Ethereum L1 and Base separate ways on account abstraction standards: EIP-8130 and EIP-8141 intensify

Abstract: Contents

Core Points:

• Ethereum Main Network (L1) and Base last week concluded work on joint account abstraction standards.
• Ethereum prioritizes censorship resistance and privacy, while Base focuses on compliance and scalability through EIP-8130 and Tempo transactions.
• Wallet developers now need to bridge fragmented account abstraction standards between different chains.

Why the cooperation broke down

Ethereum Main Network (L1) and Base have parted ways on account abstraction issues after attempting joint standardization work last week. Ethlabs researcher Derek Chiang confirmed that EIP-8130 and EIP-8141 (collectively referred to as Frame Transactions) will continue to advance as separate proposals.

Although both chains are committed to implementing Gas-free transactions and key login wallets, their core priorities are no longer close enough to support a single shared standard. Over the past few weeks, Ethereum L1 and Base have worked hard to align their account abstraction proposals into a unified framework. Chiang said engineers reviewed multiple technology paths during this period.

However, each option requires one of the chains to soften its core goals in its roadmap. Neither Ethereum L1 nor Base accepts a compromise solution sufficient to reach a final consensus. Ethereum L1 focuses on anti-censorship, privacy protection and long-term security of the basic settlement layer; while Base prioritizes scalability, configurability and compliance functions suitable for commercial applications.

These different priorities make negotiation of account abstractions more difficult over time. Chiang described the split between Ethereum L1 and Base as a foreseeable result. He responded directly to the results on social media, confirming that the collaboration between the two proposals had ended, and writing that Base and Ethereum would now take different paths to achieve different account abstraction standards.

I'm sorry to report that account abstraction collaboration between 8130 and 8141 (Frames) broke down last week, and Base and Ethereum will now implement different AA standards independently of each other.
I would like to share some reflections on this collaboration and the future of EVM.
For a long time...

This post publicly confirmed the news that had been circulated in the developer community. Now, two chains can independently build their own account abstraction functions. The disagreement between Ethereum L1 and Base shifts responsibility to wallet providers and application builders. If wallets can successfully hide technical differences, users may not directly feel the impact of this fragmentation.

Chiang admitted that this result means that development teams will face more workload in the future. But he believes the split is acceptable given the unique technical requirements of each chain.

Technical roots of differences in technical standards

Ethereum L1 's account abstraction work tends to support transaction formats used for post-quantum signature aggregation. These requirements support standards including ERC-4337, EIP-7701, and the newer EIP-8141 Frame Transactions proposal.

Developers of Ethereum L1 hope that the account model can be extended without requiring on-chain licenses. This approach is highly aligned with Ethereum's broader decentralization priorities. In contrast, Base requires a different technical foundation to adapt to the needs of processing transactions on a large scale. Its account model requires enforceable rules that clearly distinguish between allowed transactions and restricted transactions.

These requirements have shaped standards such as Tempo Transactions and the newly proposed EIP-8130. Compliance obligations associated with corporate partners also affect Base's technical direction throughout the process.

Chiang explained that common account standards have kept the Ethereum L1 and Layer 2 networks aligned over the past few years. Common formats like EOA accounts and EIP-1559 transactions once allowed wallets to function consistently everywhere. However, account abstraction pushes these common foundations to the limit beyond the joint support capabilities of both chains. The compliance and security gap between Ethereum L1 and Base proved to be too large to be bridged.

Despite technical differences in standards, the two chains still have overlapping goals. Gas-free transactions and key login wallets remain a common priority for Ethereum L1 and Base. However, the engineering path to these features has now diverged significantly across the two networks. This divergence may complicate cross-chain wallet development in the coming months.

The future of wallets and standards

After Ethereum L1 and Base parted ways on account abstraction, Chiang outlined two ways forward. One option is to create a coordination process that includes more stakeholders than the core Ethereum developers. This will allow Layer 2 networks to directly help shape shared infrastructure such as EVMs. Currently, decision-making power is mainly controlled in the development process of the Ethereum client called ACD.

The second path accepts that some fragmentation between Ethereum L1 and Base may be permanent. Under this approach, resources will shift to wallets that can bridge different transaction formats. Developers will build tools that understand the native standards of each chain without requiring users to manually switch. This approach can reduce user friction even if protocols continue to diverge.

Chiang said that after experiencing this incident, his views on the "wallet bridging" approach have become more supportive. Looking back at the differences between the two chains, he wrote: "Sometimes we just have to let the chains cook."

Teams that can effectively manage additional complexity may gain a competitive advantage. This opportunity applies to both existing wallets and emerging application developers entering the space. Coordination between Ethereum L1 and Base is still possible in areas that avoid core trade-offs. Chiang said the dialogue should continue even if certain standards are advanced on their respective tracks.

The Ethereum ecosystem has previously struck a balance between independent innovation and shared standardization efforts. The way future proposals develop is likely to determine future cross-chain wallet compatibility.