Abstractions, Intents, Strategies: Emerging Web3 Themes

Interoperability & Chain Abstraction

Many of the talks at EthCC focused on the hiccups encountered by devs looking to build horizontal scaling and interoperability between different L2s. On one afternoon, four talks back-to-back had the buzz phrase Chain Abstraction in their title. It refers to a user experience exempt from the manual process required to interact with multiple chains. Rather than manually bridging assets over chains, users would appreciate a more coherent experience, without needing to know where their assets live. Broken down to a simple tagline: "One Account, 1,000 Chains"

As the concept refers more to an aspirational end-user experience, there is no one single technical approach as to how this should be achieved. Different projects propose different solutions on different layers of the stack. Some projects and labs that try to claim the chain abstraction narrative are Near (which also hosted a Chain Abstraction Day), Agoric, Everclear, Particle Network, Chainsafe (with Sprinter), and Frontier Research. Particle Network's Ethan Francis claims that account abstraction is a collaborative and modular process consisting of abstractions at different levels: blockchain-level chain abstraction, account-level chain abstraction and application-level chain abstraction.

Frontier's CAKE Framework (Chain Abstraction Key Elements)

Particle Network positions itself as one of the leading projects pushing chain abstraction

The pains of fragmentation have been a prominent topic in Polkadot too. Speaking internally to Parity staff more than two years ago, Gavin Wood gave a presentation titled Apps not Chains. Some of the issues are as follows:

• Assets often live on different parachains
• Painful UX transferring those assets around
• Front-end hiccups caused by incorrect balances
• The inability to talk to different chains simultaneously.

Similarly, there seems to be a consensus emerging that underlying chains should be abstracted away for the end user. Asset Hub adoption and Plaza are proposals on the protocol level to combat fragmentation. PAPI's multi-chain approach is a prominent development on the API level. There are proposals to unify the address format, using DOT as an universal gas token, for example.

Intents: Interacting is complicated

Another popular topic at EthCC was the concept of intents. "Intent" simply refers to what the desired outcome of an action should be, not how to perform it. However, the standard way to interact with Ethereum is to craft and sign transactions, some of which can end up being rather complicated. Users must know exactly how an action should be performed. Intents aim to improve UX by centering on a user's wishes: "I'd like to trade coin A to B; figure out for me how to swap in the most cost-efficient way." Intent-centric app architectures represent a major, but important shift in perspective.

Can Gurel uses a delivery order as an example to highlight the difference between an intent and a transaction

While the goal of intents is clear, the ideal intent-based application design is not. Different proposals are discussed and make different trade-offs. In either case, an intent-based approach always involves at least one other party who is aware of the intent and is incentivized to execute it in a timely manner. The challenge here is to design a system that discovers and matches intents, without becoming a centralized solution. Other risks include a reduction in transparency and the introduction of trust assumptions. The concept of cross-chain intents leads to additional complexity to such a system, which projects like Across aim to tackle.

Intents could flow through an "intentpool" and get converted into transactions by a matchmaker!

We already have examples of what we can call a more declarative approach when interacting with blockchains. (That is to say, executing the intent of an instruction without explicitly specifying its control flow.) For example, while not a perfect analogy, governance delegations outsource certain complexities ("Delegate my votes to account A for governance tracks B, C and E"). The user is still in full control (they can un-delegate, if they wish so), but do not need to be interacting with governance on a daily basis.

It is theoretically conceivable to write a pallet or a range of smart contracts with other high-level entry points that will figure out the exact executions for you. For those of us working on the Polkadot tech stach, there is an exciting opportunity to explore what a more declarative UX paradigm might look like.

Governance: Refinement opportunities

Web3 governance emerged as a central theme as well. During the GovHack Hackathon by Arbitrum, participants worked on solutions on how the DAO can collaborate effectively, how expertise in marketing, BD, and sales can be integrated, and how to better structure and manage treasury proposals. There were sprints and creativity workshops, and delegates had 10-minute slots in which attendees could propose their ideas. Hackathon winners ranged from projects demonstrating voting tools to those providing grants for proposal research and writing.

The fact that more and more side events and hackathons are proactive about governance shows the importance of structured, strategic planning in decentralized environments.

Governance and strategy within DAOs was a big topic of discussion during Polkadot Decoded. After a significant step towards decentralization across the ecosystem - for example, most marketing and sales functions have been outsourced to the DAO - many members are now concentrating on building organizational structures, bringing in go-to-market expertise, and creating a coherent strategy.

Related presentations included Future of Governance & Decentralization by Nikhil Ranjan from Polkassembly, A Strategy for Polkadot Ecosystem Development by Tommi Enenkel from OpenGov.Watch, and the What's Next for Polkadot? panel, in which Raul Romanutti shared the importance of a proper RfC structure for proposals. "No strategy is no option" was a key takeaway from these sessions, highlighting the necessity for a well-defined approach to governance to ensure the continued development, stability, and effectiveness of decentralized ecosystems.

Tommi Enenkel from OpenGov.Watch presenting on stage

Discussions are ongoing in other ecosystems, such as the OBRA proposal in the Safe DAO. The OBRA model aims to address common coordination failures in DAOs by implementing an outcome-based resource allocation system. This approach minimizes governance complexity, emphasizing strategic goals and metrics, while fostering a competitive environment for initiative proposals. It reduces political friction and enhances operational efficiency.

Overall, the importance of strategic planning and the need for more effective governance models in Web3 became evident. The lessons from EthCC and other current discussions are crucial in shaping the future of decentralized organizations.