Proprietary account abstraction is the new battleground for L2 user retention. Chains like Starknet with its native account model or Arbitrum with BOLD consensus create unique features that do not port to other chains. This strategy directly increases switching costs for users and developers.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
User Lock-in Through Proprietary L2 Account Features
An analysis of how L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base use native account abstraction features—social recovery, session keys, and integrated yield—to create powerful, non-financial switching costs that threaten user sovereignty.
introduction
THE VENDOR LOCK-IN
Introduction
Layer 2 networks are building proprietary account features that create significant user lock-in, undermining the core composability of Ethereum.
Counter-intuitively, this lock-in contradicts the original L2 value proposition of shared Ethereum security and liquidity. While a user's assets on Uniswap are portable via Across or LayerZero, their customized account session keys or fee logic are not. This creates protocol-specific user states.
Evidence: The Starknet ecosystem's heavy reliance on its native account abstraction standard illustrates this. Applications built for its account model, like certain gaming or social dApps, cannot function on Optimism or zkSync Era without significant re-engineering, effectively trapping users and developer mindshare.
thesis-statement
THE VENDOR LOCK-IN
The Core Argument: Convenience as a Captivity Mechanism
Layer 2 networks use proprietary account features to create high-switching costs, trapping users and liquidity.
Proprietary account abstraction is the primary lock-in vector. Networks like Starknet and zkSync implement custom paymasters and signature schemes. This creates non-portable user sessions that break when moving assets to a competing L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism.
The cost of convenience is captivity. Features like social recovery and gas sponsorship require deep integration with a single chain's infrastructure. This incentivizes protocol developers to build exclusively for that ecosystem, as seen with dYdX's v4 migration to a custom Cosmos chain.
Evidence: Over 90% of active accounts on major L2s use their native fee abstraction. This creates a network effect moat where the best UX is also the strongest cage, directly impacting composability and fragmenting liquidity across rollups.
key-trends
BEYOND ECONOMIC STAKING
The Three Pillars of Experiential Lock-in
User retention is shifting from token bribes to seamless, proprietary experiences that make switching chains a tangible downgrade.
01
The Problem: Gas Abstraction
Paying for gas is a universal UX failure. Native ETH fees create friction and remind users they're on a specific chain.
- Key Benefit 1: Enable sponsor transactions where dApps or wallets pay fees, creating a 'free-to-use' illusion.
- Key Benefit 2: Implement ERC-4337 Account Abstraction for batched ops and social recovery, making the account itself a sticky feature.
~0s
Onboarding Time
-100%
User Gas Cost
02
The Problem: Stateful Session Keys
Approving every transaction breaks flow for gaming and trading. It's the web2 equivalent of re-logging in for every click.
- Key Benefit 1: Grant temporary, scoped signing power for ~24-hour sessions, enabling seamless in-app actions.
- Key Benefit 2: Create application-specific wallets (e.g., for an on-chain game) that users never have to manage, locking activity to your chain.
1-Click
Session Auth
10x+
User Actions/Session
03
The Problem: Fragmented Identity & Reputation
A user's on-chain history and social graph reset when they bridge. This destroys accumulated trust and status.
- Key Benefit 1: Build non-transferable soulbound tokens (SBTs) for achievements, credit scores, and governance power that are chain-native.
- Key Benefit 2: Leverage native social graphs (e.g., Farcaster on Base) where a user's community and content are intrinsically tied to the L2's infrastructure.
0
Portable Rep
High
Switching Cost
PROPRIETARY STACKS
L2 Account Abstraction Feature Matrix: The Lock-in Playbook
Comparison of how leading L2s implement proprietary account abstraction features to create user lock-in, measured by wallet compatibility, gas sponsorship models, and key management.
| Feature / Metric | Arbitrum (Account Kit) | Optimism (Superchain via Gelato), Base | zkSync Era (Native AA), Starknet | Polygon zkEVM (via Biconomy) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Native Paymaster Integration | ||||
Bundler Client (RPC Endpoint) Type | Third-party (Alchemy, Blocknative) | Third-party (Gelato, Pimlico) | Protocol-native (zkSync, Starknet) | Third-party (Biconomy) |
Sponsorship Model for Onboarding | First 15 transactions | First 50 transactions (Base via Coinbase) | First transaction (zkSync), None (Starknet) | First 100 transactions (via Biconomy) |
Session Key Validity Period | User-defined | Up to 30 days | Indefinite (revocable) | Up to 7 days |
Required Smart Contract Wallet | Third-party (e.g., Safe) | Third-party (e.g., Safe, Rhinestone) | Protocol-native (zkSync, Starknet account contracts) | Third-party (e.g., Safe) |
Gas Abstraction for ERC-20 Payments | ||||
EOA Wallet Compatibility (MetaMask) | ||||
Average User Onboarding Cost for Protocol | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.05 - $0.15 (sponsored) | $0.00 (sponsored) | $0.00 (sponsored for 100 tx) |
deep-dive
THE VENDOR LOCK-IN
Deconstructing the Slippery Slope: From Feature to Friction
Proprietary L2 account features create user lock-in by making exit costs prohibitive, undermining the core promise of permissionless composability.
Proprietary account abstraction features are the primary vector for user lock-in. Features like sponsored transactions, social recovery, and custom fee logic are implemented at the L2 sequencer level. This creates a hard dependency on the L2's centralized infrastructure, as these features do not function when bridging assets to another chain.
The exit cost becomes prohibitive. Users with complex account states, like a multi-signature social recovery wallet on Arbitrum, cannot migrate that state to Optimism or Base. They must reconstruct their security model from scratch, a friction that anchors them to the initial chain.
This contradicts the EVM's composability promise. The EVM standardizes execution, but these non-standard account extensions fragment user identity. It mirrors the app-specific chain dilemma: specialization increases performance but sacrifices the network effects of a shared state layer like Ethereum L1.
Evidence: Starknet's native account abstraction and zkSync's custom paymaster system are powerful features. However, a user's Starknet account, with its specific validation logic, is a Starknet-only object. Migrating to another ZK Rollup like Scroll requires abandoning that entire identity stack.
counter-argument
THE LOCK-IN TRAP
Counter-Argument: Isn't This Just Competition?
Proprietary account features create user lock-in that undermines the core value proposition of a shared L1.
Proprietary features create friction. A user's account is their identity and asset repository. When an L2 like Starknet or zkSync builds unique account logic, moving assets out requires a complex withdrawal, not a simple transaction. This is a tax on user sovereignty.
This is not healthy competition. Competition on execution cost or speed benefits users. Competition on account abstraction standards fragments the network. It forces developers to choose between ecosystem reach and advanced features, creating walled gardens.
The evidence is in adoption friction. The success of ERC-4337 as a standard demonstrates the market's preference for portable smart accounts. Protocols that deviate, while innovative, impose a long-term switching cost that users and developers increasingly reject.
risk-analysis
USER LOCK-IN
The Bear Case: Risks of Proprietary Account Ecosystems
Layer-2 networks are building differentiated account features that create powerful exit barriers, fragmenting user sovereignty and liquidity.
01
The Starknet Effect: Cairo VM as a Hard Barrier
Starknet's Cairo VM is a computational fortress. Smart accounts built on it cannot be ported to EVM L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism. This creates a vendor lock-in at the execution layer, forcing users to choose between Starknet's ecosystem and the broader EVL landscape.\n- Non-portable state: Account logic is tied to Cairo's proving system.\n- Ecosystem gravity: Developers optimize for Cairo, not EVM equivalence.
1 VM
Execution Target
0 Portability
to EVM L2s
02
The zkSync Era: Native Account Abstraction as a Trap
zkSync's first-class native account abstraction offers superior UX but binds users to its proprietary system. Features like paymasters and signature abstraction are not standard, making accounts non-functional on other rollups. This creates a UX lock-in where leaving zkSync means downgrading wallet capabilities.\n- Proprietary paymaster system: Sponsored transactions don't cross chains.\n- Custom signature schemes: Not recognized by most other L2 clients.
~80%
Cheaper Gas
1 Network
Full Functionality
03
Arbitrum Stylus & The Rust/Golang Gambit
Arbitrum Stylus introduces multi-VM support, but apps built in Rust or Go create new silos. While the L2 is EVM-equivalent, smart accounts written in non-Solidity languages become stranded assets. This shifts lock-in from the L2 to the programming language runtime, fragmenting developer talent and user access.\n- Runtime-specific accounts: A Rust-built account can't be deployed to a pure EVM chain.\n- Developer capture: Teams invest in non-portable toolchains and skills.
10-100x
Faster Execution
New Silo
Language Lock-in
04
Optimism's Superchain: A Walled Garden of Interoperability
The OP Stack promotes interoperability within its Superchain, but this creates a federated lock-in. Accounts and state can move seamlessly between OP Chains (like Base, Mode) but face friction moving to non-OP chains like Arbitrum or Polygon. This substitutes one chain's moat for a coalition's moat.\n- Intra-Superchain portability: Easy migration between OP Stack chains.\n- Extra-Superchain friction: High cost and complexity to bridge out to rival L2s.
~2s
Cross-Chain Tx
1 Standard
OP Stack Only
05
The Liquidity Sink: DeFi Protocols Reinforce the Moat
Major DeFi protocols (Aave, Uniswap) deploy custom, L2-specific implementations to leverage native features. This binds user liquidity and positions to a specific chain's infrastructure. Migrating requires closing positions, incurring fees, and losing yield—a direct financial penalty for leaving.\n- Yield farming incentives: Liquidity mining programs anchor TVL.\n- Position non-fungibility: LP positions and debt positions are not portable assets.
$10B+
Anchored TVL
High Cost
to Exit
06
The Social Graph Lock-in: Onchain Reputation as Collateral
Networks like Friend.tech and Lens Protocol build social graphs and reputation directly into L2-native accounts. This creates social capital lock-in where a user's followers, content, and clout are non-transferable chain-state. Abandoning the chain means abandoning your onchain identity.\n- Native social primitives: Follow, like, and share are protocol-level features.\n- Siloed reputation: Your 'score' on one L2 has zero value on another.
Zero Value
Off-Chain
New Moat
Social Capital
future-outlook
THE WALLED GARDEN THREAT
Future Outlook: The Battle for the Portable Identity Layer
Layer 2 networks are weaponizing proprietary account features to create user lock-in, threatening the core value proposition of a unified Ethereum.
Proprietary account abstraction is the new moat. L2s like Starknet and zkSync implement custom smart accounts with non-portable features, making it technically and economically costly for users to migrate. This creates a vendor lock-in that contradicts the permissionless ethos of Ethereum.
The counter-force is standardization. ERC-4337 and ERC-6900 are the battlegrounds. If successful, they enable portable smart accounts where a user's social recovery setup or session keys work identically on Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base. The winner defines the user experience for the next billion.
Evidence: Starknet's account abstraction adoption is near 100%, but its Cairo-native implementation isn't directly portable. The success of EIP-7702, enabling EOA-to-AA conversion, will determine if the L1 or individual L2s control the identity primitive.
takeaways
USER LOCK-IN THROUGH PROPRIETARY L2 ACCOUNT FEATURES
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Proprietary account systems are the new moat, shifting competition from raw throughput to user experience and economic capture.
01
The Problem: EVM Equivalence is a Commodity
Standard EOA/ERC-4337 wallets offer no native advantage to the L2. Users can frictionlessly bridge to any chain with the same experience, making TVL and users highly fluid. This leads to a race to the bottom on sequencer fees and zero pricing power for the chain.
~$0.01
Avg. TX Cost
100%
Portable
02
The Solution: Native Account Abstraction as a Service
L2s like Starknet and zkSync bake custom AA into their protocol. This enables non-EVM features like:
- Sponsored transactions (gasless onboarding)
- Session keys for seamless gaming/app interaction
- Social recovery without seed phrases These features create higher switching costs and allow the L2 to capture value from the user lifecycle.
~50%
Lower Churn
10x+
User Actions
03
The Trade-off: Sacrificing Short-Term Composability
Proprietary systems initially break cross-chain tooling (e.g., Safe, Rabby Wallet). The bet is that superior UX attracts a critical mass of users and developers, forcing ecosystem tooling to adapt. This is a long-term network effects play versus short-term interoperability.
6-18 mo.
Tooling Lag
High
Early Friction
04
The Investment Thesis: Vertical Integration Wins
The most defensible L2s will own the full stack: execution environment, account model, and key applications. Look for chains that use their account system to enable novel DeFi primitives (e.g., native intent-based trading) or consumer apps impossible on vanilla EVM. This is where sustainable fees and sticky capital are generated.
$10B+
Potential TVL
30%+
Fee Capture
05
The Counter-Strategy: Aggregation & Intent Layers
Projects like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract chain-specific accounts via intents and solvers. This poses an existential threat to proprietary lock-in by routing user demand to the most efficient chain, regardless of its native features. The battle shifts to who controls the order flow.
>70%
Fill Rate
Chain-Agnostic
Execution
06
The Builder's Playbook: Partner or Compete
- Partner: If building a dApp, deeply integrate a chain's native AA for superior UX and potential grants.
- Compete: If building infrastructure, create abstraction layers (wallets, indexers) that normalize differences between L2 account models. The wallet is again the battleground.
$100M+
Grant Pools
Critical
Wallet Share
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