ERC-4337 is a coordination failure. It standardizes the user operation but deliberately decentralizes the bundler market, creating a competitive landscape where no single entity controls transaction ordering. This is a feature for censorship resistance but a bug for unified UX.
account-abstraction-fixing-crypto-ux
Blog
Why ERC-4337 Will Fragment the Ethereum Ecosystem
Account abstraction's promise of unified UX is being undermined by a fundamental architectural flaw: competing EntryPoint implementations and proprietary bundler networks are creating walled gardens that will break cross-chain composability.
introduction
THE FRAGMENTATION VECTOR
Introduction
ERC-4337's design for account abstraction will inevitably fragment user experience and liquidity across competing bundler networks.
Fragmentation is the default outcome. Bundlers like Stackup, Alchemy, and Pimlico will compete on speed and cost, leading to users and dApps optimizing for specific providers. This creates bundler-specific mempools and routing logic, akin to the early days of MEV searchers.
The L2 problem is compounded. Each rollup (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) must implement its own ERC-4337 entrypoint and bundler infrastructure. A user's smart account on Arbitrum is a different contract on Base, fracturing identity and asset holdings across chains.
Evidence: The existing Paymaster market previews this. Projects already compete on sponsoring gas fees in specific currencies (USDC, ERC-20 tokens), locking users into specific payment rails before the bundler wars even begin.
thesis-statement
THE STANDARDIZATION FAILURE
The Core Argument: Incompatibility by Design
ERC-4337's core architecture guarantees ecosystem fragmentation by outsourcing critical security and logic to non-standard, competitive bundler networks.
Bundlers are competitive services, not a public good. The standard defines a mempool and an entry point, but the bundler that selects and executes user operations is a for-profit, off-chain actor. This creates a market for transaction ordering (MEV) and censorship separate from Ethereum's base layer, fracturing user experience.
Paymasters create vendor lock-in. The entity that sponsors gas fees can enforce arbitrary policies. A Visa-backed paymaster will not process a transaction for a gambling dApp, while a native gas paymaster from Polygon might. Users fragment across paymaster jurisdictions, breaking composability.
Wallet signatures are not portable. An ERC-4337 smart account's signature scheme is arbitrary logic. A Safe{Wallet} using a 2/3 multisig is incompatible with a Coinbase Smart Wallet using WebAuthn. This signature fragmentation makes cross-app authentication and social recovery systems non-interoperable.
Evidence: The proliferation of Stackup, Alchemy, and Pimlico as dominant, proprietary bundler services proves the market is centralizing. Their bundler APIs and fee logic are not standardized, forcing dApp developers to choose sides and integrate multiple SDKs.
key-trends
WHY ERC-4337 WILL FRAGMENT THE ECOSYSTEM
The Fracture Lines: Three Emerging Patterns
ERC-4337's modular design outsources core infrastructure, creating winner-take-all markets and divergent user experiences.
01
The Bundler Oligopoly
Bundlers are the new block builders. The role is commoditized, but economies of scale and MEV extraction will lead to centralization.\n- Key Benefit: Guaranteed transaction inclusion and ordering.\n- Key Risk: A few players (e.g., Stackup, Alchemy, Pimlico) will dominate, creating a new point of failure and censorship.
>60%
Market Share
$1B+
MEV Revenue
02
Paymaster-Locked Economies
Paymasters abstract gas fees, but they become the ultimate customer acquisition channel. Protocols will subsidize fees to lock users into their ecosystem.\n- Key Benefit: Sponsored transactions and gasless UX.\n- Key Risk: Creates walled gardens. A user's AAVE or Uniswap wallet may not work on a competitor's dApp, fracturing liquidity and composability.
$100M+
Subsidy Wars
0 Gas
User Cost
03
The Verifier Trust Crisis
Smart accounts require signature aggregation and social recovery. The entities controlling these 'verifier' modules become de facto identity providers.\n- Key Benefit: Enhanced security and recovery options.\n- Key Risk: Fragmentation of trust models. A Safe{Wallet} module, a Coinbase cloud verifier, and a Privy social login create incompatible security assumptions, breaking cross-app flows.
5-10
Major Providers
High
Switching Cost
ERC-4337 FRAGMENTATION
The Bundler & EntryPoint Landscape: A Map of Incompatibility
Comparison of core infrastructure components for ERC-4337, highlighting divergent implementations that create ecosystem silos.
| Core Feature / Metric | EntryPoint v0.6 (Canonical) | Pimlico's EntryPoint v0.7 | Visa's EntryPoint (Paymaster) | Alt LayerZero / Arbitrum |
|---|---|---|---|---|
EntryPoint Contract Address | 0x5FF137D4b0FDCD49DcA30c7CF57E578a026d2789 | 0x0000000071727De22E5E9d8BAf0edAc6f37da032 | Proprietary / Custom | Proprietary / Custom |
Native Account Abstraction | ||||
Sponsorship (Paymaster) Logic | On-chain validation | On-chain validation | Off-chain attestation | Relayer-based |
UserOp Gas Overhead | ~42k gas | ~42k gas | < 10k gas | Varies by chain |
Bundler Profit Model | Priority fee + MEV | Priority fee + MEV | Fixed fee per txn | Relayer fee |
Cross-Chain UserOp Support | ||||
Requires Custom SDK | ||||
Primary Use Case | Generalized smart accounts | Optimized gas & aggregation | Card-to-crypto payments | Omnichain applications |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL FLAW
Deep Dive: How Fragmentation Kills Composable Money Legos
ERC-4337's user-centric design inherently fragments the execution layer, breaking the universal composability that defines Ethereum's DeFi.
ERC-4337 fragments the execution layer. It introduces a new, parallel transaction path via Bundlers and Paymasters that bypasses the core EVM. This creates two distinct execution environments with different gas economics and validation logic.
Smart contracts become wallet-aware. Universal dApps must now handle wallet-specific validation logic for Paymaster-sponsored gas or signature schemes. This adds complexity and breaks the assumption that a user is just an EOA.
Composability requires a single state. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave rely on atomic, synchronous state updates. Fragmented execution layers from different Bundler networks or alt mempools introduce settlement latency and non-atomic cross-contract calls.
Evidence: The rise of intent-based architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap proves the market's move away from pure atomic composability. ERC-4337 accelerates this by making the user's entry point a variable, not a constant.
counter-argument
THE FRAGMENTATION RISK
Steelman: Isn't This Just Healthy Competition?
ERC-4337's permissionless design will fragment user experience and security, creating a new class of systemic risk.
Permissionless innovation fragments UX. Any team can deploy a new paymaster or bundler service. This creates a market but forces users to choose between hundreds of non-interoperable, trust-dependent entry points, unlike the unified experience of a single smart contract wallet like Argent or Safe.
Security models become non-uniform. A user's security is now the weakest link in a chain of decentralized actors: wallet, bundler, paymaster. This contrasts with the clear, auditable model of an EOA or a single smart contract wallet, creating unpredictable failure modes.
Liquidity and state scatter. Different account abstraction stacks will implement custom gas sponsorship and session keys. This balkanizes user session data and sponsored transaction liquidity, unlike the universal pool accessible to protocols like Uniswap or AAVE.
Evidence: The current bundler market is already fragmented, with at least five major providers (Alchemy, Stackup, Pimlico, Biconomy, Candide) running different client software and prioritizing different transaction types, creating inconsistent reliability.
takeaways
THE FRAGMENTATION THESIS
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
ERC-4337's modular design for account abstraction will inevitably fragment the Ethereum ecosystem across competing infrastructure layers.
01
The Bundler Market is a New MEV Battleground
Bundlers are the new block builders. Their profit-maximizing logic will create competing, non-interoperable networks of user operations.
- P2P mempools vs. private orderflows will emerge, splitting liquidity.
- Bundler-specific fee markets will diverge from base L1 gas prices.
- Projects like EigenLayer, AltLayer, and Stackr will launch specialized bundler services, creating protocol-specific ecosystems.
~500ms
Latency Arms Race
10-30%
Potential MEV Cut
02
Paymaster Dependence Breaks Gas Token Unification
ERC-4337 outsources gas sponsorship to Paymasters, which will sponsor transactions in their own preferred tokens.
- USDC-pay, Stablecoin-pay, and Native Token-pay silos will form, fracturing the economic layer.
- Protocols like Circle or LayerZero could become dominant gas sponsors, creating centralized points of failure and economic control.
- This directly undermines Ethereum's ETH-as-money narrative at the application layer.
$10B+
Sponsored TVL Silos
5-10
Major Paymasters
03
Signature & Aggregator Incompatibility
Account abstraction enables custom signature schemes (e.g., passkeys, multisig). Wallets and dApps must now support multiple, non-standard verification methods.
- EIP-1271 compliance becomes a minimum baseline, not a standard.
- Signature aggregators (like BLS) will offer efficiency but create new walled gardens; a dApp must integrate each aggregator's verifier contract.
- This complexity balkanizes user access, reversing the unification wins of EIP-191/EIP-712.
50+
Sig Schemes
-90%
Gas per Sig (BLS)
04
The L2 Execution Fork
Every L2 (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync) must implement its own ERC-4337 EntryPoint and manage its own mempool. There is no canonical cross-rollup user operation layer.
- UserOps are not portable between L2s without a dedicated bridging layer (a new fragmentation vector).
- Aggregators like Across or Socket will need to build intent-based bridges for AA actions, adding latency and cost.
- This cements the multi-chain future but at the cost of a unified user experience.
20+
Isolated AA Systems
2-5s
Cross-L2 UX Delay
05
The Verifier Governance Crisis
The EntryPoint contract is upgradeable. Who controls it? Competing implementations (e.g., Ethereum Foundation vs. Vitalik's 'ripcord' vs. L2 teams) will emerge.
- Security assumptions fragment based on which EntryPoint a dApp integrates.
- Audit and bug bounty scope explodes, as each fork has its own risk profile.
- This recreates the EVM compatibility problem, but at the core account management layer.
3-5
Major Forks
$100M+
Split Bug Bounty Pools
06
Solution: Aggressive Standardization & Shared Sequencing
Fragmentation is not inevitable if the ecosystem coordinates. The solution lies in pre-emptive standardization and shared infrastructure.
- Mandate a single, audited EntryPoint per L1/L2 via social consensus.
- Develop cross-chain messaging standards for UserOps (e.g., CCIP, LayerZero).
- Build shared sequencer networks (like Espresso, Astria) that can order UserOps across multiple rollups, creating a unified AA layer.
1
Canonical EntryPoint Goal
<1s
Shared Seq. Finality
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