocols, the middleware layer and account layer serving developers, and the application layer presenting to C-end users.
Alex: I understand. If we divide it into five layers, there are actually some products we are familiar with, many of which have been running for many years. In your judgment, do you think that in the future, products between these five layers will more likely form a situation where "I am one or two projects, and I provide most of these five layers," or will it be more like the current modular approach, where each layer has specialized projects that can work well together? Which do you think is the more likely development direction?
Lydia: I believe the future will definitely be modular. I previously had a discussion on Twitter with a user about how our industry has two types of liquidity and product architecture: horizontal and vertical. Without discussing liquidity, we can see from the development of both Web2 and Web3 over the years that the functions of each layer are being split. Take DeFi protocols as an example; initially, it might have been a comprehensive on-chain DeFi suite with features like swapping, lending, and perpetual trading, even including NFTfi. However, these functions will gradually be split, and each layer will have a core product occupying an important ecological position. So this represents a shift from vertical to horizontal, and I tend to believe the industry will develop towards horizontal modularization.
Outstanding Chain Abstraction Products
Alex: Among all the products or projects related to chain abstraction concepts, which products have left a deep impression on you from the perspective of a practitioner? You can give one or two examples, and in what scenarios did you use or observe them that made you realize they were indeed well done?
Lydia: Among the five layers we just mentioned, the middleware and infrastructure layers, including blockchain and cross-chain communication, are relatively mature. However, at the top application layer, which consists of products that our actual C-end users can use, there are indeed still relatively few. If we talk about truly usable products—not just developer demos or showcases—there is only UniversalX. Unichain has also repeatedly released product demos, but they have not yet delivered a usable product. Currently, only UniversalX is available, and it uniquely restores the centralized exchange experience under a non-custodial premise. This experience, in our view, allows users to completely disregard issues related to DEX tokens and cross-chain transactions, enabling seamless buying and selling of tokens across all chains. Why do I say only UniversalX? Because some cross-chain bridge projects are now pivoting to create cross-chain DEXs, but their cross-chain DEXs can only support swaps within the same chain, such as swapping ETH and MEME tokens on Base or swapping ETH on Base with ETH on Arbitrum. They cannot achieve swaps between ETH on Base and any MEME token on Arbitrum. In our view, this does not fulfill the purpose of chain abstraction.
Now, back to UniversalX. The use case for UniversalX is very straightforward: on-chain trading. I currently complete all my on-chain transactions through UniversalX. I have communicated with many users, and the general feedback is that this product is very smooth and easy to use; once you use it, you won't return to the primitive manual cross-chain era. Its entire product design aggregates our understanding of the next-generation on-chain trading platform, which can be summarized as Fully-on-Chain Cex. Its characteristics include that accounts are completely non-custodial, assets are traded without permission, the liquidity experience aligns infinitely with Cex, and it is mobile-first. This essentially aggregates our forward-looking vision for next-generation trading products.
Alex: I understand. You previously invited me to use UniversalX, and I have opened it, but I haven't officially started using it yet. The main reason is that I engage in short-term trading relatively infrequently, so I may not be the core user group for this product. Additionally, I have two concerns. First, you mentioned that UniversalX is completely permissionless and non-custodial. However, based on the product logic you described earlier, there should be a Universal Accounts system under UniversalX that controls the accounts on all supported chains. How can you achieve this under a non-custodial model, where the official sets up an account for you that can control multi-chain accounts, while you still define it as non-custodial? How does this work? Is its non-custodial nature and level the same as that of a typical EOA account?
Lydia: The account it sets up for you is not an EOA address; it does not create a new wallet for you. It is built under your wallet, where your wallet contains an AA address that does not have a private key and is controlled by your EOA through signatures. This means that every transfer transaction between AA addresses is controlled by your own EOA wallet. We are completely unrelated to your EOA wallet; we do not access your private key at any point.
Alex: I understand. So this EOA wallet refers to the Universal Accounts, and this account itself is what we understand as the EOA wallet?
Lydia: No, your EOA wallet is the one you use, such as Metamask, OKX, or Rabby. Universal Accounts is our abbreviation for the entire system, which includes not only the AA addresses deployed on each chain but also a unified liquidity and unified GAS system. For users, their understanding of their Universal Accounts after the release of the Universal Accounts SDK may be similar to a wallet, but underneath it, there is a set of infrastructure we have deployed.
Alex: So, is it correct to understand that first, I have a commonly used EOA wallet, and I associate this EOA wallet with your Universal Accounts? After the association, I can initiate signed transactions through my EOA wallet to activate all those AA wallets on different chains that do not have private keys through your entire Universal Accounts system? So theoretically, I only need to interact with your Universal Accounts through my EOA wallet, is that the correct understanding?
Lydia: You can understand it this way; you use your EOA wallet to call the multi-chain assets within the Universal Accounts system.
Alex: And the entire Universal Accounts in your design is inherently permissionless and non-custodial, right?
Lydia: Yes.
The Relationship Between AI and Chain Abstraction
Alex: Since last year and into this year, I feel that there haven't been many major innovations in the Web3 industry. Perhaps the new so-called primitive of this industry is Crypto AI, which is something relatively new we've seen in this round. My understanding is that both AI and chain abstraction are trying to help Web3 users achieve a better user experience, lower financial barriers, and simplify complex products. In your view, is the relationship between AI and Crypto, in terms of this intersection and improvement, a cooperative relationship or a competitive relationship along different routes with chain abstraction in terms of improving the current Web3 landscape?
Lydia: In our definition, we say that chain abstraction is a user experience that allows users to avoid manual interactions, but the role of chain abstraction goes far beyond just UX improvement. There is a deeper significance that most people may not be fully aware of, which is liquidity. Chain abstraction fundamentally transforms the traditional industry's TVL model—fixed, asynchronous, and non-real-time, which requires assets to be pre-moved to a specific chain to be usable—into a model where assets can be used anytime and anywhere, with the same purchasing power on any chain. It essentially re-establishes true liquidity, which is the lifeblood of innovation in our industry. Under the framework of chain abstraction, the survival of public chains and the speed of their metabolism will undoubtedly accelerate, with the only standard being whether there are excellent applications. It is precisely because public chains can no longer dominate and build a set of redundant systems that new chains do not need to spend large marketing budgets to pre-acquire or desperately retain TVL; instead, they can focus from the start on more specific businesses like payments, gaming, trading, and creator economies. This is beneficial for both chains and applications to think about PMF (Product-Market Fit) earlier and faster. As for AI, the DeFai solutions we currently see, even if they can all be implemented, are concentrated in the very specific area of automated execution. For AI to execute, you need to have an on-chain identity and account system. Recently, there has been a surge in multi-chain AI projects like Griffain, which provide your AI with a separate wallet trading system on each chain, which is also hard to imagine. So in the end, you will find that AI still cannot do without accounts and chain abstraction, and the problems that chain abstraction aims to solve, in my understanding, will have a far more profound impact on the industry than the current AI, which is DeFai.
Challenges Facing Chain Abstraction
Alex: And it sounds like the two are more about the relationship between different modules. If the services of chain abstraction and their standards become widespread, AI will likely increasingly enter various products, as it is designed based on this product architecture. However, we see that the concept of chain abstraction has developed for just over a year, and even if the intention emerged last year, it seems that the speed of its adoption has not been particularly fast. As you mentioned, your Universal Accounts interact with various chains through AA accounts, but it seems that many projects still do not fully support AA accounts. What are the main challenges or obstacles currently facing the development of chain abstraction projects, and what are the industry's current solutions?
Lydia: I can't speak for other projects; they may have various concerns, such as differing views on Ethereum's design routes. Since Particle is recognized as a leader in chain abstraction, and I have just joined for over three months, I will use the actual challenges I encountered in my work after joining as examples, which I think are representative. Ultimately, I believe it comes down to user education. Chain abstraction is a new narrative, and Particle is a pioneer in this narrative, which directly places us in a position where we must pioneer the market and educate users. This is something any innovation must face; we know it’s difficult, but we are not afraid to tackle it because history may remember your name. So why is user education difficult? It’s because the on-chain volume is growing rapidly, but user education has not kept pace. Although it seems that there are many people on-chain now, when you communicate with them, you will find that most users have a very limited understanding of basic blockchain knowledge. They may not even be proficient in using wallets, at most knowing that they use bots to trade this or that. Although UniversalX has achieved extreme simplicity in product logic, users still need to understand the concept of self-custody, which is our bottom line. Just this aspect alone has been a lot of work. When UniversalX first launched, I spent a long time providing customer support for various wallets, repeatedly explaining to users why the issues they encountered were due to their wallet usage or even network issues, not product issues. To resolve these problems, I would guide them to click this and then that in their wallets. Some wallets do not even have Chinese support, so I had to explain what each term meant and how to resolve issues within their wallets. Therefore, there is no shortcut to user education. Fortunately, we are a long-term oriented team, willing to tackle this issue, spending time on it, and indeed putting in a lot of effort and energy.
Alex: I understand. Your judgment is that the reason chain abstraction products have not yet achieved high adoption is that both your team members and the chain abstraction projects themselves are still in the early stages of user education. However, we have seen many previously unknown products emerge this year, which have quickly gained significant user adoption. A typical example is many products in the TG Bot space, including MoonShot, which people use for MEME trading. They may not have had much fame before, but they have emerged in this cycle. How do you understand the gap in user growth between chain abstraction products, like UniversalX, and these products?
Lydia: Whether it’s Moonshot or TG Bot, especially TG Bot, it still revolves around self-custody versus custody. The foundational knowledge of users in our industry is quite lacking, but they are eager to make money through trading, so at this historical stage, they have chosen the custody bot product form. However, for certain stablecoin projects, everyone knows they will eventually face issues; it’s just a matter of time. Similarly, TG Bot will also encounter problems; it’s just that it hasn’t happened to everyone yet. Those who have been in the industry for several cycles understand the importance of asset security and know to use cold wallets for asset isolation, but newcomers in this cycle may have only used TG Bot, and some bots have not been hacked yet, so they lack this awareness. Our chosen path is to avoid this from the beginning because we believe that as time goes on, the issue of security will be repeatedly emphasized, and the alarm bells will keep ringing. Ultimately, users will discover that if there is a product that executes at a speed comparable to TG Bot, or even faster, and they can fully control it without needing custody, then that will be the product they should focus on in the future.
Predictions for Chain Abstraction
Alex: I understand. Of course, there have been quite a few security incidents involving TG Bot and many similar products in this cycle, including the recent Banana Gun and the DEXX that was very popular in the Chinese-speaking community, which also experienced theft incidents, leading to significant losses for users. However, this does not prevent many people from using centralized custodial trading products. Perhaps the risks and lessons from these incidents are still not enough, causing especially new users to not pay enough attention to self-custody. If you were to make two or three predictions about the development of chain abstraction in the next one to two years, what would they be?
Lydia: To call it a prediction is really just my hope. Since we have known each other for a long time, transitioning from a rational investor to a member of a startup team inevitably exposes you to the pervasive optimism that is common among colleagues in entrepreneurial teams. The phrase I often say, perhaps to brainwash myself and my peers, is to believe in "the power of belief." If I held this view as an investor, I would have lost a lot by now, but it seems to be working out in entrepreneurship. So what do I believe? I believe that UniversalX will become a phenomenally recognized next-generation trading product. I also believe that the potential of chain abstraction combined with trading will explode between 2025 and 2026. I believe that all future DApps will be built using chain abstraction and will reach higher ceilings, embracing better innovations. Anyway, I believe in "the power of belief."
Alex: Alright, today we invited Lydia to discuss this topic, and she mentioned quite a bit about the products of Particle Network, particularly UniversalX. But I want to clarify that we have not engaged in any commercial sponsorship for this episode; we are simply here to discuss the topic itself. Because there are indeed not many mature products in chain abstraction, and since Lydia's project is Particle Network, she will naturally use examples from this project. I want to state that the projects and products mentioned today do not constitute investment advice. OK, that concludes our discussion on the category of chain abstraction products. Thank you, Lydia.
Lydia: Thank you, everyone. Bye-bye.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
