Ethereum L1 and Base, a prominent Layer 2 network developed by Coinbase, have ended their collaboration to establish a unified standard for account abstraction, according to Ethlabs researcher Derek Chiang. The decision follows the collapse of joint efforts last week, with both chains now moving forward with separate proposals: EIP-8130 for Base and EIP-8141, known as Frame Transactions, for Ethereum L1.
Account abstraction standards diverge
Developers from both networks aimed to agree on shared protocols for features such as gasless transactions and passkey wallets. Despite initial alignment, each group’s priorities grew too far apart to sustain a single standard. Ethereum L1 prioritizes censorship resistance, privacy, and long-term security for its settlement layer. Meanwhile, Base emphasizes compliance, scalability, and configurability to suit commercial and enterprise use cases.
Derek Chiang stated that engineers from both teams spent weeks reviewing technical options. Each pathway examined would have required one chain to significantly adjust their key goals, which ultimately neither side found acceptable. As a result, both projects opted to pursue separate technical solutions.
The technical divide between Ethereum L1 and Base over account abstraction was described as a predictable outcome. Chiang publicly confirmed the split, writing that the two networks are “now going separate ways to implement different AA standards.”
Base and Ethereum developers had previously relied on shared standards, such as EOA accounts and EIP-1559 transactions, allowing wallets and applications to function seamlessly across both platforms. However, evolving requirements for compliance, scalability, and security have widened the gap, rendering further collaboration unfeasible at this stage.
Technical and developer implications
Ethereum L1’s new proposals center on transaction formats that support post-quantum signature aggregation. These technical requirements underpin standards like ERC-4337, EIP-7701, and the recent EIP-8141 Frame Transactions draft. Developers are pushing for account models that can be extended without seeking chain-level permission, aligning with Ethereum’s core decentralization values.
Base, on the other hand, requires a technical architecture that scales efficiently and supports programmable compliance controls. The network’s approach is reflected in its separate Tempo Transactions standard and EIP-8130, both tailored for high-throughput enterprise environments. Base’s need for clear distinctions between permitted and restricted actions further influenced its design choices.
The separation means wallet providers and application builders will now face increased demands to bridge fragmented account abstraction standards. While users may not directly notice these underlying differences if wallet teams succeed in simplifying the user experience, the development workload will rise.
Chiang acknowledged this new complexity for development teams but emphasized that clearly defined, chain-specific priorities are necessary for technical progress. He maintained that letting each network forge ahead with its own standards was the preferable path, given the circumstances.
Mini dictionary: Account abstraction, a blockchain concept that allows smart contract-controlled accounts to function like externally owned accounts (EOAs). This enables enhanced programmability and features such as meta-transactions, passkey wallets, and advanced user authentication.
| Chain | Standard | Priority | Compliance Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethereum L1 | EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions) | Censorship resistance, privacy, security | Low |
| Base | EIP-8130, Tempo Transactions | Scalability, configurability | High |
Outlook for wallets and cross-chain compatibility
Going forward, Chiang outlined two main approaches for the ecosystem. The first involves creating new coordination processes that invite more input from broader network stakeholders, particularly those building on Layer 2. Currently, most technical decision-making is centralized within the All Core Devs (ACD) process of Ethereum client developers.
The alternative is to accept ongoing fragmentation and concentrate on developing wallets capable of managing the variety of transaction standards across chains. This solution would aim to shield end-users from complexity by handling the integration work within wallet applications.
Reflecting on these options, Chiang indicated a preference for empowering wallet teams, saying that the capacity to adapt to evolving standards across networks could give wallet developers a competitive edge. This approach may enable continued growth and innovation, even as protocols drift apart.
Chiang remarked that the split shifts additional responsibility to application and wallet developers, but he expects capable teams to navigate these evolving challenges successfully as each chain continues to innovate independently.
Coordination between Ethereum L1 and Base may continue in some areas where it does not require either side to compromise on core priorities. Previous episodes in Ethereum’s history have shown that the ecosystem can balance independent innovation with shared infrastructure. The evolution of proposals like EIP-8130 and EIP-8141 will be watched closely for their impact on wallet interoperability and cross-chain user experiences.
