The Future of Social Recovery Is a Plugin, Not a Product

Products like Safe{Wallet} and Argent bundle recovery into a single, rigid stack. This creates vendor lock-in, stifles innovation, and forces users to adopt a one-size-fits-all social graph.

• Locked-in Logic: Recovery rules are hardcoded, preventing customization for DAOs, families, or corporate treasuries.
• Fragmented UX: Each wallet is an island; your recovery setup doesn't port to new interfaces or chains.
• Innovation Bottleneck: New recovery methods (e.g., time-locks, biometrics) require full wallet forks, not simple integrations.

This emerging standard, championed by Alchemy and ZeroDev, decouples account logic from the core wallet. Think of it as an app store for wallet functionality.

• Pluggable Validators: Swap recovery modules (social, hardware, MPC) without changing your account address or assets.
• Composability: Mix and match plugins from different developers (e.g., Safe for multisig, Lit Protocol for encrypted recovery shards).
• Chain Agnostic: A single plugin can work across Ethereum, Polygon, and Optimism via the same interface.

Frameworks like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Anoma abstract user intent from execution. This allows recovery to become a delegable service, not a user-managed chore.

• Recovery as a Service: Delegate the "intent to recover" to a network of solvers who compete on speed and cost, similar to Across bridge auctions.
• Automated Guardians: Plugins can programmatically trigger recovery via off-chain oracles (e.g., Chainlink) after verifiable events (key loss, inactivity).
• Economic Security: Solvers and guardians are slashed for malicious behavior, creating a cryptoeconomic layer stronger than informal friend networks.

Integrated recovery solutions create vendor lock-in and limit user choice. A wallet's security model shouldn't be dictated by its provider.

• Vendor Lock-In: Recovery logic is hardcoded, forcing users into a specific ecosystem.
• Limited Composability: Cannot mix-and-match guardians from different networks or services.
• Protocol Risk: A bug in the wallet contract can doom the entire recovery setup.

A standard for pluggable account logic that decouples recovery from the core wallet. Think of it as an app store for wallet functionality.

• Plugin Marketplace: Users install independent recovery modules from Rhinestone, ZeroDev, or Biconomy.
• Interoperable Guardians: A module can pull guardians from Safe{Wallet}, Ethereum ENS, or even a Gnosis Safe on another chain.
• Audit Isolation: A faulty plugin can be upgraded without compromising the main account.

Social graphs and guardian relationships must be portable across any chain. Recovery shouldn't be siloed by the wallet's deployment network.

• Portable Identity: Use Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) or Verax to create on-chain proofs of trust relationships.
• Chain-Agnostic: A guardian on Arbitrum can recover an account on Base via a lightweight proof.
• Reduced Fragmentation: Unifies the social layer across Optimism, Polygon, and zkSync Era.

Move beyond simple M-of-N multisig. Plugins enable recovery based on time-locks, biometric proofs, or real-world events via oracles.

• Time-Based: Implement Safe{Wallet}'s delayed recovery for large withdrawals.
• Oracle-Guarded: Use Chainlink or Pyth to trigger recovery if a wallet is inactive for 90 days.
• ZK-Proofs: Employ Sismo or Worldcoin for privacy-preserving biometric recovery attestations.

Modularity outsources critical security logic. A compromised or poorly audited recovery plugin becomes a single point of failure for all wallets using it. This shifts risk from battle-tested core protocols to a long-tail of experimental modules.

• Attack Surface: Each plugin adds new, untested smart contract logic.
• Coordination Failure: No standard for plugin revocation or emergency halts.
• Audit Gaps: Economic infeasibility to audit every plugin combination.

Recovery networks require staked capital for safety. A modular landscape fractures staking liquidity across dozens of competing plugins, undermining the cryptoeconomic security of each.

• Diluted Security: $10M TVL split 20 ways offers negligible slashable stake per plugin.
• Validator Exodus: Low yields on fragmented TVL drive away professional stakers.
• Systemic Risk: Cascade failures possible if a major plugin is drained.

Users must now understand and trust a recursive stack: wallet, recovery plugin, plugin's underlying network (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon). This cognitive overhead will strangle mainstream adoption.

• Choice Paralysis: Non-technical users cannot evaluate plugin security.
• Opaque Dependencies: Failure in a hidden layer (e.g., restaking protocol) bricks recovery.
• Brand Dilution: Wallet brands get blamed for third-party plugin failures.

Promises of a universal "recovery layer" ignore the reality of competing standards and maximalist ecosystems. Plugins will fragment along chain and community lines, recreating walled gardens.

• Standard Wars: EIP-XXXX vs. Cosmos ICS vs. proprietary specs.
• Chain Sovereignty: Polygon, Solana, Sui will push native solutions.
• Limited Portability: Your social graph on Chain A is useless on Chain B.

Bundling social recovery into a single contract creates vendor lock-in, limits user choice, and stifles innovation. It's the antithesis of crypto's composable ethos.\n- High Integration Cost for dApps\n- Inflexible Recovery Logic (e.g., 3-of-5 guardians, period)\n- Fragmented User Experience across chains and apps

Standardized plugin architecture, like ERC-6900, turns recovery into a permissionless module marketplace. This separates policy (who can recover) from mechanism (how recovery executes).\n- Composability: Mix-and-match modules from Safe{Core}, ZeroDev, Rhinestone\n- Auditability: Security is concentrated in reviewed, reusable modules\n- Innovation: Enables novel schemes (time-locks, biometrics, DAO votes)

The real value accrues to infrastructure layers that provide reliable, decentralized guardian services and key management. Think Lit Protocol for distributed key generation or Olas for autonomous agent guardians.\n- Recurring Revenue: Subscription fees for high-availability guardian networks\n- Network Effects: Trust and reliability become moats\n- Cross-Chain Utility: A single recovery layer for Ethereum, Solana, Bitcoin L2s

Decoupling creates new risks: who can upgrade a module? A malicious or buggy plugin can compromise the entire account. The industry needs standardized security ratings and on-chain registries.\n- Dependency Risk: A single module exploit impacts all integrated accounts\n- Governance Critical: Requires transparent, time-locked upgrade paths\n- Audit Gap: Current firms aren't structured for micro-module reviews

The first major adoption will be for DAO treasuries, venture portfolios, and corporate wallets. Plugins enable multi-sig with fallback, time-based authority transfers, and compliance-approved recovery paths.\n- Regulatory Compliance: Enforce internal policies on-chain\n- Capital Efficiency: Reduce signer overhead while maintaining security\n- Delegated Management: Safe teams can operate without direct key control

The ultimate plugin uses decentralized social graphs (e.g., Lens, Farcaster) for permissionless, sybil-resistant guardian discovery. Your social capital becomes your recovery network.\n- Sybil Resistance: Leverages proof-of-personhood from Worldcoin or BrightID\n- Zero-Touch Setup: Auto-populate guardians from your graph\n- Dynamic Policies: Recovery thresholds adjust based on connection strength