Ethereum L1 and Base Split on Account Abstraction Standards as EIP-8130, EIP-8141 Diverge

TLDR:

Ethereum L1 and Base end joint account abstraction standards effort last week.
Ethereum prioritizes censorship resistance and privacy over L2 scalability needs. 
Base favors compliance and scalability via EIP-8130 and Tempo Transactions.
Wallet developers must now bridge fragmented account abstraction standards across chains. 

Ethereum L1 and Base have parted ways on account abstraction after a joint standards effort collapsed last week. Ethlabs researcher Derek Chiang confirmed that EIP-8130 and EIP-8141, called Frame Transactions, will now proceed as separate proposals.
Both chains still want gasless transactions and passkey wallets, but their priorities no longer align closely enough for one shared standard.
Why the Collaboration Fell Apart
Ethereum L1 and Base spent weeks trying to align their account abstraction proposals into a single framework. Chiang said engineers reviewed multiple technical paths during that period.
Every option identified required one chain to soften goals central to its roadmap. Neither Ethereum L1 nor Base accepted a compromise significant enough to finalize.
Ethereum L1 focuses on censorship resistance, privacy, and long-term security for its base settlement layer. Base instead prioritizes scalability, configurability, and compliance features suited to commercial applications.
These differing priorities made the account abstraction talks harder to resolve over time. Chiang described the resulting split between Ethereum L1 and Base as a predictable outcome.
Chiang addressed the outcome directly on X, confirming the collaboration between the two proposals had ended. He wrote that Base and Ethereum were now going separate ways to implement different standards.

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

The post confirmed publicly what had been circulating among developers following the talks. Both chains can now build account abstraction features independently of one another.
The Ethereum L1 and Base split shifts responsibility toward wallet providers and application builders. Users may not directly notice the fragmentation if wallets successfully hide the technical differences.
Chiang acknowledged this outcome places more work on developer teams going forward. He still viewed the split as acceptable given each chain’s distinct technical requirements.
Technical Differences Driving the Standards Apart
Ethereum L1’s account abstraction work favors transaction formats built for post-quantum signature aggregation. These requirements support standards including ERC-4337, EIP-7701, and the newer EIP-8141 Frame Transactions proposal.
Developers on Ethereum L1 want account models that can be extended without needing permission from the chain. This approach fits Ethereum’s broader decentralization priorities closely.
Base requires a different technical foundation suited to processing transactions at much larger scale. Its account model needs enforceable rules that clearly separate permitted transactions from restricted ones.
These needs shaped standards such as Tempo Transactions and the newly proposed EIP-8130. Compliance obligations tied to enterprise partners also influenced Base’s technical direction throughout.
Chiang explained that shared account standards previously kept Ethereum L1 and Layer 2 chains aligned for years. Common formats like EOA accounts and EIP-1559 transactions once let wallets work consistently everywhere.
Account abstraction pushed those shared foundations beyond what both chains could support together. The compliance and security gap between Ethereum L1 and Base proved too wide to close.
Both chains still share overlapping goals despite their technical differences over standards. Gasless transactions and passkey wallets remain priorities for Ethereum L1 and Base alike.
The engineering paths toward those features, however, now diverge substantially between the two networks. This divergence could complicate wallet development across chains in coming months.
What Comes Next for Wallets and Standards
Chiang outlined two paths forward following the Ethereum L1 and Base split on account abstraction. One option involves creating a coordination process that includes more stakeholders beyond core Ethereum developers.
This would let Layer 2 networks help shape shared infrastructure like the EVM directly. Decisions currently rest largely with the Ethereum client development process known as ACD.
The second path accepts that some fragmentation between Ethereum L1 and Base is likely permanent. Under this approach, resources shift toward wallets capable of bridging the differing transaction formats.
Developers would build tools that speak each chain’s native standard without requiring manual switching. This method reduces friction for users even as protocols continue to diverge.
Chiang said he has grown more supportive of the wallet-bridging approach following this experience. Reflecting on the divergence between the two chains, he wrote that “we sometimes just gotta let the chains cook.”
Teams that manage the added complexity well may gain a competitive edge. This opportunity extends to both established wallets and newer application developers entering the space.
Coordination between Ethereum L1 and Base remains possible in areas where compromise avoids core trade-offs. Chiang said dialogue should continue even as some standards proceed on separate tracks.
Ethereum’s ecosystem has balanced independent innovation with shared standardization efforts before. How future proposals unfold will likely determine wallet compatibility across chains going forward.
The post Ethereum L1 and Base Split on Account Abstraction Standards as EIP-8130, EIP-8141 Diverge appeared first on Blockonomi.