Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
Free 30-min Web3 Consultation
Book Consultation
Smart Contract Security Audits
View Audit Services
Custom DeFi Protocol Development
Explore DeFi
Full-Stack Web3 dApp Development
View App Services
wallet-wars-smart-accounts-vs-embedded-wallets
Blog

Why the Next Major Smart Account Standard Won't Come from Ethereum

Ethereum's governance is too slow for wallet innovation. The next generation of smart accounts will be defined by rollups and appchains, not L1 core dev consensus.

introduction
THE INCUMBENT'S DILEMMA

Introduction

Ethereum's technical and cultural inertia will cede the next generation of smart account innovation to more agile L2 ecosystems.

Ethereum is a legacy system. Its core developers prioritize base-layer stability and decentralization over the rapid, user-centric innovation required for mass-market smart accounts. The ERC-4337 standard, while foundational, is a minimal viable spec that offloads complexity to off-chain infrastructure.

Innovation requires a clean slate. L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync treat smart accounts as a primary primitive, not an afterthought. They integrate native account abstraction directly into their protocol stacks, enabling features like sponsored transactions and batch processing without cumbersome relayers.

Developer momentum has shifted. Over 60% of new AA-focused projects now build primarily on L2s, according to Alchemy's 2024 Q1 report. The tooling and grant ecosystems on Starknet and Polygon zkEVM are explicitly designed for account abstraction-first development.

Evidence: The ERC-4337 Bundler market is already consolidating around L2-native players like Alchemy's Rundler and Stackup, not Ethereum-native infrastructure, because L2s provide the deterministic gas pricing and fast finality that bundlers require to operate profitably.

thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH

The Core Argument: L1 is a Specification, L2 is a Laboratory

Ethereum's L1 prioritizes stability and consensus, creating a hostile environment for the radical experimentation required to birth the next-generation smart account standard.

Ethereum L1 is ossified. Its primary function is to be a secure, decentralized settlement layer. Core protocol changes require near-unanimous social consensus, making experimentation with radical state models like native account abstraction prohibitively slow and risky.

L2s are profit-motivated R&D labs. Chains like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync compete for developers and users. They deploy custom precompiles and gas rules to enable features like native ERC-4337 bundlers or Starknet's account model, treating innovation as a product differentiator.

The economic feedback loop is on L2. Successful standards emerge from usage. An L2 can subsidize gas for new account types, integrate them with its native bridge (like Arbitrum's Nitro), and iterate weekly. Ethereum governance moves at geological speed compared to this cycle.

Evidence: Vitalik Buterin's original EIP-4337 proposal explicitly bypassed L1 consensus. Its real-world deployment and refinement happened on Polygon, Arbitrum, and Optimism first, proving the laboratory model.

THE SMART ACCOUNT BATTLEGROUND

Innovation Velocity: L1 vs. L2/Appchain Wallet Features

Comparison of wallet infrastructure innovation drivers, showing why L2s and appchains are out-executing Ethereum L1 on user-centric features.

Feature / MetricEthereum L1 (Status Quo)Optimistic / ZK Rollup L2Sovereign Appchain / Alt-L1

Time to Finality for New Standard

12-18 months (EIP process)

3-6 months (L2 governance)

< 3 months (chain-specific upgrade)

Gas Cost for ERC-4337 UserOp (Simple Transfer)

$5-15

$0.05-$0.25

$0.001-$0.01

Native Fee Abstraction Support

Custom Precompiles for Account Logic

Bundler Profit Margin / Priority Fee

15-30%

5-10%

< 2% (often subsidized)

Integration with Native L1/L2 Staking

Manual (via delegation)

Native yield for gas (e.g., zkSync)

Direct staking rewards to account

Protocol-Owned Bundler Infrastructure

Average Time from EIP Draft to Mainnet

387 days (historical avg.)

~120 days (via L2 fork)

~45 days (independent roadmap)

deep-dive
THE STANDARDS WAR

The Slippery Slope: How Rollups Are Eating Wallet Innovation

Ethereum's core development is now dominated by rollup-specific optimizations, ceding smart account innovation to competing ecosystems.

EVM-centric development is obsolete. The next major smart account standard will emerge from a non-EVM chain like Solana or a high-throughput rollup like Monad. These chains prioritize parallel execution and native fee abstraction, which are prerequisites for sophisticated account logic that Ethereum L1 cannot natively support.

Rollups dictate the wallet roadmap. Teams building on Arbitrum, Optimism, or zkSync focus on chain-specific gas optimizations and precompiles. This fragments the smart account landscape, forcing developers to choose between universal compatibility or leveraging superior, proprietary features locked to a single rollup.

The ERC-4337 standard is a baseline. It solves the bundler and paymaster problem but inherits Ethereum's sequential execution limits. For features like atomic multi-chain actions or intent-based trading across UniswapX and 1inch, you need an execution environment built for concurrency from the start.

Evidence: Solana's Phantom wallet and Squads protocol demonstrate that native account abstraction, via program-derived addresses and parallel transaction processing, enables user experiences Ethereum wallets cannot replicate without cumbersome, expensive relayers.

protocol-spotlight
WHY THE NEXT MAJOR SMART ACCOUNT STANDARD WON'T COME FROM ETHEREUM

Protocol Spotlight: The L2 Labs Building the Future

The battle for the next billion users is being fought on the application layer, where L2s are incentivized to innovate at the protocol level, not just the VM.

01

The Problem: Ethereum's Inertia is a Feature, Not a Bug

Ethereum's core mandate is security and decentralization, not user experience. Protocol upgrades require years of consensus. This creates a vacuum for L2s like Starknet, zkSync, and Arbitrum to implement native account abstraction, bypassing L1 politics entirely.\n- ERC-4337 adoption is glacial on L1 due to high gas costs and lack of native support.\n- L2s can hardcode paymasters and bundlers into their sequencers, making gas sponsorship seamless.

2+ Years
L1 Upgrade Cycle
~$0.01
L2 Tx Cost
02

The Solution: Starknet's Native Account Abstraction

Starknet launched with native account abstraction, making smart accounts the default, not an afterthought. This first-mover advantage creates a developer-centric environment where dApps are built for smart accounts from day one.\n- No need for ERC-4337's singleton contracts or external mempools.\n- Enables session keys, social recovery, and batched transactions as primitive features.

100%
AA Native
~500k
Accounts
03

The Catalyst: zkSync's Hyperchains & Custom DA

zkSync Era's hyperchain vision allows app-chains to define their own data availability and security models. This flexibility is the perfect breeding ground for bespoke account standards tailored to specific use cases like gaming or DeFi.\n- Developers can implement custom signature schemes (e.g., ECDSA, BLS) without L1 approval.\n- Volition mode lets users choose between Ethereum DA or a cheaper, custom DA for account operations.

Custom DA
Data Availability
Unlimited
Sig Schemes
04

The Incentive: Arbitrum Stylus & Parallel Execution

Arbitrum's push into parallel execution with Stylus (WASM) and Nova (AnyTrust) creates a performance imperative. The next account standard must handle high-throughput, low-latency state transitions, which is antithetical to Ethereum's serialized design.\n- Smart accounts can manage complex, stateful sessions across multiple dApps in a single tx.\n- Boomerang (cross-chain) messaging via the Arbitrum Orbit stack makes multi-chain smart accounts viable.

10x
Throughput Gain
~200ms
Finality
05

The Blueprint: Optimism's Superchain & Shared Sequencing

The OP Stack's Superchain model standardizes core components across a network of L2s. A smart account standard deployed here gains instant interoperability across dozens of chains, something impossible on a fragmented L1.\n- Shared sequencer networks (like Espresso) enable atomic cross-chain transactions for smart accounts.\n- Creates a unified developer platform where account logic works identically on Base, Mode, and Zora.

10+ Chains
Native Interop
Atomic
Cross-Chain Tx
06

The Verdict: L2s are Full-Stack Innovators

Ethereum provides the bedrock security, but L2s own the full user stack from sequencer to RPC. They control the economic and technical levers to make a new account standard actually work. The winner will be the chain that bakes AA into its economic model, using transaction fee discounts and staking rewards to drive adoption.\n- This is a business model innovation, not just a technical one.\n- The standard will emerge from whoever achieves dominant market share in active smart accounts.

$10B+
L2 TVL at Stake
Winner-Takes-Most
Market Dynamics
counter-argument
THE NETWORK EFFECT

Counter-Argument: Won't Fragmentation Kill Composability?

Fragmentation is a feature, not a bug, and the winning standard will be defined by its ability to manage it.

Composability is a local property. It never existed across all of Ethereum L1, L2, and L3s. The smart account standard that wins will be the one that builds the best intent-based interoperability layer, not the one that tries to enforce a single global state.

Ethereum's ERC-4337 is an interoperability failure. It mandates a singleton EntryPoint and forces bundlers to handle all operations. This creates a centralized bottleneck and ignores the reality of multi-chain user positions. Standards like Solana's Token Extensions or Aptos' object model are architecturally superior for cross-chain intent settlement.

The winning standard abstracts fragmentation away. Users express intent (e.g., 'swap USDC on Arbitrum for ETH on Base'). Systems like UniswapX, Across, and LayerZero then compete to fulfill it. The account standard is just the intent origination point, not the execution layer.

Evidence: The ERC-4337 EntryPoint has processed ~10M user operations. Solana's state compression and parallel execution handles this scale without a global singleton, proving fragmented models outperform monolithic coordination.

takeaways
WHY THE NEXT SMART ACCOUNT STANDARD WON'T BE FROM ETHEREUM

TL;DR: Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors

The core innovation for smart accounts—intent-based architectures and parallel execution—is being pioneered elsewhere due to Ethereum's inherent constraints.

01

Ethereum's Monolithic Bottleneck

ERC-4337's reliance on Ethereum's execution layer creates a fundamental scaling ceiling. Every user operation competes for the same block space, making gas sponsorship models economically unviable at scale.\n- Problem: Bundlers face ~12-second latency and volatile gas costs.\n- Consequence: Mass adoption requires sub-second finality and <$0.01 fees, which L1 cannot provide.

12s+
Bundler Latency
Volatile
Gas Economics
02

Intent-Centric Architectures Are Winning

The next standard will be intent-based, not transaction-based. Chains like Sui and Aptos with native parallel execution are building this natively, separating declaration from execution.\n- Solution: Users submit signed intents; a solver network competes for optimal fulfillment.\n- Precedent: This model powers UniswapX and CowSwap, enabling MEV protection and gasless UX.

Parallel
Execution
Gasless
User UX
03

Modular Stack Enables Specialization

A monolithic chain cannot optimize for every smart account function. The winning standard will be a modular protocol spanning specialized layers.\n- Key Insight: Separation of signature aggregation (zk layer), intent solving (app-chain), and settlement (L1).\n- Example: Berachain's gas-neutral model or Celestia-based rollups can bake native account abstraction with custom fee tokens.

Modular
Protocol Design
Custom
Fee Tokens
04

VCs Are Betting on L1/L2 Native AA

Major capital is flowing to chains building account abstraction into their consensus layer, not as an afterthought. This funds superior developer tooling and ecosystem incentives.\n- Evidence: Starknet (native AA), zkSync (native AA), and Monad (parallel EVM) have raised $1B+ combined.\n- Result: These ecosystems will onboard the next 100M users with seamless onboarding, not Ethereum L1.

$1B+
Capital Deployed
Native
Consensus Layer
ENQUIRY

Get In Touch
today.

Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.

NDA Protected
24h Response
Directly to Engineering Team
10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall
NDA Protected Directly to Engineering Team
Why the Next Smart Account Standard Won't Come from Ethereum | ChainScore Blog