Monolithic designs create systemic risk. Bundling signature validation, gas sponsorship, and transaction simulation into a single smart contract creates a single point of failure and upgrade rigidity, as seen in early implementations like Biconomy's v1.
account-abstraction-fixing-crypto-ux
Blog
Why Modular AA Stacks Will Outperform Monolithic Solutions
Vertically integrated wallets are a dead end. The future of crypto UX is a competitive, modular ecosystem of specialized bundlers, paymasters, and account factories built on ERC-4337.
introduction
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Introduction
Monolithic account abstraction is a dead end; the future belongs to modular, specialized stacks.
Modularity enables best-in-class components. Developers compose a signature aggregator from Pimlico, a paymaster from Alchemy, and a bundler from Stackup, creating a system more resilient and performant than any single vendor's offering.
The market votes with integration. The rapid adoption of ERC-4337 and the rise of intent-based architectures from UniswapX and Across Protocol prove that user experience demands this decoupled, interoperable approach.
Evidence: The Ethereum Foundation's ERC-4337 standard, which defines a modular component model, has been integrated by every major L2 (Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon) within 12 months of its proposal.
key-trends
ARCHITECTURAL SUPREMACY
The Modular vs. Monolithic Fault Line
Monolithic account abstraction bundles security, execution, and settlement, creating a single point of failure and innovation stagnation. Modular stacks disaggregate these layers, unlocking specialized performance.
01
The Problem: Monolithic Vendor Lock-In
Bundled stacks like Starknet's native AA or zkSync's system contracts force developers into a single tech roadmap and fee market. This stifles competition and creates protocol risk concentration.
- Innovation Lag: Upgrades are gated by core dev timelines.
- Economic Capture: Users pay premiums for non-optimized components.
- Exit Barriers: Migrating user bases is a hard fork-level event.
1x
Vendor Speed
100%
Risk Bundle
02
The Solution: Best-of-Breed Execution Layer
Modular AA separates the signature abstraction from execution, enabling specialized bundler networks like Stackup or Alchemy to compete on speed and cost. This mirrors the MEV searcher/builder separation from Ethereum's PBS.
- Latency Wars: Bundlers optimize for ~500ms inclusion vs. monolithic block times.
- Fee Optimization: Dynamic routing through Pimlico, Biconomy for cheapest gas.
- Redundancy: No single bundler failure breaks the network.
10x
Faster UX
-40%
Gas Cost
03
The Solution: Plug-and-Play Security & Settlement
Decoupling allows the account layer to settle on any verifier. A modular stack can use Ethereum L1 for maximal security, an EigenLayer AVS for lower cost, or a zk-rollup for speed. This is the Celestia vs. Ethereum DA debate applied to AA.
- Security Sliding Scale: Users choose between $10B+ staked security or ~$0.001 txn costs.
- Future-Proofing: New cryptography (e.g., BLS signatures) can be adopted without chain upgrades.
- Sovereignty: Developers control the trust assumptions, not the L2 vendor.
100x
Choice
-90%
Settle Cost
04
The Arbiter: Paymaster Flexibility
Monolithic paymasters are a captive business. Modular paymasters like ZeroDev's kernel enable sponsorship, gas abstraction, and fee payment in any token. This unlocks UniswapX-style intent flows where the paymaster is the economic engine.
- Business Model Innovation: Session keys, subscriptions, ERC-20 gas become trivial.
- User Acquisition: Apps can sponsor gas as a marketing cost, absorbing ~$5M+ in annual fees for growth.
- Composability: A single paymaster can serve accounts across multiple rollups via LayerZero or Connext.
$5M+
Gas Sponsored
∞
Token Options
05
The Existential Threat: Monolithic Scaling Ceilings
A monolithic L2's AA throughput is capped by its own execution environment. As seen with Arbitrum Stylus or Optimism Bedrock, upgrading is a years-long process. Modular AA stacks scale horizontally by adding new rollups or AltDA layers instantly.
- Throughput Isolation: AA traffic doesn't compete with DeFi for block space.
- Instant Scaling: New EigenLayer rollup for AA can be deployed in weeks, not years.
- Cost Predictability: Fees are decoupled from the main L2's congestion.
1000x
Scale Potential
-99%
Upgrade Time
06
The Verdict: Modular as Default
The trajectory mirrors web2: monolithic stacks (IBM mainframes) lose to modular, interoperable systems (cloud microservices). EIP-4337 is the standard, not the implementation. Winners will be orchestration layers that unify best-of-class bundlers, paymasters, and verifiers—not monolithic chains.
- Market Reality: Coinbase's Base (monolithic) now integrates third-party bundlers.
- Developer Mindshare: ERC-4337 tooling from Stackup, Alchemy dominates.
- Endgame: AA becomes a meta-layer, not a chain feature.
ERC-4337
Standard
100%
Adoption Path
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Inevitable Unbundling of the Smart Wallet
Monolithic smart wallets are being deconstructed into specialized, interoperable layers, a modular approach that delivers superior performance, security, and user experience.
Modular stacks win on specialization. A monolithic wallet like Argent must build and maintain every component, from signature aggregation to gas sponsorship. A modular stack lets ZeroDev handle kernel logic, Pimlico manage paymasters, and Safe provide the core account abstraction standard, each optimizing for their core competency.
Unbundling enables permissionless innovation. A monolithic architecture is a closed system. A modular Account Abstraction (AA) stack creates a competitive marketplace for bundlers, paymasters, and signature schemes, forcing continuous improvement in cost and efficiency, similar to the Ethereum execution/client layer dynamic.
Interoperability defeats vendor lock-in. Users of a monolithic wallet are trapped. With standards like ERC-4337 and Safe{Core}, a user's account identity and assets become portable across any frontend or service built on the modular stack, increasing competitive pressure.
Evidence: The Ethereum Foundation's ERC-4337 specification explicitly defines separate roles for Bundlers, Paymasters, and EntryPoints, architecting modularity from the first principle. Adoption by Coinbase's Smart Wallet and Polygon's ecosystem validates this as the dominant design pattern.
ACCOUNT ABSTRACTION STACKS
Monolithic vs. Modular: A Feature & Risk Matrix
A first-principles comparison of architectural approaches for Account Abstraction, evaluating composability, cost, and systemic risk.
| Feature / Metric | Monolithic Stack (e.g., Starknet, zkSync) | Modular Stack (e.g., Biconomy, ZeroDev, Rhinestone) | Hybrid Approach (e.g., Arbitrum Stylus, Fuel) |
|---|---|---|---|
Architecture Coupling | Smart Account, Bundler, Paymaster, Indexer are vertically integrated | Smart Account, Bundler, Paymaster, Indexer are decoupled & swappable | Core VM is monolithic, but AA tooling is modular |
Protocol-Level Fee Sponsorship | |||
Developer Lock-in Risk | High - Entire stack is chain-specific | Low - Components are chain-agnostic | Medium - Tied to chain VM, not AA tools |
Time to Integrate New Signer Type (e.g., MPC) | ~6-12 months (requires core protocol upgrade) | < 1 week (SDK & module update) | ~1-3 months (VM extension required) |
Avg. UserOp Gas Overhead vs. EOA | 15-25% (optimized for native integration) | 5-15% (can leverage specialized bundlers) | 10-20% (VM efficiency gains) |
Bundler Censorship Resistance | Low - Single, chain-native operator | High - Competitive marketplace (e.g., Pimlico, Alchemy) | Medium - Native sequencer + external options |
Upgrade Path for Smart Account Logic | Governance-driven, slow (hard forks) | User-driven, instant (module installation) | Governance-driven for VM, user-driven for apps |
Max Theoretical TPS for AA-specific ops | Defined by base layer scalability | Limited by weakest external component (e.g., Paymaster RPC) | Defined by base layer scalability with AA optimizations |
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRAP
The Monolithic Rebuttal (And Why It's Wrong)
Monolithic account abstraction stacks create vendor lock-in and stifle innovation, while modular designs enable competitive specialization.
Monolithic stacks create lock-in. A single provider controls the wallet, bundler, and paymaster, forcing developers into a closed ecosystem. This mirrors the early internet's walled gardens.
Modularity enables specialization. Decoupling components lets projects use the best-in-class ERC-4337 bundler (e.g., Stackup, Alchemy), a custom Paymaster for gas sponsorship, and a secure smart account from Safe or ZeroDev.
Innovation accelerates at the layer. Independent teams optimize single components, like Pimlico on paymaster efficiency or Candide on wallet UX, without needing to rebuild the entire stack.
Evidence: The rapid adoption of ERC-4337, a modular standard, has processed over 5 million user operations, proving that decentralized, interoperable components outperform closed systems.
takeaways
MODULAR AA IS THE FUTURE
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Monolithic smart account stacks are hitting scaling and innovation walls. Here's why a modular, best-of-breed approach will dominate.
01
The Interoperability Problem
Monolithic stacks like early Safe{Core} create walled gardens, locking users and liquidity. Modular AA, using standards like ERC-4337 and RIP-7560, enables cross-chain and cross-VM portability via LayerZero and CCIP.\n- Unlocks multi-chain user acquisition\n- Future-proofs against chain obsolescence\n- Enables intent-based routing via UniswapX/CowSwap
10x+
Chain Coverage
-80%
Integration Time
02
The Innovation Bottleneck
A single team cannot out-innovate the entire ecosystem. Monolithic development cycles are ~6-12 months for new features. Modular stacks let you plug in specialized modules for social recovery (Lit Protocol), stealth addresses, and batch auctions in weeks.\n- Rapid integration of novel cryptography\n- Composability with DeFi primitives like Across\n- Specialized paymasters for gas abstraction
4x
Faster Iteration
100+
Module Ecosystem
03
The Cost & Performance Ceiling
Monolithic bundlers and paymasters operate at subscale, leading to high fees and latency. Modular networks like Stackup and Alchemy create competitive markets for bundling, driving costs toward marginal gas.\n- Bundler competition reduces fees by >50%\n- Sub-second latency for user ops\n- Horizontal scaling avoids single-point congestion
-50%
Avg. Gas Cost
~500ms
Op Latency
04
The Security & Upgrade Paradox
Upgrading a monolithic stack is a high-risk, all-or-nothing event. Modular architecture isolates risk: a bug in a signature module doesn't compromise the entire account. This enables permissionless auditing and faster security patches.\n- Contained blast radius for vulnerabilities\n- Gradual, opt-in upgrades for users\n- Specialized audit firms per module type
10x
Lower Upgrade Risk
24h
Patch Deployment
05
The Capital Efficiency Trap
Monolithic solutions force protocols to over-provision capital for gas sponsorship and bundling. Modular paymaster networks enable shared liquidity pools and intent-based gas markets, freeing up millions in working capital.\n- Dynamic gas sponsorship from dApps\n- Paymaster-as-a-Service models (Pimlico)\n- Cross-application subsidy pooling
$10M+
Capital Unlocked
-90%
Gas Overhead
06
The Vendor Lock-In Death Spiral
Building on a monolithic AA stack creates existential dependency. If the core team pivots or fails, your product is stranded. Modular standards ensure sovereignty; you can replace any component (bundler, paymaster, module) without a hard fork.\n- Preserves protocol autonomy\n- Avoids platform risk (see: early AWS)\n- Forces vendors to compete on service, not captivity
0
Migration Cost
100%
Control Retained
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall