User Lock-in Through Proprietary L2 Account Features

Proprietary account abstraction is the new battleground for L2 user retention. Chains like Starknet with its native account model or Arbitrum with BOLD consensus create unique features that do not port to other chains. This strategy directly increases switching costs for users and developers.

Counter-intuitively, this lock-in contradicts the original L2 value proposition of shared Ethereum security and liquidity. While a user's assets on Uniswap are portable via Across or LayerZero, their customized account session keys or fee logic are not. This creates protocol-specific user states.

Evidence: The Starknet ecosystem's heavy reliance on its native account abstraction standard illustrates this. Applications built for its account model, like certain gaming or social dApps, cannot function on Optimism or zkSync Era without significant re-engineering, effectively trapping users and developer mindshare.

Proprietary account abstraction is the primary lock-in vector. Networks like Starknet and zkSync implement custom paymasters and signature schemes. This creates non-portable user sessions that break when moving assets to a competing L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism.

The cost of convenience is captivity. Features like social recovery and gas sponsorship require deep integration with a single chain's infrastructure. This incentivizes protocol developers to build exclusively for that ecosystem, as seen with dYdX's v4 migration to a custom Cosmos chain.

Evidence: Over 90% of active accounts on major L2s use their native fee abstraction. This creates a network effect moat where the best UX is also the strongest cage, directly impacting composability and fragmenting liquidity across rollups.

Proprietary account abstraction features are the primary vector for user lock-in. Features like sponsored transactions, social recovery, and custom fee logic are implemented at the L2 sequencer level. This creates a hard dependency on the L2's centralized infrastructure, as these features do not function when bridging assets to another chain.

The exit cost becomes prohibitive. Users with complex account states, like a multi-signature social recovery wallet on Arbitrum, cannot migrate that state to Optimism or Base. They must reconstruct their security model from scratch, a friction that anchors them to the initial chain.

This contradicts the EVM's composability promise. The EVM standardizes execution, but these non-standard account extensions fragment user identity. It mirrors the app-specific chain dilemma: specialization increases performance but sacrifices the network effects of a shared state layer like Ethereum L1.

Evidence: Starknet's native account abstraction and zkSync's custom paymaster system are powerful features. However, a user's Starknet account, with its specific validation logic, is a Starknet-only object. Migrating to another ZK Rollup like Scroll requires abandoning that entire identity stack.

Proprietary features create friction. A user's account is their identity and asset repository. When an L2 like Starknet or zkSync builds unique account logic, moving assets out requires a complex withdrawal, not a simple transaction. This is a tax on user sovereignty.

This is not healthy competition. Competition on execution cost or speed benefits users. Competition on account abstraction standards fragments the network. It forces developers to choose between ecosystem reach and advanced features, creating walled gardens.

The evidence is in adoption friction. The success of ERC-4337 as a standard demonstrates the market's preference for portable smart accounts. Protocols that deviate, while innovative, impose a long-term switching cost that users and developers increasingly reject.

Proprietary account abstraction is the new moat. L2s like Starknet and zkSync implement custom smart accounts with non-portable features, making it technically and economically costly for users to migrate. This creates a vendor lock-in that contradicts the permissionless ethos of Ethereum.

The counter-force is standardization. ERC-4337 and ERC-6900 are the battlegrounds. If successful, they enable portable smart accounts where a user's social recovery setup or session keys work identically on Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base. The winner defines the user experience for the next billion.

Evidence: Starknet's account abstraction adoption is near 100%, but its Cairo-native implementation isn't directly portable. The success of EIP-7702, enabling EOA-to-AA conversion, will determine if the L1 or individual L2s control the identity primitive.