{"id":13243,"date":"2026-09-15T03:29:24","date_gmt":"2026-09-15T03:29:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=13243"},"modified":"2026-09-15T03:29:24","modified_gmt":"2026-09-15T03:29:24","slug":"coinbase-backed-base-just-exposed-the-uncomfortable-truth-about-ethereums-l2s","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=13243","title":{"rendered":"Coinbase-backed Base just exposed the uncomfortable truth about Ethereum\u2019s L2s"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

Ethereum and Coinbase-backed layer-2 network Base\u00a0have abandoned an effort to agree on how the next generation of crypto wallets should work.<\/p>\n

On Sept. 14, Ethlabs researcher Derek Chiang said collaboration between developers working on Ethereum\u2019s EIP-8141 Frame Transactions and Base\u2019s EIP-8130 broke down last week after attempts to produce a shared account-abstraction standard failed to reconcile the chains\u2019 different requirements.<\/p>\n

The split leaves Ethereum advancing Frames while Base pursues a separate design for native account abstraction, potentially forcing wallets to accommodate different transaction architectures across networks that have historically shared much of the same account and transaction experience.<\/p>\n

Both proposals seek to make wallets more programmable, supporting features such as gas sponsorship, passkeys, and flexible authentication. The disagreement emerged over how much freedom the protocol should give accounts and how much structure chains should impose on transactions before they execute.<\/p>\n

Chiang said:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cEthereum wanted to be the best version of Ethereum, and Base wanted to be the best version of Base.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The breakdown came only weeks after the projects were still trying to bridge those differences. Ethlabs said in late August that developers had held dedicated discussions around Frames and ideas from EIP-8130, even after Ethereum core developers gave EIP-8141 a strong signal toward inclusion in the Hegot\u00e1 upgrade.<\/p>\n

L2 competition pushes protocols in different directions<\/h2>\n

The failure exposes a structural problem that could become harder to contain as Ethereum\u2019s layer-2 (L2) blockchains mature into networks with their own users, commercial priorities, and development schedules.<\/p>\n

Ethereum core developer Matt Garnett said divergence among L2s was inevitable because market competition forces them to introduce features more rapidly than Ethereum L1 can.<\/p>\n

Garnett added:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cMarket pressure forces them to ship features at a pace that L1 cannot match, so incompatibilities accumulate. Time will tell whether that is a strength or weakness.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That pressure shows up in competing account-abstraction designs.<\/p>\n

EIP-8141 introduces Frame Transactions, which break a transaction into programmable calls that can handle validation, execution, and gas payment.<\/p>\n

The proposal is designed to detach accounts from the elliptic-curve keys that dominate Ethereum today, enable key rotation, and provide a path toward post-quantum authentication. Its stated goal is to allow an account to become an address whose behavior is defined by code.<\/p>\n

EIP-8130 takes a more structured approach. Written by Coinbase engineer Chris Hunter, it requires transactions to identify their authenticator so nodes can determine the validation work required before executing arbitrary wallet code. Its current draft describes that structure as a way to make validation predictable and allow nodes to reject unknown authenticators before execution.<\/p>\n

For Ethereum mainnet, Chiang said the priority is what he calls \u201cCROPS\u201d: censorship and capture resistance, open-source software, privacy, and security.<\/p>\n