Why Smart Account SDKs Are Failing Developers

SDK fragmentation destroys abstraction. Each wallet provider (Safe, Biconomy, ZeroDev) ships a distinct SDK with unique APIs and feature sets. Developers must now learn and integrate multiple libraries, defeating the core promise of a unified smart account standard like ERC-4337.

Vendor lock-in is the business model. SDKs are designed to anchor developers to a specific provider's infrastructure (bundlers, paymasters). This creates switching costs and stifles the composability that defines web3, mirroring the early cloud wars between AWS and Azure.

The standard is not the implementation. ERC-4337 defines interfaces, not a reference implementation. This gap forces teams to build integration plumbing for every new SDK, a tax that scales linearly with the number of supported wallet providers.

Evidence: The Safe{Core} SDK, Biconomy SDK, and ZeroDev SDK all implement 'sponsorship' differently. A developer supporting all three writes three times the code for one user feature.

SDKs create non-portable UX. A wallet built with a provider's SDK binds its logic—like gas sponsorship or session keys—to that vendor's infrastructure. Migrating to AA-4337 or a competitor requires a full rewrite, as seen with early Safe{Wallet} integrations.

Fragmentation destroys network effects. Each Stackup, Biconomy, or Candide SDK creates a walled garden. Users cannot bring their account's state or bundled transactions across ecosystems, unlike the portable identity of an EOA.

The standard is the escape hatch. ERC-4337 and RIP-7560 exist to commoditize the bundler and paymaster layers. SDKs that abstract away these standards delay the inevitable shift to a permissionless account abstraction stack.

Evidence: The 2023 Ethereum Foundation's Account Abstraction Grant program explicitly funded projects building standard-compliant tooling, signaling a strategic push against proprietary SDK dominance.

Fragmented standards create integration hell. The ERC-4337 standard defines core components, but SDKs like Biconomy, ZeroDev, and Alchemy's AA-SDK implement them differently. Developers must write custom logic for each provider, defeating the promise of a unified abstraction layer.

Vendor lock-in negates wallet portability. Choosing an SDK like Safe{Core} AA SDK or Stackup's Bundler locks you into their bundler, paymaster, and relayer network. Migrating accounts requires a complex state migration, creating permanent infrastructure debt.

Hidden gas economics break user experience. SDKs abstract gas sponsorship, but the underlying Paymaster services have opaque pricing and rate limits. A surge in Pimlico or Biconomy gas tank costs can silently break dApp functionality.

Evidence: The Ethereum Foundation's 4337.spec repo shows 12+ independent bundler implementations with non-uniform RPC methods, forcing developers to write provider-specific middleware instead of standard interfaces.

Fragmentation destroys velocity. The promise of a single SDK for all smart accounts is a myth. Developers face a fragmented landscape of incompatible implementations from Safe, Biconomy, ZeroDev, and others, forcing them to write and maintain multiple integration paths.

Abstraction leaks complexity. SDKs attempt to hide the underlying account abstraction (ERC-4337) stack, but the core complexities of bundlers, paymasters, and signature schemes inevitably surface during debugging, negating the initial productivity gain.

The standard is not enough. ERC-4337 provides a specification, not a solution. The operational burden of managing a bundler infrastructure or sourcing reliable paymaster liquidity (like Pimlico or Stackup) is outsourced to the developer, creating new bottlenecks.

Evidence: The proliferation of "ERC-4337-as-a-Service" providers like Alchemy and Circle's Gas Station confirms that raw SDKs are insufficient. True velocity requires a managed backend, which reintroduces vendor lock-in.