ERC-8004 does not need to be the main character.
Written by: Haotian
Last time, I mentioned that the x402 protocol continues the Lightning Network. Recently, while having dinner with a group of programmer friends, I was "challenged" again: isn't x402 just the previous AA account abstraction?
The implication is that Ethereum has been working on account abstraction for many years, investing a lot of resources into ERC-4337, Paymaster, and various grants and wallet service providers. However, the results are evident, and many criticize it for being all talk and little action.
Although I don't believe AA has been declared a failure, what exactly is the problem?
Paymaster shifts the user's gas consumption onto the project side, which sounds great, but the project side's ability to subsidize is weak, the ROI is unclear, and it undoubtedly leads to a dead end in the business model. How can one rely solely on transfusions without the ability to generate their own blood?
AA account abstraction is limited to the EVM ecosystem, such as ERC-4337, Paymaster, and EntryPoint contracts, all of which are exclusive to Ethereum. If one wants to achieve cross-EVM ecosystem usage, including Solana, BTC, etc., additional middle-layer services must be added to realize functionality. However, the problem is that these middle-layer services introduce additional fees, further challenging the ROI of the business model!
There are many complex technical issues, which I won't elaborate on, but to put it simply, AA is essentially a product of "technology for the sake of technology," a result of Ethereum's pure research trend in the past.
In contrast, what does the x402 protocol do? What is different? Some criticize it for bringing up the HTTP 402 status code, an ancient species that has existed for 30 years, and for playing a game of gilding the lily.
But let's not forget, the HTTP 402 status code—this is a foundational protocol of the internet, a common language between Web2 and Web3.
AA requires smart contracts, on-chain states, and EVM virtual machine execution, while x402 only needs an HTTP request header, which can be used by any system that supports HTTP—Web2 APIs, Web3 RPCs, and even traditional payment gateways, all compatible.
This is not an optimization solution for technical stacking, but rather a "dimensionality reduction strike" that simplifies the protocol layer. Instead of struggling with various compatibility adaptations and trust methods at the application layer, it is better to first unify the standards at the upstream protocol layer.
The key is that x402 is inherently a good cross-chain interoperability standard. As long as an Agent can send HTTP requests, handle 402 responses, and complete EIP-3009 authorization (or equivalent standards from other chains), it doesn't matter if you are Base, Monad, Solana, Avalanche, or BSC; cross-chain at the protocol level is seamless, only manifesting in the single-point issue of settlement payments, making cross-chain costs significantly lower.
Facilitators can serve multiple chains simultaneously, and users' payment history data can be indexed uniformly. Developers can connect once to "unlock" the entire ecosystem.
Overall, I feel that AA is a refined engineering product born from researcher thinking, while the x402 protocol is a pragmatic solution driven by market demand.
So the question arises, will ERC-8004 follow the old path of AA?
From a theoretical perspective, ERC-8004 resembles AA 2.0, still EVM exclusive, requiring the deployment of three layers of registries (Identity/Reputation/Validation). Early incentives also rely heavily on external subsidies or staking, which are pitfalls that AA once encountered. If other chains want to be compatible, they still need to add an extra layer of trust costs.
But the difference is that under the x402 framework, ERC-8004 is just a tool, not a governing standard. Other chains need to be compatible with the x402 protocol, not ERC-8004.
This positioning difference is crucial. What was the problem with AA back then? It wanted to become "the only standard for Ethereum payment experience," requiring the entire ecosystem to revolve around it: wallets to adapt, applications to integrate, and users to change habits. This kind of "top-down" strong push, without a killer application and clear ROI, naturally cannot gain traction.
In contrast, ERC-8004 is different. It does not need to be the main character because x402 has already solved the most core issue: payment. ERC-8004 merely provides an "optional" trust layer on this already functioning payment network.
Moreover, ERC-8004 is hitching a ride on x402, not needing to build an ecosystem from scratch. x402 already has a clear business loop (Provider traffic, Facilitator fees), a complete tech stack (HTTP protocol + EIP-3009), and an active project ecosystem. ERC-8004 just needs to be "plug and play."
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。
