Ethereum and Base Standard Negotiations Break Down, Each Moving Forward Independently
According to CoinMarketCap, negotiations between Ethereum and Coinbase's Layer2 network Base regarding a shared account abstraction standard have broken down, with both parties now advancing their independent account abstraction proposals.
Account abstraction is a technical path aimed at freeing blockchain wallets from the traditional "private key + mnemonic" single verification model, allowing smart contract wallets to implement more flexible signature logic, social recovery, Gas fee sponsorship, and other features. The industry had previously hoped that Ethereum's mainnet and its Layer2 ecosystem (including Base) could reach an agreement on a unified account abstraction standard to reduce development and compatibility costs across chains and environments.
The outcome of the negotiations is that Ethereum and Base will each promote their own versions of account abstraction proposals, rather than merging into a single standard. This means that wallet developers who wish to support account abstraction features on both Ethereum's mainnet and the Base network may need to adapt to two different technical specifications.
The report did not disclose the specific technical details of the disagreements in the standard negotiations, nor did it specify the names, specification numbers, or expected timelines for each proposal.
The most widely discussed implementation paths for account abstraction within the Ethereum ecosystem include ERC-4337 (which achieves account abstraction through off-chain Bundler and EntryPoint contracts without modifying the consensus rules of the protocol layer) and the subsequently proposed "native account abstraction" route that requires changes to the protocol layer. However, the report did not clarify which version path the current negotiations specifically involved.
From a market mechanism perspective, the split in account abstraction standards means increased integration costs for wallet and DApp developers—what was originally expected to be "one development, multi-chain compatibility" has turned into a need to invest engineering resources for adaptations on both Ethereum's mainnet and Base. Such splits typically delay the launch pace of new products that rely on account abstraction features (such as gasless signatures and social recovery wallets), putting more pressure on small and medium-sized wallet and DApp teams, while resource-rich leading wallet service providers may find it relatively easier to support both standards, potentially further expanding their competitive advantage in the developer ecosystem. For Base, independently advancing its own account abstraction standard strengthens its autonomy as an independent technical route, but may simultaneously weaken its narrative of seamless interoperability with the Ethereum mainnet ecosystem.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The historical path of account abstraction technology in the Ethereum ecosystem can be traced back to the ERC-4337 standard proposed in 2021 by Vitalik Buterin and others—achieving account abstraction by introducing UserOperation transaction types, Bundler nodes, and EntryPoint contracts without modifying the consensus rules of the Ethereum protocol layer, which has since become one of the de facto standards for smart contract wallets and gas payment services. Meanwhile, Ethereum core developers are also promoting the "native account abstraction" route that requires changes to the protocol layer, with both paths coexisting long-term and not fully converging. Base, launched by Coinbase in 2023 and based on the Optimism OP Stack technology stack, has been customized to closely align with the experience of Coinbase's own products (such as Coinbase Wallet and smart wallets).
The resource mobilization logic behind this standard split lies in the Ethereum core development team's inclination to maintain consistency in the protocol layer and the rhythm of decentralized governance, with standard formulation requiring a community consensus process that takes a long time; whereas Base, backed by the large centralized enterprise Coinbase, has stronger autonomy in product iteration and engineering resource investment, allowing it to quickly customize its own account abstraction implementation for its users without waiting for the Ethereum mainnet ecosystem to reach a unified consensus. This difference in resource mobilization between "efficiency first" and "consensus first" is one of the deeper reasons for the difficulty in reaching an agreement in standard negotiations.
Similar historical cases of "internal standard splits" within ecosystems include early cross-chain bridge protocols among various public chains competing independently and incompatibly, as well as the early mobile internet where iOS and Android platforms developed independent app stores and payment interface standards, leading developers to need "dual-end adaptation"; the current industry stage of account abstraction is akin to the standard competition phase during the transition of the mobile internet from web applications to native app ecosystems—where the technical routes have not yet converged, and leading platforms are attempting to strengthen their ecosystem stickiness through customized standards.
This essentially intertwines "technological substitution" and "industrial chain reconstruction": on the surface, it is a technical route divergence of account abstraction standards, but at a deeper level, it is a game of pricing power and ecological dominance between the Ethereum mainnet and its largest Layer2 network regarding "who defines the next generation of wallet experience standards." Mechanically, the economic incentive structure of Layer2 networks determines that they rely on the security and settlement layer status of the Ethereum mainnet while having the motivation to enhance user stickiness and independence through differentiated technical standards. This "both dependent and competitive" relationship makes what should be a public good wallet standard more prone to fragmentation rather than unification.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- The closer to the application layer, the easier it is for standards to fragment.
- Dependence and competition are the inherent tensions between L2 and the mainnet.
- Whoever defines the wallet standard controls the user entry.