Ethereum and Base Split on Account Abstraction Standards

Background on Account Abstraction

Account abstraction (AA) has been a long‑standing goal for Ethereum developers, aiming to make transactions more flexible, secure and user‑friendly. The core idea is to replace the traditional externally owned account model with programmable logic that can be customised by developers and users alike.

In late 2025, Ethereum introduced EIP‑8141, a proposal that would split a single transaction into a sequence of programmable frames. Each frame can perform tasks such as validation, gas approval or the execution of user‑requested actions. The design allows the account that pays the fee to be different from the one that initiates the operation, a feature that could eliminate the need for users to hold Ether before sending a transaction.

Base’s Approach with EIP‑8130

Base, a Layer‑2 network built on Ethereum, has been working on EIP‑8130. This proposal introduces a new transaction type that includes an on‑chain keystore for accounts. The keystore records approved signers and authenticator contracts, allowing transactions to specify the authentication method they employ. The structure supports batching, gas sponsorship and custom authentication mechanisms such as phone passkeys.

Attempting a Unified Standard

Both teams had been exploring the possibility that EIP‑8130 could provide a structured authentication layer around EIP‑8141 frames. The idea was that the combination would preserve the programmable nature of frames while giving high‑throughput networks a clearer transaction format. However, a series of technical workshops failed to produce a consensus, as each network’s core requirements clashed.

• EIP‑8141 emphasises censorship resistance, privacy, and post‑quantum readiness.
• EIP‑8130 prioritises scalability, customisation, and compliance with regulatory standards.
• The merging proposal would have required each side to compromise on at least one of these priorities.

Statement from Ethereum Labs

On Monday, Derek Chiang, an Ethereum Labs developer, announced that the authors of the two proposals had stopped working toward a shared specification. He explained that the technical options available would force either Ethereum or Base to dilute core goals. “While we identified a number of technical solutions, they all required one side or the other to compromise at least a little bit on their core goals,” Chiang said.

He added that wallets would bear the burden of fragmentation, but a well‑executed implementation could still provide a seamless experience for users. “If they execute well, and if the wallet community can bridge over the fragmentation, we may well end up with the best possible UX for the end users,” Chiang said.

Impact on Wallet Developers

The split means that wallets may need to support two distinct native transaction formats if both EIP‑8141 and EIP‑8130 reach production. Wallet developers will have to implement logic to recognise and process transactions originating from either protocol while maintaining a consistent user interface. This could involve additional parsing code, expanded key management, and compatibility checks for new authentication methods.

Ethereum’s Path Forward

Ethereum has moved EIP‑8141 into the “must‑ship” category of its planned Hegotá upgrade, scheduled for 2027. The proposal remains in draft form but has already been formally positioned in the upgrade roadmap. If implemented, Frame Transactions would make account abstraction native to Ethereum, potentially improving security and post‑quantum readiness. The design also enables transaction batching and flexible fee sponsorship, allowing a single application to bundle related actions and pay for them through alternative assets.

Base’s Commitment to EIP‑8130

Base will continue development of EIP‑8130 independently. The protocol will maintain its focus on high throughput, customisation, and regulatory compliance. The keystore model will empower users to register approved signers and enable applications to sponsor gas payments. While the two proposals share the goal of simplifying wallet interactions, their technical structures diverge significantly, reflecting the distinct philosophies of Layer‑1 and Layer‑2 networks.

Conclusion

The decision to abandon a unified account abstraction standard marks a turning point for both Ethereum and Base. While the split may add complexity for wallet developers and users in the short term, it also preserves the core values that each network prioritises. Over time, a mature implementation of either or both proposals could still deliver a superior, privacy‑preserving, and user‑friendly experience across the Ethereum ecosystem.