How do you view Vitalik's support for EIP-7702: Will it sacrifice the unlimited potential of the EIP-3074 invoker market?
ERC-4337 and EIP-3074 are two independent parallel free markets. It would be somewhat short-sighted to abandon the broader potential of EIP-3074 in order to maintain the legitimacy of ERC-4337.
Author: Haotian
How do you view the recent hotly debated Ethereum new proposal EIP-7702? In simple terms, it is an optimized advanced version of EIP-3074, more compatible with the strategic abstraction of ERC-4337 Ethereum accounts. However, in my opinion, advocating for EIP-7702 to cater to the orthodox development framework of ERC-4337 will limit the unlimited potential of EIP-3074 on the "invoker," only counting as a compromise. Why? Next, I will share my views:
1) In terms of definition, ERC-4337 is the most familiar to everyone, allowing users to delegate permissions to a brand new contract account address for control, thereby optimizing user experience through a series of account abstraction operations such as social recovery and gas payment via functions like Paymaster. ERC-4337 conforms to the most orthodox direction of Ethereum permission management optimization development, but onboarding users to the account abstraction system independently of the original EOA address will incur significant "migration" costs;
EIP-3074 can empower the original EOA address with new smart contract capabilities through AUTH and AUTHCALL operations, allowing each EOA address to set up an Invoker logic contract to expand functionality. Invokers have great customization in transaction logic and permission control functions, flexible enough, but the downside is that if the invoker contract behaves maliciously, it can cause significant asset damage to users;
EIP-7702 is a "compromise" proposal between 3074 and 4337, upgrading the EIP-3074 solution, allowing users to upgrade their EOA address to a contract control state only once in the current transaction, and then restore the EOA state after the transaction ends. Therefore, it can better fit the account abstraction framework of ERC-4337 while also constraining the potential chaos that may arise from the super-flexible state of EIP-3074.
2) @VitalikButerin will naturally vigorously maintain the account abstraction logic of ERC-4337, and proposals like EIP-3074 that may deviate from the mainstream development direction of ERC-4337 will naturally not be "actively" promoted. Many people worry that if the 3074 solution is deeply developed, it may trigger a "hard fork" in Ethereum. In my opinion, perhaps this concern is exaggerated unless one day the ERC-4337 solution is abandoned in favor of a full upgrade to EIP-3074, as the two are parallel concepts. Moreover, the market has already chosen 4337 as the focus of development, but that does not mean 3074 should be completely abolished; the free invoker market that EIP-3074 points to actually has great potential.
Invoker in the standard framework of 3074 is the "authorizer" for user delegation. If the invoker is suspicious, users will undoubtedly lose assets, but if the invoker is friendly, it will accelerate the development of the highly anticipated transaction experience optimization track focused on "intent-centric." Because the Sover market that everyone expects in the intent-centric direction fundamentally relies on invokers designing complex transaction logic in contracts: such as automated payment transactions; condition-triggered next-step transactions; automated asset allocation; batch collection of transactions; addition of multi-signature approval transactions; time-limited transactions; integration with external systems; transaction financial management strategies, and so on.
A completely flexible invoker market will accelerate the development of the intent track Sover solver market, allowing for more flexible and customized fine services for specific groups, such as:
@ApertureFinance is building a new type of invoker infrastructure that is intent-driven, Gasless, and automated workflow, with a trading volume of $26 billion, favored by some institutional trading users;
For example, @bentobatch has built a Streamlined Transaction transaction layer based on the Wallet application, allowing users to simplify on-chain operations for a simpler, cheaper trading and usage experience.
In addition to optimizing the trading experience, @dappOS_com is also exploring the rapid landing of Intent infrastructure in chain architecture and decentralized Solver market incentives and application directions.
3) In my view, ERC-4337 as the mainstream orthodox "account abstraction" standard has indeed become a benchmark for some layer2 chains, middleware network services, and wallet service providers in the account rights reform and upgrade in the past few years, helping users achieve rapid improvement in transaction usage experience. However, objectively speaking, account abstraction standards are limited in customization, development experience, transaction logic complexity, etc., due to the constraints of Ethereum system framework stability, so the development and implementation speed is relatively limited.
In the short term, the invoker market pointed to by EIP-3074 does indeed deviate from the direction of ERC-4337 account abstraction and may bring some risks of malicious contracts. However, if we look at this invoker market in a more diverse decentralized Solver solver network market, the positive significance of the free market of Invokers may outweigh its negative impact.
The brand new EIP-7702 framework not only continues the advantages of "flexible account transformation" of EIP-3074 but is also sufficiently compatible with ERC-4337. However, one-time permission granting does not maximize the potential of "invoker" in designing and managing transaction logic complexity.
Although Invoker can also accept the EIP-7702 framework and adapt some products and services to accelerate the enrichment of the Solver solver development. However, the exploration space for Invoker to upgrade services freely along the lines of EIP-3074 is actually larger? (Even with a tight spell, Monkey King has lost the ability to make a big scene in the Heavenly Palace.
How should I put it? I tend to view ERC-4337 and EIP-3074 as two independent parallel free markets. It would be somewhat short-sighted to completely abandon the broader development potential of EIP-3074 in order to maintain the orthodoxy of ERC-4337. Of course, in the short term, using EIP-7702 as a transition is also a kind of optimal solution. What do you think?
Disclaimer: everything in the article represents the author's point of view and has nothing to do with this platform. This article is not intended to be used as a reference for making investment decisions.
