Base and Ethereum Split on the Future of Smart Crypto Wallets

Base and Ethereum are no longer moving together on one of the most important upgrades for everyday crypto users.

The Coinbase-backed layer-2 network and Ethereum’s core development community are now pursuing different account-abstraction standards, according to a public update from Ethlabs co-founder Derek Chiang. In plain English, the two camps have split over how smart-wallet features should be built into the Ethereum ecosystem.

That matters because account abstraction is supposed to make crypto wallets feel less like raw blockchain tools and more like modern apps. It can support sponsored transaction fees, recovery options, batched actions and more flexible authorization rules.

Those improvements could remove some of the friction that still keeps regular users away.

CryptoSlate reported that collaboration around Base-backed EIP-8130 and Ethereum-focused EIP-8141 broke down, leaving the two efforts on separate tracks. The disagreement is technical, but the bigger story is strategic: a successful layer-2 network increasingly has its own users, product deadlines and commercial incentives.

Chiang described the split as the end of a working collaboration between the two efforts. His account puts the break in the week before his September 14 post and says the two sides will now implement different standards.

Both proposals address account abstraction, the collection of wallet improvements that can move signing and transaction logic beyond a simple private-key model. The immediate stakes include whether app developers can rely on one common path across Ethereum and Base or must support different behavior on each network.

The final specifications and adoption path remain unsettled. What is confirmed now is the separation itself—and the fact that a major Ethereum layer-2 is willing to choose its own route when priorities diverge.

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

Base Is Acting More Like Its Own Platform

Layer-2 networks were originally sold as extensions of Ethereum: they execute transactions more cheaply, then settle their results back to the main chain. That description remains technically useful, but it no longer captures the full economic reality.

Base has become a major destination in its own right. It has developers to satisfy, applications to support and users who expect features to ship quickly.

If Base believes one wallet standard fits those needs better, waiting for Ethereum’s broader consensus process may look like a competitive disadvantage.

Ethereum, meanwhile, has reasons to move carefully. A base-layer change affects a much wider set of participants and has to survive years of use.

The slow pace can be frustrating, but it is also part of the network’s security culture.

The split therefore does not automatically mean either proposal is wrong. It shows that the incentives of Ethereum and its largest layer-2 networks are not always identical.

it begins

the story that L2s are a great strategy for Ethereum will get less and less plausible. L2s are great—for the crypto industry and for people who own the sequencer! Not for Ethereum per se. For Ethereum, they are just kinda like "less bad" than competing L1s.

Ethereum… https://t.co/vVQeVDTeNK

— gabriel shapiro (@lex_node) September 14, 2026

The Risk Is Fragmentation

Competing standards can produce better ideas. They can also create new headaches for wallet developers and app teams that hoped to build once and work everywhere across Ethereum.

If Base wallets behave differently from wallets designed around Ethereum’s preferred standard, developers may need extra code, audits and testing. Users care less about protocol numbers than whether the same wallet feature works on one network and fails on another.

There is also an economic question underneath the technical fight. Layer-2 networks can capture transaction activity and sequencer revenue while relying on Ethereum for settlement and security.

Ethereum benefits when those networks drive demand for block space, but it also needs the broader system to remain coherent enough that value continues flowing back to ETH and the base layer.

For investors, the split is neither a simple bearish signal for Ethereum nor a guaranteed win for Base. It shows that the layer-2 era is entering a more mature—and more competitive—phase.

The next thing to watch is whether the two standards can remain interoperable despite their differences. If wallet makers can support both without much friction, the split may become healthy experimentation.

If compatibility breaks down, this moment could mark the beginning of a more fragmented Ethereum ecosystem.

Either way, Base just made one point impossible to ignore: the biggest Ethereum layer-2 networks are no longer behaving like passive scaling tools. They are becoming platforms with priorities of their own.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.