Smart accounts break atomic composability. Ethereum's composability relies on Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) as a universal, dumb endpoint. Smart accounts introduce non-standard execution logic, creating unpredictable state dependencies that break atomic multi-step transactions.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
Why Smart Accounts Will Break Composability
Smart accounts with custom validation logic (ERC-4337, ERC-6900) fragment the user layer, forcing protocols to choose between supporting new account types or isolating users. This is the hidden cost of account abstraction.
introduction
THE COMPOSABILITY TRAP
Introduction
Smart accounts introduce a fundamental architectural shift that will fragment the unified liquidity and execution layer of Ethereum.
The current DeFi stack is EOA-native. Protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Compound are built for the EOA's simple call-and-response model. Smart accounts with session keys or batched intents create a new, incompatible transaction layer.
Fragmentation is inevitable. Just as L2s fragmented liquidity, smart account implementations from Safe, ZeroDev, and Biconomy will create walled execution gardens. Interoperability standards like ERC-4337 and RIP-7560 are not a panacea; they standardize entry, not execution.
Evidence: The rise of intent-based systems like UniswapX and CowSwap is a precursor. They abstract execution away from the user, which is the core function of a smart account, and already create non-atomic settlement layers separate from the base EVM.
thesis-statement
THE COMPOSABILITY BREAK
The Core Conflict: Flexibility vs. Standardization
Smart accounts introduce non-standard transaction flows that fragment the unified execution layer composability relies on.
Smart accounts break atomic composability. Standard EOAs execute a single, predictable transaction flow. Smart accounts, like those from Safe or Biconomy, introduce multi-step logic (e.g., session keys, batched ops) that external protocols cannot reliably hook into for atomic, conditional execution.
The DeFi stack assumes EOA primitives. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave are built for the msg.sender model. A smart account's modular signature validation (ERC-4337) creates a new, non-standard transaction layer that these protocols cannot natively understand or trust for flash loans or complex swaps.
Fragmentation is the inevitable outcome. Each wallet provider (Safe, Zerodev, Candide) will optimize for unique features, creating wallet-specific execution environments. This mirrors the early L2 ecosystem, where bridging between Arbitrum and Optimism required custom integrations, not a shared state.
Evidence: The ERC-4337 bundler market is already fragmenting. Stackup and Alchemy run competing bundler services with different fee and ordering logic, forcing dApps to choose sides rather than relying on a universal mempool.
key-trends
THE COMPOSABILITY CRISIS
The Fracturing User Layer: Three Inevitable Trends
Smart accounts (ERC-4337) solve UX but introduce new fragmentation, breaking the atomic composability that defines DeFi.
01
The Session Key Paradox
User-friendly session keys create isolated permission scopes, making cross-protocol atomic transactions impossible. A user can't atomically supply collateral on Aave and open a leveraged position on GMX in one bundle if the session key only grants permission to one.
- Breaks Atomic Bundles: Transactions become sequential, not atomic.
- Security vs. Utility Trade-off: Granular permissions prevent re-entrancy attacks but also prevent complex DeFi legos.
- New Attack Surface: Malicious dApps can drain approved funds within their granted scope.
0
Atomic Bundles
~10s
Added Latency
02
Paymaster Proliferation & Gas Abstraction
Gas sponsorship fragments liquidity and payment rails. A transaction requiring a token swap to pay fees via a paymaster cannot be atomically bundled with the core action if the paymaster isn't universally recognized.
- Siloed Liquidity: Each paymaster (e.g., Stripe, Biconomy, Pimlico) operates its own system.
- Protocol Incompatibility: A dApp's chosen paymaster may not be whitelisted by another protocol in the bundle.
- Economic Capture: Paymasters become gatekeepers, extracting value and deciding which transactions get priority.
$100M+
Siloed Gas Liquidity
10+
Major Paymasters
03
Account Abstraction Stacks Create Walled Gardens
Competing smart account SDKs (e.g., ZeroDev, Safe{Core}, Candide) and L2-native implementations (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet, Arbitrum) bake in non-standard features, fracturing the user base.
- Vendor Lock-in: Apps built on one SDK may not work with accounts from another.
- Chain-Specific Features: L2s implement custom AA, breaking portability.
- Fragmented User Graphs: Social recovery networks and reputation are not portable across ecosystems, reducing network effects.
5+
Major SDKs
-100%
Interoperability
SMART ACCOUNTS VS EOAs
The Composability Breakdown Matrix
How smart accounts (ERC-4337) fundamentally alter the composability assumptions of externally-owned accounts (EOAs).
| Composability Dimension | EOA (Status Quo) | Smart Account (ERC-4337) | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
Atomic Multi-Operation Bundles | Enables complex intents but breaks single-tx composability with DeFi. | ||
Gas Sponsorship (Paymaster) | Breaks fee token assumptions; dApps must handle ERC-20 gas. | ||
Session Keys / Automation | Introduces nonce & state race conditions for pending transactions. | ||
Transaction Ordering Guarantee | First-seen, FIFO | Bundler-defined, non-deterministic | Breaks MEV & front-running protections like CowSwap. |
Wallet Discovery Standard | eth_sendTransaction | Fragmented (RPC, SDK, Indexer) | Aggregators like 1inch must integrate N+1 new methods. |
State Pre-Funding Requirement | ETH for gas only | ERC-20 tokens for gas & ops | Increases capital lockup, breaks flash loan composability. |
Universal Receiver Hook | ERC-7579 (Proposed) | Without it, accounts cannot react to inbound transfers atomically. |
deep-dive
THE COMPOSABILITY FAILURE
Case Study: The Uniswap <> Safe <> Gelato Dead End
A simple cross-chain swap using leading smart account infrastructure fails, exposing a critical flaw in the current interoperability stack.
Smart accounts break atomic composability. A user initiates a Uniswap swap on Arbitrum, but their funds are in a Safe smart account on Polygon. The intent is relayed via Gelato's automation network, but the transaction fails because the signature is non-portable across chains.
ERC-4337 does not solve this. The standard abstracts the signer but not the execution context. A UserOperation bundle is valid only on its native chain, creating isolated execution silos. This is a regression from Externally Owned Account (EOA) portability.
The failure is systemic. Protocols like Across and LayerZero enable asset transfers, but not stateful intent execution. The user's swap intent, managed by Gelato, cannot be fulfilled because the signer's authority is chain-bound.
Evidence: This dead-end scenario is a primary reason UniswapX adopted a quote-based, fill-or-kill model. It outsources routing complexity to off-chain solvers precisely because on-chain composability for smart accounts is currently impossible.
counter-argument
THE COMPOSABILITY TRAP
Counterpoint: 'Standards Will Emerge'
The promise of universal smart account standards will fail to prevent a fragmentation of user liquidity and application logic.
Universal standards are a mirage. ERC-4337 defines a base entry point, but critical logic like session keys, payment abstractions, and recovery mechanisms will be implemented as proprietary, non-composable modules. This creates walled gardens where a Safe{Wallet} module does not work with a Biconomy bundler.
Composability requires state synchronization. A wallet's state—like a spending allowance granted via a session key—must be readable by any dApp. Without a universal state registry, applications like Uniswap or Aave cannot trust or interpret permissions from a foreign account implementation, breaking the atomic composability that defines DeFi.
The bundler network fragments liquidity. Just as MEV searchers created fragmented block space markets, competitive bundlers will optimize for specific account types and verticals (e.g., gaming vs. DeFi). This balkanizes transaction flow, mirroring the current bridge wars between LayerZero and Axelar.
Evidence: The ERC-20 Approval Problem. The current standard requires a separate approve() transaction for each new protocol, a UX failure. Smart accounts will replicate this at the account layer, requiring new 'trust setups' for each module ecosystem, as seen in the incompatibility between ZeroDev's kernel and Alchemy's account kit.
protocol-spotlight
SMART ACCOUNT FRAGMENTATION
Who's Building the Bridges (And Fences)?
The shift to smart accounts introduces new architectural layers that will fragment liquidity and break existing cross-app workflows.
01
The Problem: The End of the Universal EOA
Today's seamless composability relies on a single, dumb signer (EOA) that every app understands. Smart accounts (ERC-4337) replace this with a custom contract wallet per user, creating a permission layer apps must now integrate with individually.\n- Breaks atomic bundling: A Uniswap -> Aave flow requires the user's specific account logic to permit both calls.\n- Fragments user identity: Your social graph and reputation are locked inside your account contract, not your address.\n- Increases integration overhead: Every dApp must now handle hundreds of account implementations, not one.
100+
Account Flavors
0
Universal Standard
02
The Solution: Account Abstraction Aggregators
Protocols like Biconomy, Stackup, and Candide are building bundler networks and paymaster services that act as a compatibility layer. They translate user intent from any smart account into a standard format executors can understand.\n- Standardizes gas sponsorship: Paymasters abstract gas token requirements, but create new centralization vectors.\n- Bundles cross-account txs: Aggregators attempt to reconstruct atomicity by batching operations from different account types.\n- Introduces new trust assumptions: You now rely on the aggregator's bundler to order and include your transaction fairly.
~500ms
Bundler Latency
$50M+
Sponsored Gas
03
The Fence: Intent-Based Architectures
The ultimate 'fence' is moving from transaction-based to intent-based systems (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap). Users submit signed declarations of desired outcomes, not explicit calls. Solvers compete to fulfill them, often off-chain.\n- Destroys low-level composability: Apps can't compose with an intent; they can only become a solver for it.\n- Creates solver monopolies: Efficiency favors centralized solvers with best liquidity access (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE).\n- Shifts power to new intermediaries: The network effect moves from L1s and L2s to solver networks and intent-centric chains like Anoma.
90%+
Off-Chain Logic
New MEV
Vector Created
04
The Bridge: Cross-Chain Smart Accounts
Projects like ZeroDev (Kernel) and Rhinestone are building smart account frameworks designed for modular interoperability. They use ERC-7579 standards to enable account logic and modules to work across multiple chains from a single deployment.\n- Unifies identity: A user's recovery, session keys, and preferences are synchronized across chains via light clients or oracles.\n- Requires new security models: A module's vulnerability on one chain now compromises the user's assets on all connected chains.\n- Depends on fragile infra: Relies on the security of cross-chain messaging layers like LayerZero, CCIP, or Hyperlane.
ERC-7579
Core Standard
5-10 Chains
Target Sync
takeaways
THE COMPOSABILITY CRISIS
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Smart accounts (ERC-4337) solve UX but introduce a new fragmentation layer that breaks the universal state machine model.
01
The End of Atomic Composability
Bundlers create a new, non-standardized execution layer. A user's multi-step DeFi transaction (e.g., swap on Uniswap then deposit to Aave) is no longer a single atomic state transition.\n- Risk: Partial execution leaves users with unwanted intermediate assets.\n- Impact: Breaks the core guarantee that made Ethereum composable.
0
Atomic Guarantee
02
Bundler as a New Trusted Third Party
The bundler (e.g., Stackup, Alchemy) decides transaction ordering and inclusion, becoming a centralized point of failure and MEV extraction.\n- Problem: User intents are now mediated, not directly executed.\n- Analogy: Re-introduces the miner extractable value (MEV) problem at the application layer, similar to early Flashbots concerns.
1
New Trust Assumption
03
Paymaster Dependency Sprawl
Gas abstraction via paymasters (e.g., Biconomy, Candide) fragments liquidity and creates protocol-specific sponsorship deals.\n- Consequence: DApps must integrate multiple paymaster APIs, creating walled gardens.\n- Data: A user's session might depend on Circle's USDC, a Polygon grant, and a dApp's custom sponsor—none interoperable.
N+
Integration Points
04
The Cross-Chain Intent Nightmare
Smart accounts amplify the intent-based bridging problem. A user's intent to bridge and swap across Ethereum and Arbitrum now passes through a bundler, a paymaster, and a bridge solver (like Across or LayerZero).\n- Result: Exponential increase in failure modes and latency.\n- Benchmark: Adds ~2-5 seconds of solver competition time on top of base bridge latency.
3x
More Hops
05
State Synchronization Overhead
Smart account state (nonces, session keys, allowances) lives off-chain in signature schemes. Protocols like Safe now require custom indexers to read this state, breaking the standard ETH RPC.\n- Overhead: Every dApp must now query multiple sources (Pimlico, Gelato) for user validity.\n- Cost: Adds ~100-300ms latency to every state read.
+300ms
Read Latency
06
Solution: Standardized Intent Infrastructure
The fix is a shared settlement layer for intents. Think UniswapX or CowSwap model, but for all smart account operations.\n- Requires: A standardized intent mempool and solver network that all bundlers and paymasters plug into.\n- Goal: Restore atomicity and composability at the intent layer, not the transaction layer.
1
Universal Pool
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