Ethereum (ETH) and Base developers have ended a months-long attempt to merge two competing account abstraction designs into a single standard. The talks, which sought to reconcile Base-led EIP-8130 with Ethereum’s EIP-8141, known as Frame Transactions, collapsed last week.
Both networks will now ship their own native account-abstraction models instead of a shared format.
Account abstraction is meant to make wallets easier to use. In practice that means users can pay gas without holding ETH, sign with a phone passkey, and batch several actions into one transaction.
For years, the EVM’s common account model and transaction type let the same wallet work across Ethereum and its Layer 2s.
Developers hoped a common native standard would extend that experience to smart accounts, including future post-quantum accounts.
The collaboration failed because the two sides no longer want the same thing from the protocol.
Ethereum Layer 1 is optimizing for censorship resistance, privacy, security, and long-term extensibility.
I'm sad to report that the AA collab between 8130 and 8141 (Frames) broke down last week, and Base and Ethereum are now going separate ways to implement different AA standards.
I want to share some reflections on this collab and on the future of the EVM.
For a long time, the…
— Derek Chiang | Ethlabs (@decentrek) September 14, 2026
Frame Transactions treat a transaction as a sequence of programmable “frames,” or contract calls, that can handle validation, gas payment, privacy proofs, and other features without constantly rewriting the transaction envelope.
Ethereum core developers have already marked EIP-8141 a must-ship item for the upcoming Hegotá upgrade.Base and other Layer 2s are optimizing for throughput, customization, and compliance.
EIP-8130 introduces a new transaction type and an on-chain keystore that records which authenticators an account allows.
That structure makes transactions easier for a sequencer to inspect and constrain, which helps with performance and policy rules.
Base has been testing the design on its vibenet environment and has positioned it as a fit for the OP Stack.
Ethlabs developer Derek Chiang, who helped coordinate the talks, said the teams found several technical bridges.
Every option required at least one side to give up part of its core goal.
“Ethereum wanted to be the best version of Ethereum, and Base wanted to be the best version of Base,” he wrote.
Interoperability mattered, but not enough to override those priorities.
If both proposals go live as planned, wallet and app teams will have to support two native transaction formats.
Chiang argued that the split is not automatically a failure.
Forcing one design onto both networks could have left each worse at serving its users.
Separate paths let Ethereum and Base innovate more freely.
If wallets hide the differences well, end users could still get a smooth experience.
The episode also highlights a broader tension.
The EVM has long been the shared layer that kept Ethereum and its rollups aligned.
As Layer 1 and Layer 2 priorities pull apart, that layer is under strain.
Chiang sketched two responses: a wider coordination process that gives Layer 2s a real voice in EVM decisions, or acceptance that fragmentation is inevitable and investment in wallets that paper over it.
He now leans toward the second path.
The outcome does not end account abstraction.
It ends the idea that one protocol-level design will serve both Ethereum mainnet and a high-volume, compliance-conscious Layer 2 without compromise. Wallets, not core protocol teams, will now carry most of the cost of keeping those worlds usable together.