Smart accounts are chain-locked. An ERC-4337 wallet on Arbitrum cannot natively sign a transaction on Base, creating a user experience chasm that defeats AA's core purpose of abstraction.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
The AA Bridge Problem No One is Solving
Asset bridges like Across and LayerZero solved moving tokens. But moving your smart account's state, logic, and session keys between Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base is an unsolved nightmare, locking users in and distorting the L2 competitive landscape.
introduction
THE UX CHASM
Introduction
Account Abstraction's promise of seamless UX is broken by a fragmented, insecure bridging landscape.
Current bridges are wallet-agnostic. Protocols like Across and Stargate move assets, not smart account state, forcing users back to EOAs and seed phrases for interop—a catastrophic regression in security and UX.
The industry is solving the wrong problem. Focus remains on faster/cheaper asset transfers (LayerZero, Wormhole), while the intent-centric user journey—where the wallet manages cross-chain execution—remains unsolved.
Evidence: Over 60% of DeFi users interact with 2+ chains monthly (Dune Analytics), yet zero AA wallets offer native, gas-abstracted cross-chain actions. This is the AA bridge problem.
thesis-statement
THE AA BRIDGE PROBLEM
The Core Argument: Portability is the Next Battleground
The inability to move smart accounts across chains creates a fundamental lock-in that defeats the purpose of account abstraction.
Smart accounts are not portable. A user's ERC-4337 account on Arbitrum is a different contract address on Polygon. This breaks the core UX promise of a unified identity.
Current bridges are asset-focused. Protocols like Across and Stargate move tokens, not stateful smart contract logic. Your account's session keys, recovery modules, and subscription payments remain stranded.
The lock-in is structural. A user's on-chain reputation, social graph, and transaction history are siloed. This fragmentation makes chain abstraction a marketing term, not a reality.
Evidence: Vitalik Buterin's 2023 post on 'Cross-chain proof of personhood' explicitly highlights the 'major unsolved problem' of moving social recovery modules between L2s.
key-trends
THE AA BRIDGE GAP
Three Trends Exposing the Problem
The rise of Account Abstraction is creating a critical infrastructure blind spot in cross-chain interoperability.
01
The Rise of the Smart Account
ERC-4337 and native AA chains like Starknet and zkSync are shifting value and logic from EOAs to contract wallets. Traditional bridges are designed for simple EOA signatures, not programmable transaction flows.
- UserOps require complex multi-step validation.
- Session keys and social recovery break atomic settlement assumptions.
- Bridges like LayerZero and Axelar treat AA wallets as black boxes.
10M+
Smart Accounts
ERC-4337
Standard
02
Intent-Based Architectures
Systems like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across abstract execution details behind user intents. This creates a mismatch with state-based bridges that require precise, pre-defined calldata.
- Solvers need to fulfill intents across chains, not just move assets.
- Bridges become a constraint, not a composable primitive.
- The Anoma vision of a fully intent-centric stack is impossible with current bridges.
$1B+
Intent Volume
~5s
Solver Latency
03
Modular Liquidity Fragmentation
Rollups and app-chains are exploding, each with its own native AA implementation and gas token. Bridging now requires moving both assets and gas for smart account operations, a problem ERC-4337 Paymasters only solve on the destination chain.
- Users can't pay for a cross-chain tx in USDC on Chain A with gas on Chain B.
- Liquidity is siloed per chain, increasing capital inefficiency.
- This defeats the UX promise of AA: seamless, gasless interactions.
50+
Active L2s/L3s
$10B+
Fragmented TVL
THE AA BRIDGE PROBLEM
The Portability Gap: Assets vs. Accounts
Comparing the technical capabilities of asset-only bridges versus the nascent solutions for portable smart accounts.
| Core Capability | Traditional Asset Bridges (e.g., Across, Stargate) | EOA-Based Account Abstraction (e.g., Safe{Core}, Biconomy) | Native AA Bridges (e.g., ZeroDev, Rhinestone, Pimlico) |
|---|---|---|---|
Asset Transfer | |||
Gas Sponsorship (Paymaster) | Partial (Relayer) | ||
Batch Atomic Operations | |||
Session Keys / Automation | |||
Cross-Chain State Sync | |||
Average Latency | 3-10 min | < 1 min | < 30 sec |
Fee Model | Liquidity Provider + Relayer | Relayer + Gas | Relayer + Gas + Intent Solver |
Developer Integration Complexity | Low (SDK) | Medium (Modules) | High (New Standards) |
deep-dive
THE SYSTEMIC FLAW
Why This Isn't Just a Technical Debt Problem
The AA bridge problem is a fundamental design conflict between user-centric abstraction and chain-centric security models.
The abstraction mismatch is foundational. Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) creates a user-centric execution environment, but bridges like Across and Stargate operate on a chain-centric asset model. The bridge's security and finality logic is bound to the origin chain's state, not the user's intent or session.
This creates a trust asymmetry. A user's smart account on Arbitrum can have sophisticated social recovery, but the bridge's liquidity on Ethereum only recognizes the EOA that initiated the transfer. This forces protocols to implement fragile meta-transaction relayers, reintroducing centralization vectors AA aims to eliminate.
Evidence: The dominant solution is off-chain orchestrators. Services like Biconomy and Pimlico must run centralized 'bundler' services to wrap bridge calls in gasless meta-transactions, creating a single point of failure that contradicts AA's decentralized promise. The system's security reverts to the weakest link—the relay infrastructure.
protocol-spotlight
THE AA BRIDGE GAP
Who's Trying to Solve This? (Spoiler: Almost No One)
Account Abstraction enables powerful user experiences, but the bridge infrastructure to support it is fundamentally broken. Here's the landscape.
01
The Universal Verifier Problem
ERC-4337 Bundlers and Paymasters can't natively verify signatures from foreign chains. This breaks cross-chain intent execution.\n- Key Issue: A user signature on Polygon is worthless to a Bundler on Arbitrum.\n- Result: Cross-chain AA requires a trusted, centralized relayer to 'translate' the signature, reintroducing custodial risk.
0
Native Solutions
100%
Custodial Risk
02
The Fragmented Liquidity Trap
Existing bridges like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole are asset-focused, not operation-focused. They move tokens, not user intents.\n- Key Issue: They provide no framework for a Paymaster on Chain B to sponsor gas for a user's action initiated on Chain A.\n- Result: Cross-chain AA requires prefunding destination chain gas, destroying the UX benefits of gas sponsorship and session keys.
$10B+
TVL Irrelevant
1
Supported Action
03
The Intent Protocol Mismatch
Intent-centric systems like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract execution within a chain. Their solvers have no incentive or capability to become cross-chain AA infrastructure.\n- Key Issue: These systems optimize for price, not for verifying and fulfilling a user's cross-chain state change request.\n- Result: The 'solver' network for cross-chain AA doesn't exist. There's no Across Protocol for generalized user operations.
~0
Incentive Alignment
L1/L2 Only
Scope
counter-argument
THE USER INTENT ARGUMENT
The Steelman: Maybe Users Don't Need to Move
The core problem is not moving assets, but fulfilling user intent, which existing bridges fail to abstract.
Intent-based architectures win. Users want outcomes, not transactions. The AA bridge problem is a symptom of forcing users to manage liquidity and routing. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract this by solving for intent off-chain, making the on-chain settlement a consequence.
Smart accounts change the unit of execution. The user is no longer a wallet moving USDC from Arbitrum to Base. The user is an account abstraction wallet with a signed intent. The system's job is to fulfill it via the cheapest, fastest path, whether that's a canonical bridge, LayerZero, or a liquidity pool.
The winning bridge is invisible. The Across and Stargate model of competing on liquidity and speed becomes a commodity backend. The front-end is the user's intent, settled through a solver network that sources liquidity from all bridges. The asset never 'moves' from the user's perspective; their state updates.
Evidence: Intent-centric trading already dominates. Over 70% of Uniswap's volume on Ethereum now routes through its RFQ system, not its AMM pools. This proves users delegate routing complexity when the UX abstraction is seamless.
risk-analysis
THE AA BRIDGE PROBLEM NO ONE IS SOLVING
The Bear Case: What Happens If We Don't Solve This
Without a native bridge for Account Abstraction, we lock out the next billion users and cede the future to centralized intermediaries.
01
The Centralization Trap
Users will default to centralized exchanges for cross-chain moves, reversing decentralization gains. This creates systemic risk and regulatory capture points.
- Single Points of Failure: Billions in user funds rely on CEX security models.
- Fragmented UX: Users juggle multiple wallets and deposit addresses, a non-starter for mass adoption.
- Data Silos: CEXs own the user graph and flow data, stifling on-chain innovation.
>75%
CEX Volume Share
$1T+
Annual Flow at Risk
02
The UX Dead End
Smart accounts remain isolated on their native chain, crippling their value proposition. The promise of seamless, gas-abstracted transactions dies at the chain border.
- Broken Sessions: Users cannot maintain a single session across chains, forcing repeated sign-ins and approvals.
- Fee Abstraction Failure: Sponsors cannot pay for cross-chain gas, a core AA benefit.
- Intent Architectures Stall: Projects like UniswapX and CowSwap cannot execute cross-chain intents without user-facing complexity.
0
Native AA Bridges
5-10x
More User Steps
03
The Innovation Stalemate
Developers cannot build truly chain-abstracted dApps. The ecosystem fragments into walled gardens, and novel use cases become impossible.
- No Cross-Chain Smart Wallets: Recovery, automation, and social features stop at the bridge.
- Stifled DeFi Compositions: Protocols like Aave and Compound cannot leverage multi-collateral pools efficiently.
- Bridge Protocols Lose: LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole miss the AA wave, leaving their infrastructure as a legacy layer.
-90%
Use Case Potential
Months
Development Lag
04
The Security Regression
We revert to pre-AA security models where private key management is the only option for cross-chain activity, increasing theft and loss surface.
- Key Exposure: Users must export/import keys to move funds, a major vulnerability.
- No Recovery Paths: Lost cross-chain transactions are irrecoverable without social or multi-sig safeguards.
- Audit Nightmare: Complex, non-standard bridge interactions create new attack vectors that auditors miss.
$3B+
Annual Bridge Hacks
High
User Risk
future-outlook
THE AA BRIDGE PROBLEM
The Path Forward: Predictions for 2025
The abstraction of gas and native tokens creates a critical UX gap that current bridges are structurally incapable of solving.
The abstraction of gas via ERC-4337 Account Abstraction (AA) breaks the fundamental assumption of every major bridge. Bridges like Across, Stargate, and LayerZero require users to hold the destination chain's native token for gas. AA wallets, by design, aim to eliminate this need, creating a fatal user experience deadlock.
Intent-based architectures will dominate. The solution is not a better bridge but a new primitive. Systems like UniswapX and CowSwap's solver network will extend to cross-chain, where a solver assumes gas liability and fulfills the user's intent atomically. This shifts the competitive moat from liquidity to solver capital efficiency.
The winning standard will be hybrid. A pure intent model is inefficient for simple transfers. The 2025 standard will be a unified intent-fulfillment layer that routes requests: simple swaps go to Chainlink CCIP for speed, complex intents are auctioned to a suave-like solver network. The bridge as a standalone product disappears.
Evidence: The 80% failure rate for first-time cross-chain AA transactions is the leading cause of onboarding abandonment. Protocols that solve this, like Biconomy's Paymaster + Across integration, see user completion rates increase by 300%. The market will consolidate around the few stacks that abstract this complexity entirely.
takeaways
THE AA BRIDGE PROBLEM
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Account Abstraction wallets are exploding, but cross-chain UX is still stuck in the dark ages. Here's the unsolved bottleneck.
01
The Gas Problem: Who Pays?
ERC-4337 wallets can't natively hold gas on a destination chain. Every AA bridge today is a UX hack that breaks the abstraction.
- User Pre-Funding: Forces users to acquire native gas tokens, killing the "gasless" promise.
- Relayer Subsidy: Centralizes risk and creates unsustainable business models for relayers like Biconomy or Stackup.
- Protocol Overhead: DApps must implement complex sponsor logic, increasing integration friction.
~$0.50+
Extra User Cost
5+ Steps
UX Friction
02
The Atomicity Problem: Broken UserOps
A cross-chain UserOp is not atomic. This breaks the core composability promise of smart accounts.
- State Inconsistency: A successful source chain action with a failed bridge leaves users in an unrecoverable state.
- No Cross-Chain Session Keys: Key innovation of AA (sponsored sessions via Pimlico) is chain-locked.
- Fragmented Intents: Solutions like UniswapX and Across solve for swaps, not for generalized contract execution from a smart account.
0
Native Solutions
High
Revert Risk
03
The Solution: Paymaster-Powered Bridges
The fix is a new bridge primitive where the bridge itself acts as a Verifying Paymaster on the destination chain.
- Gas Abstraction: Bridge contract pays gas, users pay in any token via a meta-transaction on the source chain.
- Atomic Guarantees: Single UserOp bundles bridge execution and destination action, enabled by protocols like LayerZero for arbitrary message passing.
- New Business Model: Bridge earns fees on swap/transfer, not from subsidizing unpredictable gas costs.
1-Click
UX
Full AA
Preserved
04
The Competitor Gap: Why No One Builds It
Incumbent bridges (e.g., Stargate, Wormhole) and intent solvers (e.g., CowSwap) are structurally misaligned.
- TVL Focus: Major bridges optimize for capital efficiency and LP yields, not UX minutiae for a nascent user base.
- Intent Solvers are DEX-First: Protocols like UniswapX and 1inch Fusion solve for swap intents, not generic contract calls.
- Protocol Lock-in: Building this requires deep integration with AA SDKs (ZeroDev, Alchemy) and Rollup ecosystems—a long-term bet.
$10B+ TVL
Misaligned Incentives
Niche
Perceived Market
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