Ethereum and Base developers have abandoned an effort to create a common native account-abstraction standard, leaving the two networks on separate technical paths for next-generation wallets. Ethereum is moving ahead with EIP-8141 while Base continues developing EIP-8130, potentially requiring wallets and applications operating across both ecosystems to support different transaction formats.
Ethlabs researcher Derek Chiang said in a September 14 post that the collaboration broke down after developers concluded that a shared design would force either Ethereum or Base to compromise on priorities considered fundamental to their respective networks. Both proposals support account-abstraction features such as custom authentication, gas sponsorship and more programmable wallet behavior, but differ substantially in how those capabilities should be implemented.
Ethereum Prioritizes Frame Transactions
Ethereum’s EIP-8141, known as Frame Transactions, separates transaction validation, gas authorization and execution into programmable frames. The design aims to support native account abstraction while preserving censorship resistance, privacy and a migration path toward post-quantum authentication. It also enables alternative gas-payment arrangements, key rotation and simpler smart-account execution without relying on centralized relayers.
The Ethereum Foundation has now given the proposal significant roadmap weight. Its Protocol cluster classified EIP-8141 as an S-tier, “must-ship” execution-layer headliner for Hegotá, the upgrade being scoped after Glamsterdam. That gives Frame Transactions priority for inclusion, although the EIP remains a Draft specification and continues to receive technical revisions.
The work follows Ethereum’s broader account-abstraction roadmap as Glamsterdam moves through testing and prepares the network for its next protocol cycle. Hegotá is therefore the current target for EIP-8141 rather than a guarantee that the proposal will activate unchanged, since implementation and testing work continues before any mainnet fork.
Base Moves Ahead With EIP-8130
Base’s EIP-8130 takes a different approach built around on-chain keystore accounts and a new transaction type. The design makes authentication rules visible to nodes before execution, allowing Base to optimize transaction filtering for scale while supporting custom authenticators, batching and gas sponsorship. Unlike EIP-8141, it does not require changes to EVM execution itself.
Base has already made EIP-8130 available for testing on its Vibenet development network and lists it for the planned Cobalt upgrade. The proposal reflects Base’s emphasis on high-volume applications, customizable transaction rules and infrastructure capable of supporting commercial or compliance-sensitive use cases. Those priorities also sit alongside the network’s broader push into areas such as tokenized equities and regulated financial products.
The split does not make Ethereum and Base generally incompatible, nor does it mean current wallets will immediately stop working across both networks. The fragmentation risk is specifically about future native account-abstraction transaction models, with Chiang arguing that wallets may ultimately need to hide those protocol differences behind a common user interface.
For developers, the next concrete milestones are now separate: Ethereum must carry EIP-8141 through Hegotá implementation and testing, while Base advances EIP-8130 through Cobalt. Whether wallets can abstract those differences without creating substantial new development overhead will determine how visible the technical split becomes to end users.
Emma Lawson writes about the pressure points where crypto meets the outside world: regulation, exchanges, macro policy, tokenized assets and geopolitical risk. From the US, she follows the decisions and events that can change how capital moves, how platforms operate and how digital assets are treated by institutions.
Her work is direct and evidence-led. Emma is less interested in legal theatre than in practical consequences: what changed, who is affected, which risks are real and where the market may be overreacting. She brings a steady voice to complex stories, especially when regulation, infrastructure and global markets start pulling in the same direction.