ERC-4337 vs EIP-3074: False Dichotomy

Account abstraction is reshaping the Ethereum ecosystem by redefining how users interact with their wallets and decentralized applications. Two major proposals—ERC-4337 and EIP-3074—are often pitted against each other as competing solutions. However, this comparison reflects a false dichotomy. Each approach addresses different layers of the account model and serves distinct user needs. Understanding their roles, capabilities, and limitations reveals a more nuanced landscape where both can coexist—and even complement—one another.

What Is Account Abstraction?

Every Ethereum account, whether externally owned (EOA) or contract-based, performs five core functions:

• Authentication – verifying identity
• Authorization – granting permissions
• Replay protection – preventing transaction reuse
• Gas payment – covering execution costs
• Execution – carrying out operations on-chain

Traditional EOAs implement these in a rigid, hardcoded manner:

• Authentication and authorization are tied to a single ECDSA private key.
• Replay protection uses a linear nonce.
• Gas is paid directly from the account’s ETH balance.
• Execution allows only one call to one destination per transaction.

Account abstraction introduces programmability into all five functions:

• Authentication: Support for alternative signature schemes (e.g., BLS, Schnorr, passkeys).
• Authorization: Granular access controls like multisig or role-based policies.
• Replay protection: Decoupling transaction ordering from replay prevention.
• Gas payment: Allowing third-party sponsorship or payment in tokens other than ETH.
• Execution: Enabling batched, multi-step transactions with atomic outcomes.

This flexibility unlocks powerful use cases that enhance security, usability, and accessibility across Web3.

👉 Discover how next-gen wallet architectures are transforming user experience.

Key Use Cases Enabled by Account Abstraction

The benefits of account abstraction extend far beyond technical upgrades—they translate into real-world improvements for end users:

• Advanced Signature Schemes: Transition from secp256k1 to post-quantum-resistant algorithms or hardware-backed passkeys (e.g., Apple’s iCloud Keychain).
• Key Management: Rotate compromised keys or set up inheritance mechanisms (e.g., "dead man’s switch" after prolonged inactivity).
• Access Control: Implement multisig approvals, time-locked actions, or dapp-specific session keys.
• Social Recovery: Regain access through trusted guardians instead of seed phrases.
• Parallel Transactions: Bypass nonce limitations to execute multiple independent transactions simultaneously.
• Gas Abstraction: Sponsor gas fees for users or pay in stablecoins—ideal for onboarding new users frictionlessly.
• Privacy Enhancements: Claim airdrops anonymously or withdraw from ZK rollups without exposing your identity.
• Transaction Batching: Combine approve + transfer in one atomic operation, improving UX and reducing failure risks.

These features collectively lower the barrier to entry and make decentralized applications more intuitive and secure.

ERC-4337 vs EIP-3074: Not a Competition

Despite frequent comparisons, ERC-4337 and EIP-3074 solve fundamentally different problems.

EIP-3074: Supercharging EOAs

EIP-3074 enhances EOAs by enabling them to delegate execution logic to “invoker” contracts via signed messages. This allows:

• Batched transactions from existing EOAs.
• Atomic swaps and complex dapp interactions without migrating funds.
• Simpler, gas-efficient upgrades for users who only need enhanced execution.

However, EIP-3074 does not alter the underlying account structure. It leaves untouched:

• Authentication (still ECDSA-only)
• Authorization (full control via private key)
• Replay protection (linear nonce remains)
• Gas payment (must use ETH from the same account)

Thus, it provides execution abstraction only, not full account abstraction.

ERC-4337: Full Account Abstraction Without Hard Forks

ERC-4337 delivers complete account abstraction at the smart contract level—no consensus changes required. It introduces a new architecture based on:

• UserOperations: Bundled user intents off-chain.
• Bundlers: Decentralized relayers that package and submit operations.
• Paymasters: Entities that sponsor gas fees.
• Account contracts: Programmable wallets with custom logic.

This design supports all five abstracted functions natively and works across any EVM-compatible chain immediately.

Unlike EIP-3074, ERC-4337 requires users to migrate assets to a smart contract account. But in return, they gain full flexibility: biometric login, social recovery, gasless transactions, and more.

👉 See how smart accounts are redefining digital ownership.

What Can Both Solve?

The only significant overlap between ERC-4337 and EIP-3074 is execution abstraction, enabling:

• Multi-call transaction batching (e.g., swap + stake + lock in one go).
• Atomic composability across protocols.
• Improved dapp UX through reduced clicks and predictable outcomes.

For developers focused solely on streamlining user workflows without overhauling identity systems, either solution may suffice—depending on deployment constraints.

What Can EIP-3074 Do That ERC-4337 Can’t?

EIP-3074 shines when minimal disruption is key:

• No migration needed: Users keep their existing EOAs and funds.
• Lower overhead: Ideal for lightweight execution upgrades.
• Better gas efficiency: Direct EOA signing avoids contract deployment costs.

It's perfect for legacy wallet holders who want incremental improvements without adopting new infrastructure.

What Can ERC-4337 Do That EIP-3074 Can’t?

ERC-4337 enables capabilities beyond EIP-3074’s scope:

• Cross-chain compatibility: Works instantly on all EVM chains—no hard forks.
• Permissionless innovation: Anyone can deploy an account; no whitelisting required.
• True gas abstraction: Pay with any token, sponsored by any party.
• Flexible authentication: Replace ECDSA with modern schemes like BLS or ZK proofs.
• Granular access control: Prevent private keys from bypassing security policies.
• Advanced replay protection: Support parallelizable nonces or time-based sequencing.

In short, ERC-4337 delivers full decentralization-preserving account abstraction today.

Can EIP-3074 + EIP-5003 Replace ERC-4337?

EIP-5003 allows an EOA to revoke its key and become a smart contract—a step toward full abstraction. However, post-migration access introduces critical challenges:

1. A secondary funded EOA is needed to send transactions → poor UX.
2. Relays must cover gas and get reimbursed → risk of DoS attacks → likely centralization.

These issues mirror exactly what ERC-4337 was built to solve: decentralized, permissionless transaction relaying via bundlers.

While EIP-5003 enables migration, it doesn’t resolve the core problem of decentralized access afterward. Thus, it highlights—not replaces—the need for ERC-4337.

Caveat: EOA Migration Considered Harmful

Migrating an EOA in place carries hidden risks:

• Revoked keys may still work on other chains or bridges.
• Off-chain systems using ecrecover could be exploited.
• permit signatures for ERC-20 tokens remain valid even after revocation.
• Cross-chain withdrawals might be hijacked using old keys.

Best practice? Deploy new smart accounts via CREATE2. Let future users start with account abstraction by default—no migration needed.

Is There Synergy Between ERC-4337 and EIP-3074?

Yes. On chains supporting EIP-3074, ERC-4337 projects can leverage invokers to optimize execution paths or reduce costs. For example:

• Use EIP-3074-style delegation within a smart account for specific high-efficiency operations.
• Bridge legacy EOAs into ERC-4337 ecosystems via temporary invoker patterns.

Rather than rivals, they’re complementary tools in the broader account abstraction toolkit.

RIP-7560: The Future of Native Account Abstraction

Both ERC-4337 and EIP-3074 are stepping stones toward native account abstraction. Enter RIP-7560—a protocol-level upgrade that integrates the best of both:

• Uses ERC-4337’s mempool and account model natively.
• Supports gas abstraction for EOAs out of the box.
• Enables future opcodes (like SETCODE) for seamless migration.
• Maintains backward compatibility.

ERC-4337 accounts can transition smoothly to RIP-7560 with minimal code changes. Even EOAs could eventually upgrade directly—though migration remains discouraged due to cross-chain risks.

Feedback is actively being gathered. If you care about the future of self-custody and user sovereignty, consider reviewing the RIP proposal.

👉 Explore how native account abstraction will redefine blockchain interactions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is ERC-4337 replacing EOAs?
A: Not immediately. It offers an alternative path—programmable smart accounts—that coexists with EOAs. Over time, as UX improves, adoption will grow organically.

Q: Does EIP-3074 require wallet support?
A: Yes. Wallets must whitelist approved invoker contracts for security, which limits permissionless innovation compared to ERC-4337.

Q: Can I use ERC-4337 today?
A: Absolutely. Major wallets like Argent, Okto, and Biconomy already support it across Ethereum and leading L2s.

Q: Which is better for dapp developers?
A: If you need full customization and cross-chain reach, go with ERC-4337. For simple execution upgrades on existing EOAs, EIP-3074 may suffice.

Q: Will RIP-7560 make ERC-4337 obsolete?
A: No. RIP-7560 builds on ERC-4337’s architecture. Existing implementations can evolve into native support without disruption.

Q: Do I need to migrate my old wallet?
A: Only if you want advanced features. Most users can adopt smart accounts gradually, starting with new deployments rather than migrating old ones.

Keywords: account abstraction, ERC-4337, EIP-3074, Ethereum wallet, smart account, gas abstraction, transaction batching, native account abstraction