Senior Software Engineer @Offchain | prev @zerodev_app (acquired) | my views are my own and do not represent that of my employer
- Tweets 1,274
- Following 1,527
- Followers 642
- Likes 4,898
πππππππππππ.πππ π΄ββ οΈ retweeted
Sharing FrameTx Toolkit & vFrames, two ways to experiment with frame transactions today.
Demo: vframes.taek.tech
Code: github.com/leekt/FrameTx-tooβ¦
6
8
69
35,968
Current:
EOA: account has ETH -> account pays the fees in ETH
EOA with 7702 or 4337 Smart Account: you pay paymaster in USDC and they pay gas in ETH
8141:
Similar to second case above but better plus natively
Bottomline gas fees = ethereum:native always!
Gas Abstraction Wonβt Remove ETHβs Core Demand
This is the part many people are missing.
If EIP-8141 enables users to pay fees in $USDC or other assets, it mainly changes who handles the ethereum:native payment, not what the Ethereum network ultimately relies on.
User pays USDC β Paymaster handles ETH β Ethereum receives ETH for Gas
So users may no longer need to personally hold ethereum:native for every transaction, but wallets, Paymasters and applications still need ethereum:native to interact with and settle on Ethereum.
And ethereum:native has another core role:
Ethereum's security depends on ETH staking.
Validators need to stake ETH to secure the network, process transactions and maintain consensus.
So changing the front-end payment asset does not remove the underlying demand for ETH.
In fact, Gas abstraction could be a net positive if it removes a major UX barrier and brings more users and transactions to Ethereum.
The real risk is not βpeople pay Gas with USDC.β
The real risk is Ethereum failing to generate enough additional activity after removing that friction.
If adoption grows, ETH can become less visible to users but remain essential underneath the network.
Different payment asset β disappearing ETH demand.
96
πππππππππππ.πππ π΄ββ οΈ retweeted
another friday, another tea @4seasDeSoc
i have the most interesting friends to talk infrastructure today. we went from bouncing rpc ideas, to zk, to hardware acceleration, to religious scams, and everything in between π΄π΅
@ShlVee @TheVinhNguyen4
2
2
5
222
πππππππππππ.πππ π΄ββ οΈ retweeted
Frames are all you need.
lightclient.io/blog/frames-aβ¦
13
39
191
122,615
πππππππππππ.πππ π΄ββ οΈ retweeted
TLDR: Frames (8141) was just SFI-ed, but it was only meant to signal that Ethereum WILL ship AA in Hegota. It does NOT mean that Frames as written, or even the final EIP number, are set in stone.
In the ACDE I was pushing against making the SFI decision now, given that the public pushbacks against Frames and support for 8130 have not been sufficiently addressed. So I felt SFI-ing Frames right at this moment would send the wrong signal that ACD doesn't care about community feedback. However, ACD moderators later clarified that SFI-ing Frames is intended to only signal the ACD's commitment to ship AA, not to Frames's specific content or even the final EIP number.
Therefore, this decision does NOT affect the ongoing collaboration between 8130 and 8141, where we are trying to either:
- Settle on a shared transaction type that is both flexible and future-proof enough for the L1, and is friendly for the scaling needs of L2s.
- Or, if the above is not achievable, then at least ensure that 8130 accounts can be built on top of Frames, so that a 8130 account can share the same address across L1 and L2s, even if it has to use two different transaction types under the hood.
In any case, Ethereum WILL ship native AA in Hegota, because Ethereum L1 and L2s deserve the best UX in Web3. Let's get this done.
AA update: The Frame Transactions EIP was moved today to Scheduled status for the HegotΓ‘ upgrade. It was proposed as a headliner and moved in March of this year to Considered status. There was strong consensus that it was important to ship Account Abstraction in HegotΓ‘ even if the specific implementation was still up for debate.
There's been a lot of progress in the past few weeks as another implementation, EIP-8130, became a contender. This EIP is scheduled to be shipped on @base in September. It spurred productive conversation async and in a breakout this past Tuesday about the best way to not fracture standards across the ecosystem by shipping two incompatible Account Abstraction implementations between the L1 and L2s.
The crux of the issue is arriving at a shared transaction type that both preserves flexibility and future-proofness for the L1 and allows L2s to statically analyze transactions for performance and DoS-resistance reasons. At a minimum, we should make sure that the AA scheme we adopt for the L1 is flexible enough that 8130, or any future account system, can be built on top of it so that from the user's perspective the same account can work across L1 and L2s.
Authors of both EIPs, core devs, researchers, and testing teams have been working toward a solution that respects the imperative to get Account Abstraction in the next fork without delay but avoids fracturing ecosystem standards.
That said - Account Abstraction _will_ ship in HegotΓ‘, so core devs decided today to move EIP-8141 from Considered to Scheduled today. This was made with the caveat that the version of Account Abstraction that ships in HegotΓ‘ may significantly change from what's on the HegotΓ‘ Meta EIP right now: potentially the EIP number, the transaction type, etc.
The move to Scheduled doesn't materially change the conversation that's been happening over the past few weeks or enshrine the current spec. When an EIP is proposed as a headliner and moved to Scheduled, it just signals an intention to make the fork schedule dependent on that feature being shipped. It's more common than not for the implementation to change significantly between being Scheduled and shipping.
Big appreciation to @_chunter of @base, @Offchain, @EthLabs_org, and client teams for moving the conversation forward. Progress is ongoing and can be followed at the AA breakouts on Tuesdays at 14:00 UTC or asynchronously on Forkcast.
8
17
91
10,364
πππππππππππ.πππ π΄ββ οΈ retweeted
=== @Offchainβs stance on Native AA: EIP-8141 vs EIP-8130 ===
We are very happy that ACD is considering Native AA as a Hegota headliner, and think it is essential for L1 to adopt it.
For @Arbitrum, we evaluate Native AA designs based on throughput, DoS risk, DevEx, and wallet UX/security.
TLDR ->
β’ To support 8141 in Arbitrum Nitro, we need pure verification frames to become the default validation path. We are working with @ethereumfndn, @ethlabs_org, @base, & @WalletConnect on this direction.
β’ We also support an optional Guarantor mechanism, where another account can safely pay for the transaction. We will propose this separately.
β’ Offchain is reviewing the prospect of proposing that the Arbitrum DAO adopt 8130 first. It provides the guarantees needed today, covers the main user flows & does not prevent adding 8141 later.
β’ We think 8130 deserves genuine consideration in this headliner process, but we are not explicitly asking ACD to adopt it.
β’ If ACD converges on a modified 8141 for L1, we will support this effort and reconsider implementing it alongside 8130.
What matters most to us: Native AA standards designed with L2s in mind, in compatible ways, so wallets and infra can support them.
Full statement below π
7
11
59
5,254
πππππππππππ.πππ π΄ββ οΈ retweeted
Part 3 of 3 in ERC-4337: A Retrospective
1
2
22
1,627
πππππππππππ.πππ π΄ββ οΈ retweeted
Part 1 of 3 in ERC-4337: A Retrospective
6
27
2,762
Hunting for testnet tokens is one of the worst part of Web3 dev.
Props to @tempo for a faucet that drops 4M tokens straight from the docs.
9
161
me: "... what it's like being a developer amongst all this AI progress"
claude:
me: "can you use whatever resources you like, and python, to generate a short 'youtube poop' video and render it using ffmpeg ? can you put more of a personal spin on it? it should express what it's like to be a LLM"
claude opus 4.6:
1
285
