Rarely does Ethereum news involve a split, but this instance does. According to Derek Chiang—an Ethlabs developer, co-author of one of the two proposals, and founder of wallet-infrastructure firm ZeroDev—Ethereum and Base have abandoned plans for a unified account-abstraction standard in favor of separate paths.
Ethereum is advancing with EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions), while Base is pursuing a Keystore-based design via EIP-8130. Discussions between the two parties concluded the week prior to Chiang’s public statement.
This division goes beyond mere implementation disagreements; it represents a parting of ways between the Ethereum ecosystem’s two most prominent networks. At issue is how each will natively integrate account abstraction into the base layer. By embedding smart-wallet logic directly into transaction validation, native account abstraction allows users to pay network fees without holding ETH, sign in using a phone passkey, and rotate keys without relying on supplementary infrastructure.
Chiang maintains that wallet software can shield end users from this discrepancy. As development progresses, that assertion will be put to the test, offering another development to watch alongside general Ethereum network activity metrics.
Ethereum and Base have failed to agree on a shared account abstraction standard.
The two networks will now pursue separate approaches, with Ethereum backing EIP-8141 and Base pushing EIP-8130.
Both are designed to make Ethereum wallets easier to use, including features like… pic.twitter.com/uM6Af7jxl4
— That Martini Guy ₿ (@MartiniGuyYT) September 15, 2026
Ethereum and Base: What Did the Failed Talks Try to Reconcile?
The initiative sought to integrate Base’s EIP-8130—authored by Coinbase engineer Chris Hunter—with Ethereum’s EIP-8141. EIP-8130 combines a novel transaction type with an onchain Keystore, requiring each transaction to specify its validating authenticator to ensure predictable costs for nodes. Conversely, EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions) divides a transaction into “frames,” enabling an account to define its validation and gas payment parameters directly through code.
While offering greater flexibility, EIP-8141 introduces a heavier computational load for high-throughput chains and has been designated as a “must-ship” feature for Hegotá, Ethereum’s upcoming hard fork.
Fundamentally, the two chains have divergent objectives: Ethereum prioritizes security, privacy, and censorship resistance, whereas Base focuses on customization, scale, and compliance. Although EIP-8130 accounts will retain connectivity to other networks via the established ERC-4337 standard—the smart-wallet framework previously utilized by both chains—this compatibility eases but does not erase the interoperability penalty.
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
Market Intelligence: Crypto Analyst Predicts Best New Crypto to Hodl
Ethereum News: Chiang’s Account of Why Compromise Failed
Reflecting on the technical explorations leading up to the split, Chiang noted: “While we identified a number of technical solutions, they all required one side or the other to compromise at least a little bit on their core goals.”
This perspective attributes the breakdown not to a scarcity of engineering choices, but to an unwillingness on both networks to compromise their primary goals—an outcome reflecting how ecosystem migrations unfold. Similar to recent events seen during Ethereum’s Harmony migration, interoperability friction regularly emerges once technical paths diverge.
Consequently, the extra workload shifts to smart wallets, which may now need to support both transaction formats to accommodate users across both Base and Ethereum. As Chiang summarized: “So separate ways we went, putting the burden on wallets to deal with the fragmentation that ensues.”
Whether wallet providers can manage this complexity transparently to users remains the central question the industry must now resolve.
Market Intelligence: Crypto Security Analyst Recommends Best Anonymous Crypto Wallets
next
