Smart Contract Wallets (ERC-4337) excel at programmable security and native gas abstraction by decoupling transaction execution from fee payment. They enable features like social recovery, multi-signature approvals, and session keys directly at the account level. For example, Safe{Wallet} and Biconomy leverage this standard to allow users to pay fees in ERC-20 tokens, with account abstraction wallets now processing over 3.5 million UserOperations monthly on networks like Polygon and Base.
LABS
Comparisons
Smart Contract Wallets (ERC-4337) vs Externally Owned Accounts with Relayers
A technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects comparing the future-proof, native account abstraction of ERC-4337 against the established model of EOAs with external relayers for implementing gasless voting and sponsored transactions in DAO governance.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Gasless Governance
A technical breakdown of two dominant strategies for abstracting gas fees and enhancing user experience in on-chain governance.
Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) with Relayers take a different approach by using off-chain infrastructure to sponsor gas fees for standard wallet addresses. This strategy, employed by protocols like OpenZeppelin Defender and Gelato Network, results in a simpler integration path for existing dApps but introduces a centralization trade-off, as users must trust the relayer's availability and the sponsor's funding.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user sovereignty, complex transaction batching, and future-proof programmable accounts, choose ERC-4337 Smart Contract Wallets. If you prioritize rapid integration, minimal protocol changes, and immediate gasless transactions for existing EOA-based users, choose an EOA with a Relayer system.
tldr-summary
Smart Contract Wallets (ERC-4337) vs EOA + Relayers
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of the two dominant wallet architectures, highlighting their core strengths and ideal use cases.
01
ERC-4337 Wallets: User Experience & Security
Abstracted Gas & Session Keys: Users can pay fees in any token via Paymasters and approve time-bound sessions (e.g., for gaming). This matters for mass adoption where users expect seamless, app-like interactions. Social Recovery & Multi-Sig: Non-custodial recovery via guardians and programmable transaction policies (Safe{Wallet}). This matters for high-value institutional wallets and users prioritizing asset security over seed phrase management.
02
ERC-4337 Wallets: Protocol-Layer Features
Native Batch Transactions: Execute multiple actions (swap, stake, bridge) in one atomic UserOperation via Bundlers. This matters for complex DeFi strategies and reducing failed transaction states. Account Abstraction Standards: Interoperable infrastructure with growing support from chains like Polygon, Optimism, and Base. This matters for developers building portable dApps that need consistent wallet logic across EVM networks.
03
EOA + Relayers: Simplicity & Cost
Lower Base Cost & Maturity: A simple signature + relay transaction has lower intrinsic gas overhead than a UserOperation. This matters for high-frequency, low-value transactions (e.g., NFT minting bots) where every wei counts. Established Tooling: Relayer services like Gelato, OpenZeppelin Defender, and private mempools are battle-tested. This matters for enterprise applications that require proven, auditable transaction infrastructure with minimal smart contract risk.
04
EOA + Relayers: Control & Flexibility
Direct State Control: The EOA private key has ultimate authority, with no intermediary smart contract logic. This matters for protocol treasuries or founder wallets where absolute key-based control is a non-negotiable security model. Relayer Choice & Sponsorship: DApps can sponsor gas via meta-transactions (EIP-2771) using any relayer, avoiding vendor lock-in. This matters for applications needing custom gas policies or those operating on chains without full ERC-4337 stack support.
ACCOUNT ABSTRACTION IMPLEMENTATIONS
Feature Comparison: ERC-4337 vs EOA Relayers
Technical comparison of smart contract wallet infrastructure for protocol architects.
| Metric / Feature | ERC-4337 (Smart Account) | EOA + Relayer |
|---|---|---|
Native Gas Sponsorship | ||
Avg. User Op Cost (Mainnet) | $0.50 - $1.50 | $0.00 |
Session Keys / Batched Ops | ||
On-Chain Social Recovery | ||
Protocol-Level Standardization | ||
Infrastructure Maturity | Emerging (2023) | Mature (2015) |
Key Dependencies | Bundlers, Paymasters | Relayer Service |
pros-cons-a
Smart Contract Wallets vs. EOAs with Relayers
Pros and Cons: ERC-4337 Smart Contract Wallets
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for architects choosing core user account infrastructure.
01
ERC-4337: User Sovereignty
Full self-custody with programmability: Users control their own smart contract wallet, enabling features like social recovery, spending limits, and session keys. This matters for dApps requiring complex user permissions (e.g., DeFi vaults, gaming) without relying on a third-party's relay infrastructure.
1.7M+
Accounts Created
03
EOA + Relayer: Simplicity & Speed
Lower complexity and latency: Uses standard Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) with a centralized relayer (e.g., GSN, Biconomy) to pay gas. This results in sub-second transaction latency and is easier to integrate for teams already using web2 auth flows, ideal for high-frequency trading or simple NFT mints.
< 1 sec
Relay Latency
05
ERC-4337: Higher On-Chain Cost
Increased gas overhead per operation: Smart contract wallets require more gas for basic transactions (~42k gas for a UserOperation vs. ~21k for a standard EOA transfer). This matters for high-volume, low-margin applications where gas efficiency is paramount.
06
EOA + Relayer: Centralization Risk
Relayer as a single point of failure: The user's ability to transact depends on the relayer's availability and willingness to include their transaction. This introduces censorship risk and vendor lock-in, a critical weakness for permissionless or censorship-resistant protocols.
pros-cons-b
SMART CONTRACT WALLETS (ERC-4337) VS EXTERNALLY OWNED ACCOUNTS WITH RELAYERS
Pros and Cons: EOA with External Relayers
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for user onboarding and transaction management at a glance.
01
ERC-4337 Wallet: Superior UX & Security
Programmable security and user experience: Enables native account abstraction features like social recovery, batch transactions, and gas sponsorship. This matters for mass-market dApps requiring seamless onboarding (e.g., games, social apps) without exposing seed phrases. Protocols like Safe{Wallet} and Biconomy leverage this standard.
02
ERC-4337 Wallet: Protocol-Level Integration
Native on-chain user operations: Transactions are UserOperations handled by a dedicated mempool and validated by Paymasters and Bundlers (e.g., Stackup, Alchemy). This creates a standardized, trust-minimized ecosystem for gas abstraction and complex logic, crucial for subscription services or automated treasury management.
03
EOA + Relayer: Lower Implementation Friction
Immediate compatibility with existing infrastructure: Works with all wallets (MetaMask, Rabby) and requires no changes to core protocol. Use a simple relayer service (OpenZeppelin Defender, Gelato) to pay gas. This matters for teams with tight deadlines needing to sponsor gas for a specific dApp function without a full AA migration.
04
EOA + Relayer: Predictable Cost & Simplicity
No new economic actors: Gas is paid directly by the relayer's EOA. Costs are predictable (relayer fee + network gas), avoiding the variable costs of Paymaster services. This is optimal for enterprise applications with fixed budgets or niche protocols where the complexity of a full ERC-4337 stack isn't justified.
05
ERC-4337 Wallet: Higher Complexity & Cost
New stack, new overhead: Requires integrating with Bundlers, Paymasters, and managing UserOperation lifecycle. Paymaster services add a premium (~10-20%) on top of base gas. This is a trade-off for early-stage projects where development resources are limited and user volume is low.
06
EOA + Relayer: Centralization & UX Limits
Relayer as a trusted third party: Users must trust the relayer to submit their signed transaction. Cannot enable native session keys or batched atomic transactions. This fails for use cases demanding non-custodial, complex transaction flows like a single signature for a multi-step DeFi operation.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Smart Contract Wallets (ERC-4337) for Mass Adoption
Verdict: The clear winner for onboarding new users. Strengths: Eliminates seed phrase friction with social recovery (via Safe, Argent) and biometric logins. Enables sponsored transactions (Paymasters) where dApps cover gas fees, a critical user acquisition tool. Supports batch transactions (e.g., approve & swap in one click) and session keys for seamless UX in gaming or subscriptions. Weaknesses: Higher baseline gas cost per operation (~42k gas overhead) and dependency on bundler infrastructure.
Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) with Relayers for Mass Adoption
Verdict: A pragmatic, incremental solution. Strengths: Can implement meta-transactions (via OpenGSN, Biconomy) to offer gasless experiences today without waiting for full ERC-4337 ecosystem maturity. Simpler to implement for existing dApps. Weaknesses: Relayer is a centralized trust point; user still manages a private key. Cannot natively support batched logic or automated post-deployment security features.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Strategic Recommendations for Builders
Choosing between ERC-4337 smart accounts and EOA+Relayer models is a foundational architectural decision with profound implications for UX, security, and operational overhead.
ERC-4337 Smart Contract Wallets excel at delivering a seamless, self-custodial user experience by abstracting away private key management. This enables native features like social recovery, batched transactions, and session keys, which are impossible with EOAs. For example, protocols like Safe{Wallet} and Biconomy have demonstrated that gas sponsorship and atomic multi-ops can reduce user drop-off by over 30% in complex DeFi interactions. The ecosystem is rapidly maturing, with over 7.5 million UserOperations processed and a growing network of bundlers and paymasters.
Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) with Relayers take a different, more battle-tested approach by keeping logic off-chain. This results in superior transaction speed and cost predictability, as you avoid the gas overhead of on-chain validation and the latency of a bundler network. Services like Gelato Network and OpenZeppelin Defender can reliably automate and sponsor transactions for a known fee, making this model ideal for applications where deterministic finality and minimal latency are critical, such as high-frequency trading bots or permissioned enterprise workflows.
The key trade-off is between user-centric innovation and infrastructure simplicity. If your priority is maximizing adoption through features like gasless onboarding, transaction batching, and future-proof account abstraction, choose ERC-4337. If you prioritize operational control, predictable costs, and sub-second transaction relay for a known set of users, the EOA + Relayer stack remains a robust, lower-complexity choice. For most consumer-facing dApps, the UX advantages of ERC-4337 are becoming the strategic default, while backend services may still leverage the proven EOA model for specific tasks.
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