Chain-specific AA standards fragment users. ERC-4337 on Ethereum, Biconomy's infrastructure on Polygon, and native AA on zkSync Era create walled gardens. A smart account built for one chain cannot natively operate on another without complex, custom bridging logic.
cross-chain-future-bridges-and-interoperability
Blog
Why Every Chain's AA Standard Dooms Interoperability
A technical analysis of how proprietary Account Abstraction implementations from Ethereum (ERC-4337), Starknet, and others create account-level fragmentation, undermining the promise of a seamless cross-chain future.
introduction
THE FRAGMENTATION
Introduction: The Interoperability Paradox
The proliferation of chain-specific Account Abstraction standards is creating a new, more fundamental layer of fragmentation that undermines cross-chain user experience.
Interoperability regresses to the lowest common denominator. To function across chains, dApps must default to basic Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs), sacrificing smart account features like session keys or gas sponsorship. This forces a trade-off between security and composability.
The bridge is the new bottleneck. Projects like Across and LayerZero move assets, not smart account state. A user's social recovery setup or transaction batch on Arbitrum does not exist on Optimism, creating a user experience cliff at every chain boundary.
Evidence: The Ethereum ecosystem has over 10 distinct AA implementations. A wallet like Safe{Wallet} must maintain separate, incompatible deployments for EVM chains versus non-EVM ecosystems like Starknet or Solana, multiplying integration overhead.
key-trends
WHY EVERY CHAIN'S AA STANDARD DOOMS INTEROPERABILITY
The Great Fragmentation: Current AA Landscape
Account Abstraction is being implemented in isolated silos, creating a new interoperability crisis before the first user even signs a transaction.
01
The ERC-4337 Illusion
ERC-4337 is a specification, not a protocol. Its core components—Bundlers, Paymasters, Aggregators—are chain-specific implementations. This leads to:
- Incompatible Bundler RPCs requiring separate integrations for each chain.
- Fragmented Paymaster liquidity; gas sponsorship on Polygon doesn't work on Arbitrum.
- No shared mempool, killing cross-chain user operation atomicity.
0
Native Cross-Chain Ops
10+
Chain-Specific Implementations
02
The L2 Sovereignty Trap
Chains like Starknet, zkSync, and Arbitrum are building proprietary AA stacks (e.g., native account contracts) for performance. This creates:
- Vendor lock-in where smart accounts are non-portable assets.
- Fractured developer tooling; a Safe on Optimism is a different contract than on Base.
- Broken composability for dApps expecting a uniform account interface across the rollup ecosystem.
100%
Non-Portable Smart Accounts
5+
Proprietary Stacks
03
The Intent-Based Band-Aid
Solutions like UniswapX and Across use intents to abstract complexity, but they're application-layer fixes for an infrastructure failure. This results in:
- Fragmented liquidity across solver networks like CowSwap and 1inch.
- Increased latency from off-chain auction mechanisms (~2-12s).
- No standard for cross-chain account state synchronization, pushing complexity to users.
2-12s
Solver Latency
$1B+
Fragmented Liquidity
04
The Interoperability Tax
Bridging smart accounts today requires middleware like LayerZero or Axelar, adding cost and centralization vectors. The process:
- Forces asset wrapping and trust in external message bridges.
- Adds ~$5-20+ in extra fees per cross-chain user op.
- Creates new attack surfaces at the bridge validation layer, as seen in past exploits.
$5-20+
Added Fee Per Op
3+
Extra Trust Assumptions
THE INTEROPERABILITY TRAP
AA Standard Comparison: The Tower of Babel
Comparison of Account Abstraction (AA) implementation standards across major ecosystems, highlighting fragmentation in core primitives that break cross-chain user experiences.
| Core Primitive | Ethereum ERC-4337 | Starknet (Cairo Native) | zkSync Era (Native AA) | Polygon zkEVM (ERC-4337 + CD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard EntryPoint Address | 0x5FF137D4b0FDCD49DcA30c7CF57E578a026d2789 | N/A (Protocol-Level) | N/A (System Contract) | 0x5FF137D4b0FDCD49DcA30c7CF57E578a026d2789 |
Paymaster Sponsorship | ||||
Bundler Network Required | ||||
Signature Aggregation | EIP-1271 (Standard) | Cairo Native (Custom) | EIP-1271 (Standard) | EIP-1271 (Standard) |
Gas Abstraction (Fee Token) | Paymaster-Dependent | Native Protocol Token | Native Protocol Token | Paymaster-Dependent |
Session Keys / Automation | Third-Party (Gelato, OpenZeppelin) | Native (Protocol) | Native (System Contract) | Third-Party (Gelato) |
Cross-Chain UserOp Validity |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRAP
Deep Dive: How Walled Gardens Form at the Account Layer
Standardized smart accounts create isolated user bases by locking logic and assets into incompatible execution environments.
Account abstraction standards are not neutral. ERC-4337, SCA in Starknet, and Aptos' native accounts define a proprietary user operation mempool. This creates a protocol-specific execution layer that wallets and dApps must integrate directly, forming the garden walls.
Interoperability fails at the intent layer. A user's bundled transaction on Polygon cannot natively express a cross-chain intent to UniswapX. The account's execution scope is chain-bound, forcing complex, insecure relayers instead of a universal intent solver network.
Asset portability becomes a bridge tax. Moving a smart account's state (like social recovery modules) between an OP Stack chain and Arbitrum requires a full redeploy. This state fragmentation locks users in via gas costs and complexity, not choice.
Evidence: The ERC-4337 bundler ecosystem is already fracturing. Pimlico and Stackup optimize for specific chains, while Safe's modular ecosystem pushes a multi-chain but vertically integrated stack. Without a shared global mempool, these are competing gardens.
counter-argument
THE STANDARDS WARS
Counter-Argument: Isn't This Just Early Days?
The proliferation of competing AA standards is not a temporary phase but a structural flaw that will ossify.
Standards don't converge naturally. The history of web2 (e.g., USB-C vs. Lightning) proves that once a standard gains critical mass, network effects lock it in. Every chain's native AA wallet is a vendor-lock-in mechanism for its ecosystem.
Interoperability becomes a patchwork. A user's ERC-4337 wallet on Arbitrum is a foreign object on Solana or Sui. This forces reliance on clunky, insecure bridging solutions like LayerZero or Wormhole for simple account portability, defeating AA's user-centric promise.
Evidence: The EIP-3074 vs. ERC-4337 debate on Ethereum itself shows divergence, not convergence. Solana's version, Solana Actions and Blinks, is architecturally distinct. This fragmentation is the default state, not a bug.
protocol-spotlight
THE FRAGMENTED AA LANDSCAPE
Protocol Spotlight: Who's Trying to Fix This?
While ERC-4337 defines a standard for Ethereum, competing implementations on other chains create a new interoperability nightmare. These are the projects building the abstraction layer above them.
01
ZeroDev: The Kernel Standard Unifier
ZeroDev proposes EIP-6900 (Modular Smart Accounts) as a universal standard for cross-chain AA. It separates the core account logic (kernel) from the validation logic, enabling a single smart account to operate natively across any EVM chain.
- Key Benefit: Eliminates chain-specific deployments; one account, all chains.
- Key Benefit: Enables cross-chain session keys and gas sponsorship.
1
Universal Kernel
10+
Chain Support
02
Biconomy & Particle Network: The Intent-Centric Aggregators
These platforms abstract the underlying AA standard entirely by operating at the intent layer. Users express a desired outcome (e.g., 'swap X for Y on Arbitrum'), and the solver network handles chain-specific AA interactions transparently.
- Key Benefit: User never touches gas or signs per-chain transactions.
- Key Benefit: Leverages existing ERC-4337, BLS, and other AA implementations as mere backends.
0
Chain Awareness Needed
~2s
User Experience
03
Polygon & zkSync: The Chain-Native AA Maximalists
L2s like Polygon (with its chain abstraction roadmap) and zkSync (native account abstraction) are building AA so deeply into their protocol stack that interoperability becomes their problem to solve, not the dApp's.
- Key Benefit: Single signature for cross-L2 actions via shared prover systems or state sync.
- Key Benefit: Native sponsored transactions and batched operations reduce fragmentation.
L1
Security Model
-90%
UX Friction
04
The Cross-Chain Messaging Play: LayerZero & CCIP
Universal interoperability protocols treat AA wallets as another application state. They enable cross-chain smart account calls, allowing logic in an AA wallet on Chain A to trigger actions on Chain B via secure messaging.
- Key Benefit: Turns any AA standard into a cross-chain orchestrator.
- Key Benefit: Leverages existing $20B+ secured value in these messaging layers for trust assumptions.
Omnichain
AA Contract
20+
Connected Chains
takeaways
THE FRAGMENTATION TRAP
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The proliferation of chain-specific Account Abstraction standards is creating a new, user-hostile fragmentation layer that will cripple cross-chain UX and developer velocity.
01
The Problem: A Tower of Babel for Smart Wallets
Every major chain is building its own AA standard (ERC-4337 on Ethereum, Biconomy on Polygon, ZeroDev on Arbitrum). This creates a protocol-level lock-in where a smart account built for one chain cannot natively operate on another. The result is a fractured user experience and a combinatorial explosion of integration work for developers.
5+
Major Standards
100%
More Dev Work
02
The Solution: Universal EntryPoint & Paymaster Standards
Interoperability must be baked into the AA protocol layer. This requires a cross-chain EntryPoint that can validate and bundle user operations from any chain, and cross-chain Paymasters that can sponsor gas in any currency. Projects like LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard show the blueprint for native cross-chain messaging that AA desperately needs.
~500ms
Latency Target
1
Universal SDK
03
The Investment Lens: Bet on Abstraction, Not Implementation
The winning infrastructure won't be the best chain-specific AA SDK. It will be the abstraction layer that unifies them all. Look for projects solving the intent-based bridging and signature aggregation problem for AA, similar to how UniswapX and Across abstract liquidity sources. The moat is in the interoperability protocol, not the single-chain wrapper.
$10B+
Addressable TVL
10x
UX Multiplier
04
The Builder's Mandate: Demand Portable Signers
As a builder, your primary demand to AA tooling providers should be private key portability. A user's smart account logic and social recovery setup should be chain-agnostic. This forces infrastructure teams to solve the hard problems of state synchronization and cross-chain verification upfront, rather than kicking the can down the road.
0
Chain Re-Deploys
-50%
Support Costs
05
The Hidden Cost: Fragmented Liquidity & Security
Chain-specific AA splinters staking pools, paymaster reserves, and session key networks. This reduces capital efficiency for stakers and increases systemic risk. A cross-chain AA standard would enable unified security pools (like EigenLayer) and global paymaster networks, creating a more robust and liquid economic layer for smart accounts.
30%
Capital Inefficiency
5x
Attack Surface
06
The Existential Risk: Losing to Centralized Sequencers
If native, decentralized AA remains fragmented, users will flock to centralized alternatives that offer a seamless cross-chain experience by default. The Coinbase Smart Wallet or Magic Eden's unified wallet demonstrate this threat. Decentralized protocols must match this UX or cede the market to trusted intermediaries, undermining crypto's core value proposition.
2-3 Years
Window to Act
90%
User Preference
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