Ethereum and Base Abandon Common Standard for Crypto Wallets

End of the game for the unique standard. After months of discussions, Ethereum developers and Base engineers have abandoned their efforts to converge their work on the transaction format for future programmable wallets. The main network is moving forward with EIP-8141, while the Coinbase-backed rollup is pushing EIP-8130.

The consequence is immediate for technical teams: a wallet or application deployed on both networks will have to manage two distinct transaction formats, along with the maintenance and risks that entails.

Key Points

• Ethereum and Base have ended discussions on a common transaction format for programmable wallets.
• The main network retains EIP-8141, while Coinbase's rollup will deploy EIP-8130 on its own schedule.
• Wallets, indexers, and audit tools will need to maintain two code paths, with a risk of different addresses depending on the chain.
• The ERC-5792 standard already allows applications to remain agnostic to this divergence.

Ethereum and Base: Two Competing EIPs for the Same Goal

Both proposals aim at the same target, native account abstraction. Behind this term lies a simple idea. A classic Ethereum account, called an EOA (externally owned account, an account controlled by a private key), can only do one thing: sign a transaction and pay its fees in ether.

Account abstraction inscribes into the protocol the logic of a programmable wallet, capable of paying gas in another token, chaining multiple operations under a single signature, authenticating via passkey, or delegating a temporary session key to an application.

The project has been dragging on for years. ERC-4337, deployed in 2023, brought these functions without touching the protocol, at the cost of a parallel infrastructure of bundlers and an increased gas cost. EIP-7702, delivered with the Pectra update, then allowed a classic account to delegate its execution to smart contract code. The native version goes further: it creates a type of transaction validated directly by the network's clients, without external support.

The disagreement lies in the architecture of this new type of transaction and the order of validation steps. The core devs, the developers of the Ethereum protocol, have settled on EIP-8141 for a future layer 1 update. Base advocates for EIP-8130 and has no reason to wait: the rollup controls its sequencer and node software, giving it control over its own deployment schedule.

![After months of discussions, Ethereum developers and Base engineers have abandoned their efforts to converge their work on the transaction format for future programmable wallets. The main network is moving forward with EIP-8141, while the Coinbase-backed rollup is pushing EIP-8130.

The consequence is immediate for technical teams: a wallet or application deployed on both networks will have to manage two distinct transaction formats, along with the maintenance and risks that entails.](https://journalducoin-com.exactdn.com/app/uploads/2026/09/Ethereum-Base-blockchain-wallet-crypto-standards-communs.png?strip=all&quality=90&webp=90&lazy=1) ![After months of discussions, Ethereum developers and Base engineers have abandoned their efforts to converge their work on the transaction format for future programmable wallets. The main network is moving forward with EIP-8141, while the Coinbase-backed rollup is pushing EIP-8130.

The consequence is immediate for technical teams: a wallet or an application deployed on both networks will have to manage two distinct transaction formats, along with the maintenance and risks that this entails. Ethereum and Base abandon their common standard project -- Source: Compte X JDC

Crypto Wallets on the Front Line

The bill falls first on wallet developers. MetaMask, Rabby, Safe, or Coinbase Wallet will have to maintain two code paths, test two signature schemes, and document two behaviors for the same user. Indexers, block explorers, transaction simulation services, and security audit tools will need to learn to read both formats.

A less visible detail worries developers more. The address of a smart account derives from its deployment parameters. Two transaction formats potentially involve two different account contracts, thus two distinct addresses for the same user depending on whether they are on the main network or on Base. The promise of a unique identity from one chain to another is therefore weakened.

Moreover, Base is not easily bypassed. Coinbase's rollup dominates layer 2 networks in terms of daily transaction volume and concentrates several billion dollars of value deposited in its protocols. No serious team can decide to ignore it under the pretext of simplifying its codebase.

Coinbase Charts the Course of Its Rollup

And Coinbase controls the entire chain. The exchange edits Base, its smart wallet Base Account, its payment brick Base Pay, and its public application. A divergent format therefore costs it much less than an independent publisher, since it delivers the wallet responsible for understanding it. For others, the burden adds to an already long list of specificities unique to each rollup.

The fragmentation of layer 2 has mobilized Ethereum developers for two years. The Ethereum Foundation funds a layer of interoperability and shared intent standards so that the transition from one rollup to another becomes invisible to the user. The account transaction format currently escapes this harmonization.

A safeguard already exists. ERC-5792, or Wallet Call API, allows an application to send a batch of operations to the wallet without knowing anything about the execution mechanics retained behind it. Coinbase Wallet and MetaMask support it. In most cases, application developers will therefore be able to remain agnostic and let wallet publishers absorb the gap between EIP-8141 and EIP-8130.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.