Original author: Haotian (X: @tmel0211)
What do you think of the recently hotly debated Ethereum proposal EIP-7702? Simply put, it is an optimized and advanced version of EIP-3074, which is more compatible with the ERC-4337 Ethereum account abstraction strategy. But in my opinion, calling for EIP-7702 caters to the orthodox development framework of ERC-4337, but will limit the unlimited potential of EIP-3074 in "invoker", which can only be regarded as a "compromise". Why? Next, share my views:
1) By definition, ERC-4337 is the most familiar to everyone. It allows users to delegate permissions to a new contract account address to control it, and then implement a series of account abstraction operations such as social recovery and gas payment to optimize the user operation experience through proxy contract functions such as Paymaster. ERC-4337 is in line with the most orthodox Ethereum permission management optimization development direction, but to onboard users to the account abstraction system, it must be independent of the original EOA address, which will incur a large "migration" cost;
EIP-3074 can give the original EOA address new smart contract capabilities through AUTH and AUTHCALL operations. Each EOA address can set an Invoker logic contract to expand functions. Invoker has great customization of transaction logic and permission control functions, which is flexible enough. The disadvantage is that once the invoker contract does evil, it will cause great asset damage to users.
EIP-7702 is a "compromise" proposal between ERC-3074 and ERC-4337. It upgrades the EIP-3074 solution, allowing users to upgrade their EOA address to a contract-controlled state only once in the current transaction, and restore the EOA state after the transaction is completed. Therefore, it can better fit the account abstraction framework of ERC-4337, while limiting the confusion that may be caused by the ultra-flexible state of EIP-3074.
2) @VitalikButerin will naturally do his best to maintain the ERC-4337 account abstraction logic. EIP-3074, which may deviate from the direction of the main development of ERC-4337, will naturally be "actively" promoted. Many people are worried that once the 3074 plan is deeply developed, it will induce a "hard fork" in Ethereum. In my opinion, it may be too worrying, unless one day in the future the ERC-4337 plan is abandoned and fully upgraded to EIP-3074. The two are parallel concepts. Moreover, the market has chosen 4337 as the development focus, but it does not mean that 3074 should be completely banned. The free invoker market pointed to by EIP-3074 actually has great potential.
In the 3074 standard framework, the invoker is the "authorized party" of the user's Delegate. If the invoker is suspicious, the user will undoubtedly lose assets, but if the invoker is friendly, it will accelerate the development of the "intent-centric" trading experience optimization track, which is highly anticipated. Because the intent-centric direction of the Sover market, which everyone is looking forward to, essentially depends on the invoker to design complex transaction logic in the contract: such as automated transaction dispatch; conditional triggering of the next transaction; automated asset allocation; batch collection of transactions; adding multi-signature approval transactions; transaction time limits; transaction integration with external systems; transaction financial management strategies, etc.
A fully flexible invoker market will accelerate the development of the intent track solver market, providing more flexible and customized services for specific groups of people, such as:
@ApertureFinance is building a new invoker infrastructure that is intent-driven, gasless, and has automated workflows. It has already had a trading volume of $2.6 billion and is favored by some institutional trading users.
For example, @bentobatch built a Streamlined Transaction layer based on the Wallet application, allowing users to simplify on-chain operations and provide simpler and cheaper transactions and usage experience.
In addition to optimizing the trading experience, @dappOS_com is also exploring the rapid implementation of intent infrastructure in terms of chain architecture, decentralized solver market incentives, and application implementation.
3) In my opinion, ERC-4337, as the mainstream orthodox "account abstraction" standard, has indeed become the benchmark for some layer 2 chains, middleware network services, and wallet service providers in the account rights and interests transformation and upgrades in the past few years, helping users to rapidly improve their transaction experience. But objectively speaking, the account abstraction standard is constrained by the stability of the Ethereum system framework in terms of customization, development experience, and transaction logic complexity, so the development and implementation speed is relatively limited.
In the short term, the invoker market pointed to by EIP-3074 does deviate from the direction of ERC-4337 account abstraction and may bring some malicious contract risks. However, if this invoker market is placed in a more diversified decentralized solver network market, the positive significance of the invoker free market may outweigh its negative impact.
The new EIP-7702 framework not only continues the "flexible account conversion" advantage of EIP-3074, but is also compatible with ERC-4337. However, the one-time grant of permissions cannot maximize the potential of "invoker" in the design and management of transaction logic complexity.
Although Invoker can also accept the EIP-7702 framework and adapt some products and services to accelerate the development of Solver. But Invoker will actually have more room for exploration by following the more free and extensible service upgrades of EIP-3074? (He is still Monkey King with the tight hoop, but he no longer has the ability to make trouble in heaven.
How should I put it? I tend to view ERC-4337 and EIP-3074 as two independent and parallel free markets. It would be a bit of a waste of time 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 an optimal solution. What do you think?