Months of talks to merge EIP-8141 and EIP-8130 ended without agreement, and each side is now shipping its own transaction type. Base's version is scheduled to reach a live network first.
Ethereum's core developers and the team building Base have stopped trying to merge their two account abstraction proposals, and each side now intends to ship its own. Derek Chiang, a developer at EthLabs, said the effort had collapsed the previous week, an account The Block reported on September 15 and CoinDesk on September 16: engineers found technical bridges between the two designs, but every one of them required Ethereum or Base to give up something it treated as a core goal.
The two proposals start from different problems. EIP-8141, titled Frame Transaction, is a draft created on January 29, 2026. It splits a transaction into a sequence of frames that separately validate the sender, approve whoever is paying for gas, and execute the call. The specification's stated motivation is to give Ethereum a native off-ramp from the elliptic-curve cryptography it uses to authenticate transactions today toward post-quantum systems, to allow key rotation without changing an address, to simplify smart accounts, and to support fee payment schemes that do not run through a centralized relayer. Ten authors are listed, among them Vitalik Buterin and Chiang himself.
EIP-8130, titled Keystore Accounts, is the older of the two. It was created on October 14, 2025 and lists a single author, Chris Hunter of Coinbase. It adds a transaction type and an onchain keystore contract that records which signers and authenticator contracts each account accepts. The specification argues that proposals which delegate validation to wallet code force nodes to simulate arbitrary EVM execution before they can accept a transaction. Holding the authenticator set in a shared contract instead lets a node filter transactions on the identity of the authenticator rather than by running an account's own code.
Both newsrooms describe the same division of priorities. Ethereum's developers weighted censorship resistance, privacy and security. Base weighted scale, customization and compliance. The authorship lists point the same way: EIP-8130 carries one author, a Coinbase engineer, and Coinbase is the company behind Base, while EIP-8141 carries ten, including Buterin and the EthLabs developer whose account of the breakdown is the one now in circulation.
Neither proposal is final. Both are marked Draft, so the text of each can still change before it reaches a network. Ethereum has made EIP-8141 a must-ship item for Hegotá, the hard fork that follows Glamsterdam, and no date for Hegotá has been published. Base plans to deploy EIP-8130 in its Cobalt upgrade, with testnet and mainnet deployments listed for September 2026, according to CoinDesk.
That timing is the asymmetry worth watching. Base's transaction type is scheduled to reach a live network this month, while Ethereum's sits behind an upgrade with no published date. For as long as that gap lasts, the fragmentation runs one way. An application that wants keystore accounts can have them on Base well before frames exist on Ethereum's own layer.
For wallet software the result is two native transaction formats where there was meant to be one. A wallet serving both chains has to construct and sign both, and it has to look in two different places for the rules governing an account: at the account's own address under frames, and in a shared keystore contract under EIP-8130. That lands on teams already adjusting to Glamsterdam, whose gas repricing the Ethereum Foundation warned would break any tool that hard-codes a maximum gas limit. Chiang said wallet-level work could still hide the split from users if both proposals ship, which is a claim about what wallets can paper over rather than about the protocols converging.
One thing EIP-8141 would not do is make Ethereum quantum-safe. Its post-quantum language describes an off-ramp, a route by which an account could adopt a different signature scheme later, and the proposal contains no post-quantum cryptography itself. The Foundation's protocol team has set December 2029 as the date by which Ethereum's execution, consensus and data layers must all survive a quantum computer, and the Hegotá documents it published this month contain no post-quantum code at all. Frames would supply part of the migration path rather than the destination.
What the reports establish is the output rather than the argument. Two draft transaction types are now on two upgrade tracks, the only public account of how the talks ended comes from a developer listed as an author of one of them, and Base's version is the one with a date.
