Abstract

What is Account Abstraction

The Difference between AA, EOA, and CA

The essence of account abstraction is a contract account (CA). In Ethereum, there are two types of accounts:

• Contract Address
• Externally Owned Accounts (EOA)

For example, the Contract Address is the address where a contract is deployed, and any contract that can be called within Ethereum has a contract address. An example is the USDT contract address. EOA accounts are the familiar ETH accounts, such as those displayed in the Metamask wallet.

0xdac17f958d2ee523a2206206994597c13d831ec7 is the USDT token contract address. Contract addresses cannot be created directly from outside, but are created and managed by EOA. The EOA that created the USDT contract address is 0x36928500Bc1dCd7af6a2B4008875CC336b927D57.

Therefore, we understand that an AA account is a special type of contract account (CA). In Ethereum, an AA account still needs to be created by EOA and controlled by an external EOA, as the only way to interact with the chain in Ethereum is initiated by EOA. Thus, AA is a standardized and modular implementation of a CA wallet, and it is constantly evolving.

Development History of AA Accounts

The relationship between AA and CA has been explained above. Before the ERC4337 standard was proposed, there were already a considerable number of CA wallets. The following are three mainstream CA wallets and their working principles.

Parity Wallet

In the early stages of Ethereum's development, multiple contract wallets had already appeared. The most famous contract wallet was the Parity wallet developed by the PolkaDot founder Gavin Wood's team. Parity is a Rust implementation of an Ethereum node, which corresponds to the Geth node developed in Golang. Parity wallet is a multi-signature contract wallet that allows multiple EOA to control and manage a contract account (CA). In 2017, a hacker exploited a bug in the Parity wallet and stole over 150,000 ETH. This event also led to a lack of trust in CA wallets.

Therefore, AA wallets require a lot of practice and standardization to prevent similar events from happening.

Gnosis Wallet

Gnosis's multi-signature wallet is currently the mainstream multi-signature wallet and is used by most institutions and developers. A considerable number of teams store development funds in Gnosis's multi-signature wallet to prevent team members from acting maliciously. Notable teams using Gnosis Safe include Yearn, Aave, and Balancer. Gnosis Safe has extremely high security, but it is relatively expensive to use, which is a common problem with CA wallets.

UniPass

The UniPass wallet combines MPC technology with CA contract wallets, allowing users to use social login without the need to self-manage an EOA wallet. It is important to note that Parity wallet and Gnosis Safe still require users to self-manage their private keys. The general process of UniPass is as follows:

• Social login while creating a CA wallet on the chain
• Interacting with the chain
• User initiates a transaction
• MPC verifies the validity of the user's transaction
• MPC-controlled EOA wallet initiates a transaction to the user's CA account
• CA account executes the transaction and pays gas to UniPass's paymaster

It is important to note that the original AA solution of UniPass did not strictly adhere to the ERC4337 standard. The control of the wallet is still managed by the MPC-controlled EOA of UniPass.

Implementation Principle of AA (ERC-4337)

The essence of AA is a standardized and modular CA account, which is mainly reflected in the following innovations in 4337:

• Bundler: Traditional CA accounts still require users to initiate transactions through an external EOA account, which means that users' EOA accounts still need to hold ETH to pay for gas. In 4337, users bundle transactions into UserOperations and send them to the bundler, which then initiates the transaction. This allows users to complete transactions without the need to reserve gas in advance.

• BLS Aggregated Signature Verification: The bundler bundles multiple UserOperations into a single transaction and generates a BLS aggregated signature, then verifies all signatures' validity at once on-chain using BLS signature verification.

• Paymaster: Users can specify a paymaster to pay for gas.

The above images roughly describe the standard transaction process under ERC4337.

1. Users bundle UserOps and send them to the bundler.
2. The bundler verifies the validity of the user's UserOps and bundles them into a transaction.
3. The bundler submits the transaction to the Ethereum mainnet.

• EntryPoint: The contract entry point for submitting transactions by the bundler.
• handleOps: Specifically used to execute user transactions in the contract.
• paymaster: Contract used to pay for user gas.

We can summarize the main differences between AA and traditional CA as follows:

1. Users do not submit transactions directly but rely on the bundler to package them.
2. Signature verification is moved from the consensus layer to the contract layer, where signatures are verified.
3. Modular paymaster is introduced, allowing users to freely choose gas payment.

Difference between AA and MPC

Before fully understanding AA, many people often confuse the concepts of AA and MPC because they both support features such as social recovery and browser plug-in-free functionality. The fundamental differences between AA and MPC are as follows:

• AA is still decentralized and exists on-chain, while MPC is centralized and is often managed by one or more institutions.
• Transaction execution in AA is completed by the AA contract address, while in MPC, it is completed by an EOA managed by the MPC, making MPC a managed EOA account.
• AA's transaction execution involves multiple on-chain interactions related to AA contracts, while MPC directly interacts with the EOA, and MPC does not incur additional gas costs.

Next, we will introduce MPC and its characteristics.

• MPC technology is relatively mature, and hot wallets of centralized exchanges have implemented MPC to prevent single point of failure, greatly improving the security of centralized exchanges.

• MPC consists of multiple nodes, with each node holding a shard of the private key. Only when multiple MPC nodes reach a consensus can they sign a transaction. Therefore, the theft of a single node's private key does not lead to the theft of funds.

• Currently, there are many open-source MPC solutions, and the specific principles can be found at https://tor.us/, an open-source MPC node solution developed by Web3Auth.

MPC solutions are widely used in current social logins, and many projects have introduced MPC wallets to provide a chainless, seamless wallet experience, where users do not need to install plugin wallets or manage private keys. In the industry, such managed wallets are collectively referred to as Wallet as a Service (WaaS). Mature projects in this space include:

• Web3 Auth
• Particle Network
• Magic Link
• Coinbase Base

Faced with the emergence of numerous WaaS services, it is foreseeable that there will be an increasing number of products providing WaaS services in the future. However, centralized exchanges have an absolute user base and extensive commercial experience in this area, so it is likely that all centralized exchanges will provide related services in the future.

Advantages of AA

Social Recovery

The biggest disadvantage of traditional EOA accounts is the need for users to self-manage their private keys, which presents the following problems:

• High cognitive cost for users, as most users cannot understand public and private keys.
• Once a user loses their private key, they cannot recover their account.

When designing AA, users are allowed to set up a social recovery account, using another or multiple external EOA accounts to recover control of the AA. The following is a common process for social recovery:

1. The user loses control of the EOA account that controls the AA, or the current EOA account is stolen.
2. The user's AA is linked to two additional EOA addresses:

• A friend's EOA address
• An institution-managed EOA address

1. These two additional EOA addresses appeal to the AA account, and after completing a 2/3 multi-signature proof, the AA binds the EOA address to switch to the user's new EOA account.

Through this method, even if a user loses control of the EOA account that controls the AA, they can still change to a new EOA through social recovery. Unlike MPC social logins, this social recovery is completely based on a decentralized solution, without the risk of single point of failure associated with MPC.

Gas Payment

Gas payment is at the core of mass adoption in blockchain applications. For new users entering Web3, the biggest pain point is the need to pre-fund gas before interacting with the chain. However, obtaining ETH or tokens for Web3 newcomers has a high barrier to entry, significantly increasing the acquisition cost for Web3 applications. By using AA's paymaster for gas payment, paymasters can subsidize users' gas costs in the early stages, reducing the barrier to entry for Web3.

Seamless Cross-Chain

Another core issue affecting the mass adoption of Web3 is the cross-chain problem. For example, if a user has ETH on blockchain A (such as Ethereum) but wants to experience an application on another chain B (such as Matic or BSC), the user first needs to swap the corresponding tokens and use a cross-chain bridge to transfer assets to B, which is cumbersome and time-consuming. By integrating cross-chain protocols such as Layer0/Wormhole, Paymaster allows users to deposit on chain A and seamlessly use applications on any other chain, eliminating the boundaries between chains and making it easier for new Dapps to attract users from other chains.

Disadvantages of AA

The advantages of AA accounts have been mentioned above, but currently, ERC-4337 is still rapidly iterating and innovating to address some remaining disadvantages in AA.

Need to Create Separate Accounts for Each Chain/Layer2

Unlike EOA accounts, where a single EOA account can interact with different chains using the same public-private key pair, the nature of AA as a CA account means that a new AA contract needs to be deployed for each chain or Layer2. The deployment cost of AA contracts is high, which may discourage users from using AA.

Additionally, if users deploy AA contracts improperly, such as using different factories to deploy AA contracts, it may result in different AA addresses on different chains, causing confusion and inconvenience for users. Although the AA Wallet Factory has implemented the generation of the same AA address on different chains, users still need to carefully check the protocol used to ensure that the AA address is the same on different chains, to prevent potential future issues and confusion.

High Deployment Cost of AA

As mentioned earlier, AA accounts require users to deploy Wallet Factory-generated AA contracts separately for different chains and Layer2. Even with lower gas costs on current sidechains, EVM-compatible chains, and Layer2, it is still a significant expense. With the current gas prices and an ETH price of $1800, deploying an AA account on the Ethereum mainnet costs approximately $20-40, while on EVM-compatible chains or Layer2, it ranges from $0.5 to $5. Before using a Dapp, users need to pay the deployment cost of AA, which is difficult for most users to accept. If this cost is subsidized by Bundler or Paymaster, the subsidy cost is still too high and requires strong motivation.

Gas Costs Several Times Higher Than EOA

Depending on the implementation of AA and the number of transactions bundled by the Bundler at once (the more transactions, the lower the gas cost per UserOP), the gas consumption for standard ERC4337 transactions may be several times higher than that of regular EOA accounts. This is because a transaction initiated by an AA account often requires calling three or more contracts and involves complex calculations such as on-chain BLS signature verification. The current ERC4337 standard is also being optimized to address this, including:

• Simplifying the number of contract calls for AA account transactions
• Introducing elliptic curve precompiled contracts on Ethereum to reduce on-chain signature verification gas consumption

Gas Fee Estimates for ERC4337 Transactions

The gas cost estimates for ERC4337 transactions under current gas prices for various operations on AA accounts are as follows:

Table 1. Gas for ERC-4337 transactions

ERC-4337

Traditional Wallet

Create Account

385,266

0

Simple Transfer

88,710

21,000

ERC-20 Token Transfer

90,803

65,000

From the table, it can be seen that:

• The cost of creating an AA account is roughly 20 times that of a regular EOA transfer.
• The cost of a simple native token transfer for an AA account is approximately 4 times that of an EOA transfer.
• The cost of an ERC20 transfer for an AA account is only 1.5 times that of an EOA transfer.

Table 2. Gas fee estimates for ERC-4337 transactions

Gas Price Range

Token Price

Create ERC-4337 Account

Simple Transfer

ERC-20 Transfer

Ethereum

30.5 ± 10.6 gwei

$2000

$23.50 ± $8.17

$5.41 ± $1.88

$5.54 ± $1.93

Polygon

224 ± 108 gwei

$1.10

$0.09 ± $0.05

$0.02 ± $0.01

$0.02 ± $0.01

Optimism 3,4

0.0013 ± 0.008 gwei

$2000

$0.50 ± $0.18

$0.45 ± $0.16

$0.46 ± $0.17

Avalanche 5,6

36.4 ± 4.5 nAVAX

$20

$0.29 ± $0.04

$0.06 ± $0.01

$0.07 ± $0.01

BnB Smart Chain

7.05 ± 0.53 gwei

$350

$0.95 ± $0.07

$0.22 ± $0.02

$0.22 ± $0.02

The above table shows the cost estimates for various operations on ERC-4337 AA accounts under current gas prices. It can be observed that:

1. The cost of creating an AA account on the Ethereum mainnet is extremely high, approximately $20-30.
2. Under Rollup, the cost of creating an AA account is lower due to Rollup's data compression technology, similar to the cost of a transfer.
3. On other EVM-compatible chains, the cost of creating an AA account is relatively low due to the lower gas fee base.

In summary, due to the high cost of creating ERC-4337 AA accounts on the mainnet, the widespread adoption of ERC-4337 will likely first occur on Layer2 and EVM-compatible chains.

Dapp Compatibility, Blockchain Browser Compatibility

Another obstacle to the development of AA is the compatibility of infrastructure with AA contracts. Currently, most Dapps, apart from native AA chains, only support EOA accounts. Support for AA requires Dapps to use AA's SDK to initiate transactions and modify query parameters to obtain user information.

Additionally, the user experience of blockchain browsers is currently designed more for EOA accounts, such as Etherscan. To better facilitate AA account queries, blockchain browsers may need a series of optimizations in UI and UX to make it easier for users to understand changes in their accounts.

Native Account Abstraction (AA)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Native AA

Most new public chains outside of Ethereum have implemented native AA accounts.

• Advantages
  Consensus Layer Support

  Native Account Abstraction means that account abstraction is already implemented in the consensus layer of the chain's nodes, without the need for community developers to develop and deploy it. These AA contracts are generally internal or system contracts, developed and maintained by the blockchain's developers.

  Lower deployment costs and additional gas expenses

  Internal contracts often have higher permissions and priority, and gas calculation methods differ from regular/external contracts. Therefore, native AA accounts have lower deployment costs compared to 4337 and often do not significantly increase transaction gas expenses.

• Disadvantages
  Lower Flexibility

  Upgrading native AA requires responsibility from the public chain developers and often requires a soft or hard fork of the chain, making it less flexible than modular ERC4337, limiting iteration speed and future feature offerings.

• Learning from ERC-4337, increasing scalability

  However, chains that have implemented native AA are actively learning from the scalability and modularity of ERC-4337, allowing developers to expand more features based on native AA.

Near

Near has implemented native AA at the consensus layer, with accounts stored directly on the blockchain. Users can control accounts through multiple access keys and support social recovery (email, phone number). The table below shows the difference between an ETH account and a Near account.

Ethereum Wallet

NEAR Account

Public Identifier

Public Key (0x123...)

Account ID (alice.near)

Secret Key

Private Key (0x456...)

Multiple Keypairs with permissions: - FullAccess key - FunctionCall key

Characteristics

- Private key gives full access- Account doesn't have to be created via a transaction

- Permission-based keypair - Account ID must be created via blockchain transaction

Aptos / Sui

Due to the Resource Ownership model of Aptos and Sui, they have also implemented native AA at the consensus layer. For example, in Aptos, an account is a set of resources on the blockchain, so creating an account in Aptos requires pre-funding with Aptos to initialize the account. Aptos/Sui accounts also support changing authentication keys, while the account address remains unchanged, among other AA features.

ZKsync

Unlike Near/Aptos/Sui/Starknet, ZKsync supports both EOA and AA at the consensus layer. Therefore, ZKsync can initiate transactions using both EOA and AA, allowing ZKsync to use popular wallets like Metamask and AA wallets like Argent. ZKSync's AA design is based on ERC-4337, thus providing good compatibility with EIP4337 wallets and Dapps. The additional gas cost for AA transactions in ZKsync is approximately execution_gas + 20000, which is around 0.01 USD at the time of writing. This is minimal compared to the non-native AA ERC 4337.

Starknet

Starknet natively supports AA and does not support EOA-initiated transactions. The AA accounts in Starknet are designed based on ERC4337, and the AA contracts in Starknet are provided by OpenZeppelin, developed using the Cairo language.

ICP

The native AA accounts in ICP are called Internet Identity (II). II's implementation differs significantly from ERC4337. Internet Identity uses WebAuthn, commonly used in Web2 frameworks, allowing users to control accounts using the secure chip in their mobile devices and freely add or remove devices. II effectively turns a user's mobile device into a hardware wallet.

Existing AA Infrastructure

Bundler

Bundler replaces the previous node Mempool in the AA ecosystem, where UserOps are no longer sent to Validators but are instead sent to Bundlers for packaging and then on-chain. The mainstream bundlers currently include:

• Stackup Bundler:

  Stackup's bundler is implemented in Go lang, aiming to easily integrate with Go Ethereum (geth) and is the first production-standard bundler fully compliant with ERC-4337 on this list. Stackup is actively maintained and has comprehensive documentation, making it the most mainstream bundler currently. Stackup provides bundler services, eliminating the need for teams to build their own bundler services.

• Infinitism Bundler

  Infinitism's bundler is developed in TypeScript, and the original author of ERC-4337 developed it. Infinitism also develops ERC-4337 contracts, making its bundler highly compatible with ERC-4337. However, further verification is needed for performance and stability due to its development in TypeScript.

• Silius(AA-bundler) Ethereum protocol core member Vid Kersic is developing Silius(AA-bundler) based on Rust, which helps integrate AA tools into the Rust ecosystem.

• Skandha

  Skandha is a bundler protocol developed by Etherspot in TypeScript. Etherspot is active in bundler mempool implementation. In April 2023, Skanda passed all tests.

• Voltaire

  Voltaire is a bundler protocol developed by the Candide team to support their own Candide wallet. Voltaire is based on Python's ERC-4337 implementation and currently provides good support for Candide's open-source wallet.

• Rundler

  Rundler is a bundler protocol developed by Alchemy, one of the largest node service providers for Ethereum. Rundler is not yet open-source, but due to Alchemy's large user base, it may receive significant traffic support.

Current Pain Points of Bundler

Bundler is currently in rapid development and iteration.

• Communication between bundlers

  Currently, a pain point that bundlers need to address is the consistency and communication of bundler mempools. If there are multiple bundler protocols in the market and they lack communication between protocols, it can lead to a serious issue of DDoS attacks on bundlers. If a user simultaneously sends transactions to multiple bundlers without communication between them, these bundlers will simultaneously package UserOps and send them to validators. In this scenario, only the UserOps from the first bundler will be executed, while the transactions from the remaining bundlers will be rejected due to the same nonce. If the user's paymaster has insufficient balance, the bundler will pay invalid gas for these UserOps. Therefore, communication between bundlers is a current issue that needs to be addressed to prevent DDoS attacks on bundlers.

• Decentralization of Bundlers

Currently, bundlers are highly centralized. If a bundler blacklists certain users, it can prevent the transactions of those accounts from being executed. This seriously contradicts the decentralization and permissionless logic of blockchain.

Paymaster

Paymaster is a crucial part of AA, as it can subsidize user gas fees, significantly lowering the barrier to entry for Web3. Below are some mainstream implementations of paymasters.

• Stackups Paymaster

  Stackup's paymaster is part of the Stackup AA ecosystem. Stackup has implemented a paymaster dashboard where Dapps or other service providers can set up their subsidy accounts to sponsor user transactions at https://app.stackup.sh/sign-in.

• Biconomy Dashboard

  The Biconomy Dashboard allows organizations and developers to leverage AA components in their projects. Project owners can configure their projects to pay gas fees through Paymasters and add gas subsidy conditions. By registering your paymaster for any supported chain, Dapps can greatly simplify the Web3 experience for users.

Wallets

• Ambire

  Ambire is a web wallet based on AA and is a user-hosted web wallet that supports plugin wallets, hardware wallets, and social login. Ambire also issues Wallet tokens for governance. Ambire currently supports mainstream EVM-compatible chains and Layer2.

• Argent

  Argent is currently the most mainstream wallet in the Layer2 ecosystem and already supports mainstream Layer2 projects such as Starknet and ZKsync.

• Avocado

  Avocado is a web wallet that allows users to pay all gas fees using USDC and provides a seamless user experience across different chains.

• Safe

  Safe is the multisig CA wallet mentioned earlier, developed by Gnosis, and is mainly used by institutions and teams for fund management due to its high security and usage costs.

• Sequence

  Sequence supports social login and provides a plugin-free wallet experience.

The Significance of AA for Mass Web3 Adoption

AA Simultaneously Achieves Centralization, Usability, and Security

Traditional EOA accounts often cannot achieve decentralization, usability, and security simultaneously.

• Self-hosted EOA wallets, such as Metamask, satisfy decentralization but require users to manage their private keys, creating a high barrier to entry for new users and making it susceptible to private key theft if the device is compromised.

• MPC-hosted EOA accounts eliminate the need for users to manage their private keys, but the MPC is still controlled by institutions. If the institution acts maliciously or is compromised, there is still a single point of failure, contradicting the decentralization logic of blockchain.

• AA wallets can address these issues. During user onboarding, bundlers can create accounts for users and manage the private keys of AA EOAs. As users become familiar with Web3 or accumulate a certain amount of on-chain assets, they can decentralize control of their AA EOA accounts through smart contracts, such as using hardware wallets.

Paymaster Transfers User Costs

In the traditional EOA framework, users often need to acquire tokens for the chain, such as ETH, using fiat currency to use Web3 applications. This process involves using centralized exchange (CEX) deposit services, exchanging for the required tokens, and transferring them to a newly created EOA account. This process requires a significant understanding of Web3 and can be cumbersome in many regions. By introducing AA paymasters, the initial onboarding costs for users can be transferred to the project side of Dapps. The transfer of gas fees is of great significance for the mass adoption of Web3.

Enhanced Security

• Security Audit of Paymasters

  Currently, ERC4337 is in its early stages, and there are many tools based on ERC4337. On the paymaster side, auditing user UserOps can prevent rug occurrences, such as excessive approvals and unauthorized fund transfers. Paymaster security audits can use mature methods from the Web2 financial sector to review problematic transactions and ensure the security of user funds.

• Account Isolation

  Another innovative development is the security isolation of accounts, such as separating fund accounts and game accounts. When users use familiar DeFi and transfer functions, they can use fund accounts with stricter security audits. When users try gamefi or unfamiliar DeFi, they can use game accounts. This design ensures the security of user funds at the underlying level without increasing the number of private keys users need to manage.

The Future and Opportunities of AA

Use of Native Secure Chips in Mobile/Computer Devices, Enhanced Security Experience with Hardware Wallets

Currently, many devices, such as smartphones and laptops, have built-in secure chips, such as the Apple T2 Security Chip used in Mac and iPhone. Essentially, any device with a Tee chip is a highly reliable hardware wallet. However, these secure chips currently do not support common blockchain signature algorithms such as ECDSA.

• Current Security of EOA Private Keys Plugin/Mobile Wallets

  The plaintext of current plugin/mobile wallet private keys is stored directly on the device. If the device is compromised, the user's assets can be quickly lost. Therefore, browser plugin wallets, such as Metamask, have high usability but low security.

  Hardware Wallets

  Hardware wallets ensure that private keys never leave the device and cannot be directly accessed from the outside. However, most users cannot carry their hardware wallets at all times. While they are highly secure, they are less user-friendly.

• Introduction of AA and Use of Device Secure Chips

  Through AA wallets and innovative on-chain verification methods, transactions can be signed directly by the device's secure chip, ensuring that the user's private keys never leave the device, making it more secure than traditional EOA accounts. Currently, Internet Computer's Internet Identity and a project called Porton Wallet from the ETHBogota Hackathon have implemented a solution using device secure chip signatures and session keys, allowing users to fully use devices such as smartphones/computers and achieve hardware wallet-level security.

Thanks to the highly modular design of ERC-4337, through extensions and iterations of ERC-4337, AA accounts will achieve significantly enhanced security in the future.

Cross-Chain + AA, Chainless Experience for Users

Currently, another obstacle to the mass adoption of Web3 is the fragmentation of the blockchain ecosystem across different chains.

• User Experience with Cross-Chain DApps

  For example, if a user on ETH wants to experience an application on BSC, they need to go through a lengthy process involving exchanging ETH for USDT/USDC, using a cross-chain bridge to transfer these tokens to BSC, purchasing some BNB through a CEX, and transferring it to BSC before being able to experience DeFi applications on BSC. This process is time-consuming, less secure, and has a steep learning curve, as most new users are not familiar with cross-chain bridges.

• Experience with AA + Cross-Chain Paymaster

  Through common cross-chain protocols such as Layer0 + AA, the process of using DApps on different chains can be greatly simplified. Paymasters can fully integrate cross-chain protocols to achieve "charge it once, pay everywhere." For example, if a user recharges USDC in the paymaster on ETH, as long as the user's AA account is the same on different chains and is bound to the same paymaster, the paymaster can handle the accounting, and the user does not need to manually transfer assets to any EVM-compatible chain/Layer2.

Ad Access, Dapp Promotion Subsidies for Gas

The biggest advantage of introducing paymasters is that it programmatically sets conditions for Dapp subsidies to attract real users.

• Subsidies without AA and Paymasters

  In the past, Web3 projects have subsidized gas fees to attract users, but subsidizing EOA accounts without programmatically setting subsidy conditions often led to exploitation by bots and fraudsters, such as directly transferring the subsidy funds without attracting genuine users.

• Subsidies with Paymasters

  Currently, paymaster dashboards widely introduce the functionality of subsidizing gas fees for Dapps. Project owners can easily set subsidy conditions in the dashboard, ensuring that only transactions meeting specific conditions are eligible for subsidies. By controlling transaction conditions in subsidies through paymasters, Dapps can attract more genuine users through subsidies under controlled costs.

• Due to the modular design of ERC-4337, future paymasters can integrate more services, such as advertising service providers, opening up broader scenarios for the mass adoption of Web3.

Mobile Dapp Explosion

Under EOA, due to the dominance of Metamask, current Dapps mainly access web-based DApps, so the market share of web plugin wallets is high. However, the mass adoption of Web3 relies on mobile user participation, so the development and adaptation of AA will be more Mobile Native.

Cross-Chain Games

With the popularity of Dark Forest, the trend of cross-chain games is quietly emerging. However, the user experience of EOA in games is very poor. Imagine having to authorize or sign transactions with a wallet for every action in the game, preventing players from fully focusing on the game itself. Therefore, the Arcade Account, designed specifically for cross-chain games, has emerged. The Arcade Account is a specialization of the regular AA account, allowing players in cross-chain games to authorize specific game operations without repeated authorizations and transaction signings, greatly improving the gaming experience. Therefore, the rise of cross-chain games in the future is likely to drive the widespread adoption of AA accounts.

Intent-Based Transactions

Recently, the concept of intent-based transactions has emerged with the popularity of Unibot, and Uniswap has also launched the Uniswap X project to promote the implementation of intent-based transactions. What are intent-based transactions? The following example can explain it simply:

1. Alice wants to exchange 1 ETH for 1000 USDT. Alice sends this intent to a specific trading pool. This intent defines that Alice will transfer out 1 ETH and receive 1000 USDT. This intent also defines the valid time for the transaction, such as 1 hour.

2. Other traders in the pool continuously search for executable intents. If someone is willing to execute it, the counterparty initiates another intent, willing to transfer 1000 USDT to Alice and receive 1 ETH. The transaction is matched.

3. Finally, a bundler packages multiple intents and submits them to the chain.

Intent-Based Transactions have the following advantages:

1. Deterministic execution price, which has a significant advantage over the uncertainty of swap prices.

2. Lower gas fee consumption, as multiple intent transactions can be aggregated and submitted to the chain, resulting in lower gas fees for individual transactions.

3. More diverse trading experiences, as intent-based transactions open up the possibility of off-chain transaction matching, leading to the emergence of more diverse trading patterns. For example, Unibot has implemented a series of new features such as Orderbook and trade front-running.

Currently, CowSwap has implemented Intent-Based Transactions based on EOA, but it still requires users to authorize (ERC-20, Approve) before initiating. However, in the new account architecture of AA, users can submit Approve and Intent to the bundler, and AA's bundler can simultaneously access the Intent Poll, match intents, and provide a more convenient trading experience.

Reference

1. https://www.stackup.sh/blog/how-much-more-expensive-is-erc-4337

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。