Why Smart Account Interoperability is a Pipe Dream

Account abstraction standards are fractured. ERC-4337, the dominant entry point standard, is a base layer that enables smart accounts but does not define their logic, leaving wallet-specific implementations like Safe{Core} and ZeroDev to create siloed feature sets.

Cross-chain intent execution is the real bottleneck. A user's smart account on Arbitrum cannot natively compose with a dApp on Base, forcing reliance on bridging middleware like Socket or LayerZero that adds latency and trust assumptions.

Interoperability requires shared state, not just shared standards. The user operation mempool is chain-specific, meaning a bundled transaction on Polygon cannot be efficiently routed to Optimism without a new class of meta-bundlers that don't exist at scale.

Evidence: The Safe{Wallet} ecosystem, with over $100B in assets, operates across 15+ chains as isolated instances, not a single portable identity, proving that deployment is trivial but unified state is the pipe dream.

Competing standards create fragmentation. ERC-4337, EIP-3074, and Starknet's native accounts are architecturally incompatible. This forces developers to choose a single ecosystem, defeating the purpose of a universal smart account layer.

Incentives are misaligned for adoption. Wallet providers like Safe and Argent prioritize user lock-in, not cross-chain portability. Their business models depend on controlling the user's entry point, not giving it away to a rival standard.

The result is protocol-specific accounts. You will have an Optimism account, a zkSync account, and a Solana account. The dream of a single, portable identity across L2s like Arbitrum and Base is a vendor-locked fantasy.

Evidence: The ERC-4337 Bundler market is already centralizing around a few nodes, creating the same trusted intermediaries that smart accounts were meant to eliminate.

Incompatible EntryPoint standards fragment the ecosystem. ERC-4337 defines a canonical EntryPoint, but protocols like Biconomy and Safe deploy custom versions, forcing developers to choose one vendor's walled garden.

Non-portable on-chain state breaks core functionality. A smart account's social recovery module or session keys are contract storage dependencies that cannot migrate between chains, unlike a simple EOA's private key.

The gas abstraction paradox creates vendor lock-in. Paymasters like Pimlico or Stackup sponsor transactions, but their fee logic and sponsorship contracts are chain-specific, making the 'gasless' experience non-portable.

Evidence: The Safe{Core} Account Abstraction Kit supports 14+ chains, but a Safe account's configuration and permissions require a fresh, manual deployment on each new network, defeating true portability.

ERC-6900 is a specification, not a solution. It defines a modular interface for smart accounts, but does not enforce a single implementation. This creates a coordination problem where wallet providers like Safe, Biconomy, and ZeroDev will optimize for their own ecosystems, not universal compatibility.

Modularity guarantees fragmentation. The standard's core feature—allowing users to plug in custom validation modules—ensures that no two smart accounts are identical. This breaks the composability assumption that dApps and protocols like Uniswap and Aave rely on for seamless integration.

The economic incentives are misaligned. Wallet providers monetize through proprietary features and gas sponsorship deals. There is no financial reward for building universal interoperability, only for creating sticky, walled gardens that lock in users and developers.

Evidence: Look at the current L2 landscape. Despite standards like ERC-4337 for account abstraction, we have separate, incompatible bundler networks and paymaster services. The path dependence is too strong for a single standard to overcome.