The Infrastructure Arms Race: Why Every L2 is Building Its Own AA Stack

L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism are baking native bundlers into their sequencers. This creates a vertical integration play that locks in users and fees.

• Key Benefit for L2: Captures 100% of MEV and bundler fees from all on-chain AA transactions.
• Key Problem for Users: Eliminates competition, risking higher costs and censorship compared to a permissionless network like EigenLayer or Pimlico.

Chains like Polygon and Base use sponsored gas (paymasters) as a growth lever, abstracting gas fees for users.

• Key Benefit for L2: Drives ~30-50% higher adoption for targeted dApps by removing the native token hurdle.
• Key Problem for Ecosystem: Creates vendor-locked liquidity; users can't port their gasless experience to another chain without the L2's treasury funding it.

zkSync's native AA uses custom Schnorr signatures, while Starknet mandates its own account model. This fractures wallet compatibility.

• Key Benefit for L2: Enables ~50% cheaper verification and unique features (e.g., social recovery), creating a technical moat.
• Key Problem for Developers: Forces chain-specific wallet SDKs, increasing integration cost and fragmenting the EIP-4337 standard's promise of portability.

Cross-chain AA via LayerZero or Axelar messages is promised, but L2-native stacks prioritize intra-chain efficiency.

• Key Benefit for L2: Optimizes for ~200ms local execution, making their own DeFi and gaming ecosystems feel seamless.
• Key Problem for Vision: Makes omnichain intent systems (like UniswapX or Across) second-class citizens, as the L2's native AA path is always faster and subsidized.

Ethereum's EIP-4337 and altVM chains like Monad treat AA as a modular component. L2s with integrated stacks reject this separation.

• Key Benefit for L2: Tighter integration allows for deeper sequencer-level optimizations and sub-second finality for AA ops.
• Key Problem for Innovation: Stifles permissionless bundler networks and shared security models, centralizing control at the L2 level.

L2s with large war chests (e.g., Manta Pacific, Blast) build AA to justify valuation, not interoperability. This mirrors the early EVM vs. non-EVM fragmentation.

• Key Benefit for L2: Creates a unique selling proposition for investors and a captive user base for native dApps.
• Key Problem for the Industry: Recreates the multi-chain wallet hell of 2021, delaying mass adoption by adding another layer of fragmentation on top of L1/L2 differences.

Every L2's custom AA stack creates a unique, non-portable user experience. A smart account on Arbitrum is useless on Optimism, forcing users to manage multiple wallets and fracturing network effects.

• User Lock-In: Switching chains becomes a multi-step account migration nightmare.
• Developer Burden: DApps must integrate and audit a new AA system for each L2, increasing overhead.
• Fragmented Liquidity: Social recovery networks and bundled transaction services are siloed per chain.

Each new, unaudited AA implementation introduces a fresh attack surface. The industry lacks the security talent to properly vet dozens of bespoke, complex systems managing user assets.

• Novel Vulnerabilities: Custom signature schemes and validation logic are ripe for exploits.
• Centralized Risk: Many L2 AA stacks rely on centralized sequencers or bundlers as trusted actors.
• Cascading Failures: A critical bug in a popular L2's AA could trigger a crisis of confidence across the ecosystem.

The market will consolidate around a few dominant AA standards (e.g., ERC-4337, native Starknet/Cairo). L2s investing heavily in proprietary tech face massive sunk costs and eventual obsolescence.

• Standardization Wins: Network effects favor a universal standard, as seen with EVM.
• Wasted R&D: Billions in developer hours will be spent on soon-to-be-abandoned infrastructure.
• VC Misallocation: Capital is diverted from core scaling R&D (e.g., ZK-proofs, data availability) into redundant middleware.

Native AA stacks create new interoperability barriers that bridges like LayerZero and Axelar cannot solve. A cross-chain transaction involving a smart account requires custom, fragile message-passing logic between two different AA systems.

• Intent Deadlock: Advanced intents (e.g., "swap on UniswapX across 3 chains") become exponentially harder to fulfill.
• Bridge Complexity: Cross-chain AA requires secure, low-latency state synchronization, an unsolved problem.
• Friction Multiplier: Each new L2 AA stack adds an N² complexity problem for the interoperability layer.

Whoever controls the bundler controls the transaction flow and its associated fees. This is a direct power grab from generalized RPC providers like Alchemy and Infura.

• Key Benefit 1: Native MEV capture and fee revenue from every user op.
• Key Benefit 2: Enables proprietary gas sponsorship and paymaster models, dictating economic policy.

Native paymaster contracts allow L2s to abstract gas fees entirely, subsidizing user onboarding. This is a direct customer acquisition cost (CAC) play against competitors.

• Key Benefit 1: Enables "gasless" UX, a critical growth lever for mass adoption.
• Key Benefit 2: Allows for sponsored transactions in stablecoins or the L2's native token, creating a closed-loop economy.

Proprietary AA stacks create smart accounts that are non-portable. Migrating to another chain means leaving your social recovery module, session keys, and transaction history behind.

• Key Benefit 1: Drastically increases user switching costs, securing TVL.
• Key Benefit 2: Allows for chain-specific feature development (e.g., Starknet's native account contracts) that competitors cannot easily replicate.

Despite standards like ERC-4337, each L2's implementation creates fragmentation. Cross-chain AA requires bridging smart account states, a complex problem that initiatives like EIP-7377 and LayerZero's DVNs are attempting to solve.

• Key Benefit 1: Early movers who solve cross-chain AA (e.g., Across with intents) will capture immense bridge volume.
• Key Benefit 2: Creates a market for interoperability infra that abstracts the fragmentation away from users.

The fight is between integrated chains (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) and modular providers (Stackr, Eclipse, Caldera). The latter offer AA-as-a-service, letting any rollup plug in a wallet stack.

• Key Benefit 1: Faster time-to-market for new L2s, who can outsource AA complexity.
• Key Benefit 2: Creates a standardized battleground where the best bundler or paymaster wins, not the chain with the most VC funding.

AA is the prerequisite for intent-centric architectures. The L2 that owns the user's account will naturally become the solver for their intents, competing with UniswapX and CowSwap.

• Key Benefit 1: Captures the value of order flow aggregation, not just execution.
• Key Benefit 2: Transforms the chain from a passive settlement layer into an active agent network.