Ethereum and the Coinbase-backed layer-2 network Base have abandoned efforts to establish a unified framework for next-generation cryptocurrency wallets.
On September 14, Ethlabs researcher Derek Chiang announced that collaboration between developers working on Ethereum’s EIP-8141 Frame Transactions and Base’s EIP-8130 collapsed last week. The failure occurred because attempts to establish a shared account-abstraction standard could not reconcile the distinct requirements of the two chains.
This division leaves Ethereum advancing its Frame Transactions while Base pursues a separate design for native account abstraction. Consequently, wallets may soon need to accommodate differing transaction architectures across networks that have historically shared a similar account and transaction experience.
Both proposals aim to enhance wallet programmability, supporting features like gas sponsorship, passkeys, and flexible authentication. The core disagreement centers on the degree of freedom the protocol should grant accounts versus the amount of structure chains should impose on transactions prior to execution.
Chiang summarized the conflict by stating: “Ethereum wanted to be the best version of Ethereum, and Base wanted to be the best version of Base.”
The collapse occurred just weeks after the projects were actively attempting to bridge their differences. Ethlabs noted in late August that developers had held dedicated discussions regarding Frames and EIP-8130 concepts, even after Ethereum core developers signaled strong support for including EIP-8141 in the Hegotá upgrade.
L2 competition drives protocols in divergent directions
This failure exposes a structural problem that could become increasingly difficult to contain as Ethereum’s layer-2 (L2) blockchains mature into networks with their own user bases, commercial priorities, and development schedules.
Ethereum core developer Matt Garnett stated that divergence among L2s was inevitable, as market competition compels them to introduce features at a pace that Ethereum L1 cannot match.
Garnett added: “Market pressure forces them to ship features at a pace that L1 cannot match, so incompatibilities accumulate. Time will tell whether that is a strength or weakness.”
This competitive pressure is clearly visible in their divergent account-abstraction designs.
EIP-8141 introduces Frame Transactions, which decompose a transaction into programmable calls capable of handling validation, execution, and gas payment. The proposal is designed to detach accounts from the elliptic-curve keys that currently dominate Ethereum, enable key rotation, and provide a pathway toward post-quantum authentication. Its stated goal is to allow an account to become an address whose behavior is governed by code.
EIP-8130 adopts a more structured approach. Authored by Coinbase engineer Chris Hunter, it requires transactions to identify their authenticator so nodes can determine the necessary validation work before executing arbitrary wallet code. Its current draft describes this structure as a method to make validation predictable and allow nodes to reject unknown authenticators prior to execution.
For Ethereum mainnet, Chiang stated that the priority is what he terms “CROPS”: censorship and capture resistance, open-source software, privacy, and security.
These requirements favor an account model that developers can extend without seeking permission from the chain, alongside transaction designs capable of supporting privacy systems and future post-quantum signatures.
High-throughput layer-2 networks like Base face different pressures. Chiang noted they require account-abstraction systems that can scale while remaining sufficiently transparent for chains to determine which authentication methods and transactions they will permit.
EIP-8130’s current draft reflects this divide through separate adoption profiles. Its L1 profile permits authenticators outside a canonical set within defined limits, while its layer-2 profile allows high-throughput chains to restrict the native transaction path to approved canonical authenticators.
The proposal still seeks cross-chain portability, maintaining a common authenticator set and offering ERC-4337 as an alternative transport on networks that do not support the EIP-8130 transaction type.
This leaves room for compatibility even if Ethereum and Base adopt different native systems, though the effort required to preserve it may increasingly move away from the protocol itself.
The split reopens the debate on Ethereum’s L2 bargain
As technical differences between Ethereum and its layer-2 networks accumulate, the dispute over account abstraction is fueling a broader debate over whether L2 growth automatically strengthens Ethereum itself.
Crypto lawyer Gabriel Shapiro stated that the split between Ethereum’s EIP-8141 and Base’s EIP-8130 could make it harder to sustain the argument that layer-2 networks are an inherently beneficial strategy for Ethereum. He said:
“L2s are great — for the crypto industry and for people who own the sequencer. For Ethereum, they are just kinda like ‘less bad’ than competing L1s.”
His argument centers on where value and control ultimately accrue. Networks such as Base can attract users, applications, and transaction activity while capturing sequencing economics and making product decisions based on their own competitive priorities.
Ethereum continues to provide settlement and security infrastructure, but this relationship does not guarantee that every feature or commercial success on an L2 directly strengthens the L1’s product or economics.
Shapiro argued that Ethereum may need to rely less on the “halo effects” of businesses like Base and Robinhood and make a clearer case for the unique attributes the base layer provides.
He linked this shift to Vitalik Buterin’s increased emphasis on censorship resistance, privacy, and security, arguing that Ethereum is placing greater weight on qualities that distinguish the L1 even as activity continues to move onto rollups.
Layer-2 networks can still generate settlement demand, consume Ethereum data availability, and keep applications within the broader Ethereum ecosystem rather than losing them to rival blockchains. EIP-8130 also includes mechanisms intended to preserve account portability across EVM chains, demonstrating that Base is not designing in isolation.
Nonetheless, the account-abstraction dispute provides a concrete example of how these interests can diverge.
Also Read
- China Industrial Production Accelerates, but Retail and Investment Lose Ground
- Robinhood Chain Approaches $1 Billion TVL Behind Four Growth Catalysts, StoneX Analyst Says
- Australian Dollar Retreats as Oil Shock and Rising Yields Take Hold
- Banking Trade Groups Demand Stricter Stablecoin Reward Limits in Senate Clarity Act Debate