-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
f89356e
commit 3fcb849
Showing
2 changed files
with
83 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ | ||
# Why does it cost more on Ethereum L1? | ||
|
||
Smart Wallet transactions on Ethereum L1 (mainnet) generally cost more than regular EOA wallet transactions due to several technical factors and overhead costs. | ||
|
||
## Core Overhead Components | ||
|
||
When compared to an EOA (Externally Owned Account), Smart Wallets have additional overhead with: | ||
|
||
1. **ERC-4337 Bundling** | ||
- Bundlers require at least 27% base fee padding | ||
- Additional gas limits and preverification gas padding | ||
- Complex bundling verification process | ||
|
||
2. **Smart Contract Operations** | ||
- Contract deployment costs for first-time users | ||
- Multiple contract interactions per transaction | ||
- Additional security validations | ||
|
||
3. **Signature Verification** | ||
- WebAuthn + p256 signature verification overhead | ||
- More complex than standard ECDSA signatures used by EOAs | ||
|
||
## First-Time Deployment Costs | ||
|
||
The first transaction for any Smart Wallet account requires contract deployment, which can be particularly expensive on Ethereum L1. Current gas costs can easily exceed $100 for initial deployment. | ||
|
||
## Gas Cost Breakdown | ||
|
||
Here's a rough comparison of gas costs: | ||
|
||
| Operation Type | EOA Wallet | Smart Wallet | | ||
|---------------|------------|--------------| | ||
| Simple Transfer | ~21,000 gas | ~100,000 gas* | | ||
| Token Transfer | ~65,000 gas | ~150,000 gas* | | ||
| First Deployment | N/A | ~300,000+ gas* | | ||
|
||
*Note: Actual gas costs may vary significantly due to bundler padding and network conditions. | ||
|
||
## Recommended Solution: Use Layer 2 | ||
|
||
Due to these inherent costs, we strongly recommend using Layer 2 networks like: | ||
- Base | ||
- Optimism | ||
- Arbitrum | ||
|
||
Layer 2 solutions provide: | ||
- Significantly lower transaction fees | ||
- Same security guarantees | ||
- Full Smart Wallet functionality | ||
- Better user experience | ||
|
||
## Alternative Cost-Reduction Strategies | ||
|
||
If you must use L1, consider: | ||
- Batching multiple transactions together | ||
- Using gasless transactions with paymasters where available | ||
- Implementing session keys for frequent operations | ||
|
||
## Benefits vs Costs | ||
|
||
While L1 transactions are expensive, Smart Wallets provide crucial benefits: | ||
- Enhanced security features | ||
- Account recovery options | ||
- Transaction batching | ||
- Gasless transactions (on supported networks) | ||
- Programmable permissions | ||
- Future extensibility | ||
|
||
## Looking Forward | ||
|
||
While there may be opportunities to optimize bundler padding and gas limits in the future, L1 transactions will likely remain costly due to the inherent complexity of Smart Wallet operations. For cost-effective deployment, we strongly recommend using Layer 2 networks. | ||
|
||
Feel free to reach out to our team for more detailed discussions about gas optimization strategies or L2 deployment options! |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters