Ethereum and Base Abandon Shared Wallet Standard After Prolonged Discussions

In recent weeks, two of the most prominent blockchain platforms—Ethereum and Base—have announced that they will no longer pursue a unified wallet standard after months of negotiation and technical deliberation. This decision marks a pivotal shift in how developers, users, and service providers will have to approach cross‑chain interactions, especially for those who aim to build tools that seamlessly operate on both networks. ## Background and the original goal of a common standard The blockchain ecosystem has long been plagued by fragmentation. Every new protocol or layer‑2 solution typically introduces its own set of transaction formats, signing methods, and address encoding schemes.

For end‑users, this translates into a confusing landscape where a single wallet might need to support dozens of different specifications, each with its own quirks. To alleviate this pain point, the community rallied around the idea of a universal wallet standard that could be adopted by multiple networks, allowing developers to write code once and have it work everywhere. Ethereum, the world’s most widely used smart‑contract platform, proposed **EIP‑8141** as a candidate for this shared specification. The proposal outlined a set of rules for transaction construction, signature handling, and fee calculation that would be compatible with the existing Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) semantics while also being extensible enough for emerging use cases.

Meanwhile, Base—a relatively new layer‑2 solution backed by Coinbase—introduced **EIP‑8130**, a similar but distinct approach that prioritized certain performance optimizations and introduced a slightly different fee model. Both proposals were drafted with the intention of converging on a single, interoperable standard. Over several months, engineers from Ethereum, Base, wallet providers, and decentralized application (dApp) developers engaged in a series of working groups, webinars, and code reviews. The discussions were thorough, covering everything from cryptographic primitives to backward compatibility with legacy contracts.

## Why the talks fell apart Despite the collaborative spirit, several technical and strategic disagreements emerged that proved difficult to reconcile: 1. **Fee Mechanism Divergence**: EIP‑8141 retained Ethereum’s legacy gas‑price model, which calculates fees based on a combination of gas limit, gas price, and the base fee introduced by the London hard fork. EIP‑8130, on the other hand, advocated for a more dynamic, market‑driven fee structure that could adapt in real time to network congestion on Base.

Aligning these two models would have required a complex hybrid system, potentially increasing the attack surface and confusing users. 2.

**Signature Scheme Compatibility**: Ethereum’s standard relies heavily on the secp256k1 elliptic curve, whereas Base’s proposal introduced optional support for newer curves like ed25519 to improve performance on certain hardware. The inclusion of multiple curve options raised concerns about wallet security audits and the need for additional validation logic. 3.

**Governance and Road‑map Alignment**: Ethereum’s development process is governed by a broad, community‑driven roadmap, while Base’s direction is more closely tied to Coinbase’s product strategy. This difference in governance meant that any compromise would have to be approved by two distinct decision‑making bodies, each with its own priorities and timelines. 4.

**Backward Compatibility Constraints**: A large portion of Ethereum’s existing dApps and smart contracts are built around the current transaction format. Introducing a unified standard that deviated significantly could have broken legacy contracts, requiring costly migrations.

Base was more willing to adopt a fresh approach, given its relatively younger ecosystem. These points, among others, created a stalemate.

After extensive analysis, both parties concluded that forcing a single standard would likely result in a sub‑optimal solution that satisfied neither network’s long‑term vision. ## The official statements Ethereum’s core developers released a concise statement emphasizing that **EIP‑8141** will move forward as the network’s official standard for upcoming upgrades. The message highlighted that the proposal had undergone rigorous peer review and would be integrated into the next major hard fork, ensuring smoother user experiences for those staying within the Ethereum ecosystem. Conversely, Base’s engineering team announced that **EIP‑8130** will become the default transaction format for all contracts deployed on the Base chain.

They noted that this decision aligns with Base’s goal of delivering faster transaction finality and lower fees, especially for high‑throughput applications such as decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols and gaming platforms. Both statements acknowledged the disappointment of wallet developers who hoped for a single, universal standard. However, they also reassured the community that extensive documentation and migration guides would be provided to ease the transition.

## Implications for wallets and dApps The split means that wallet providers now face the practical challenge of supporting two distinct transaction formats. For a wallet that wants to be truly multi‑chain—allowing users to manage assets on both Ethereum and Base—developers will need to implement logic that detects the target network and automatically applies the correct signing and fee calculation method. ### Technical adjustments required - **Network Detection**: The wallet must query the chain ID and retrieve the appropriate EIP version before constructing a transaction. - **Dual Signature Support**: Implementations should be capable of handling both secp256k1 and ed25519 signatures, offering fallback mechanisms where necessary.

- **Fee Estimation Engines**: Separate algorithms will be needed to estimate gas costs on Ethereum (using the existing EIP‑1559 model) versus Base’s more fluid fee market. - **User Interface Clarity**: Users should be informed when they are signing a transaction on Base versus Ethereum, as the underlying fee dynamics differ. ### Opportunities for innovation While the divergence adds complexity, it also opens doors for creative solutions.

Some developers are already exploring middleware layers that abstract away the differences, presenting a unified API to end‑users while handling the translation behind the scenes. Others see this as a chance to build specialized wallets that cater exclusively to Base’s ecosystem, taking advantage of its optimized fee structure.

## Looking ahead The decision to pursue separate standards does not signal an end to cross‑chain collaboration. Both Ethereum and Base remain committed to interoperability through bridges, token wrappers, and shared smart‑contract standards such as ERC‑20 and ERC‑721. In fact, the experience gained from these discussions may inform future attempts at standardization, perhaps focusing on higher‑level abstractions rather than low‑level transaction formats. Developers and users should stay tuned for upcoming documentation releases, SDK updates, and community workshops that will detail the implementation steps for each standard.

By embracing the nuances of both EIP‑8141 and EIP‑8130, the broader blockchain ecosystem can continue to evolve, offering richer experiences while respecting the distinct technical philosophies of each network.