When building applications using crypto, one of the most critical architectural decisions is choosing between Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) and Smart Wallets. This choice fundamentally shapes your user experience, security model, and technical implementation. With the introduction of EIP-7702, a third option has emerged: Smart EOAs, which combine the best of both worlds.
This comprehensive guide examines all three approaches, their trade-offs, and provides clear decision-making frameworks for developers and product teams navigating this crucial decision.
Understanding the Three Wallet Architectures
The blockchain wallet landscape has evolved significantly since Ethereum's launch. What began with simple key-pair accounts has expanded into programmable wallets with sophisticated features. Today, developers must understand three distinct architectures, each with unique characteristics that make them suitable for different use cases.
Externally Owned Accounts: The Foundation of Web3
An Externally Owned Account (EOA) represents the original and simplest account type on Ethereum and all EVM-compatible chains. These accounts are controlled entirely by a single private key, following the same cryptographic principles that have secured digital assets since Bitcoin's inception.
The elegance of EOAs lies in their simplicity. When you generate a key pair, you immediately have a functioning blockchain account that requires no deployment, no onchain setup, and no additional infrastructure. This account works seamlessly across every dApp, every chain, and every wallet interface that supports EVM compatibility. Popular wallets like MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet, and Phantom all create EOAs by default when users set up new accounts.
However, this simplicity comes with inherent limitations. EOAs cannot execute code, cannot implement custom authorization logic, and cannot recover from lost keys. Every transaction must be signed directly by the private key, and every fee must be paid in the network's native token. The account is, in essence, a pure cryptographic construct with no programmability layer.
Smart Wallets: Programmability Meets Account Management
Smart Wallets, also known as Smart Contract Wallets or Account Abstraction Wallets, represent a fundamental reimagining of what a blockchain account can be. Instead of a simple key-controlled account, a Smart Wallet is a smart contract deployed on the blockchain, with its behavior defined by programmable code.
This programmability unlocks capabilities that were impossible with traditional EOAs. Smart Wallets can implement multi-signature schemes where multiple parties must approve transactions, enforcing organizational governance onchain. They can include recovery mechanisms that allow trusted guardians to help restore access if primary keys are lost. They support spending limits, time-locked operations, and sophisticated authorization policies that adapt based on transaction context.
The user experience improvements are equally significant. Through ERC-4337 and similar standards, Smart Wallets enable gas abstraction, meaning users can pay transaction fees in USDC, or have fees sponsored entirely by the application. Multiple operations can be batched into single transactions, dramatically simplifying complex workflows. Session keys allow limited permissions for specific use cases without exposing full account control.
Companies like Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) have built their entire value proposition around Smart Wallet security for institutional treasury management. Wallets like Argent and Sequence have focused on consumer experiences that rival traditional fintech applications. These implementations demonstrate that Smart Wallets aren't just theoretically superior—they enable experiences that fundamentally couldn't exist with EOAs.
The tradeoff, of course, is complexity. Smart Wallets must be deployed as contracts, incurring deployment costs of 100,000 to 300,000 gas per account. They require bundler infrastructure to process transactions, paymaster contracts to handle gas sponsorship, and more sophisticated key management systems. Each transaction carries additional overhead compared to simple EOA transfers, and the programmability introduces new attack surfaces that must be carefully audited.
Smart EOAs: The Hybrid Evolution with EIP-7702
EIP-7702 introduces a groundbreaking middle path that gives existing EOAs smart contract capabilities without requiring users to migrate to new addresses or deploy separate contracts. This proposal, which is being implemented as part of Ethereum's Pectra upgrade, enables EOAs to temporarily delegate their execution to smart contracts.
The mechanism works through a new transaction type that allows users to authorize their EOA to delegate to a specific smart contract implementation. Once authorized, transactions sent to that EOA execute the delegated contract's code rather than the basic EOA logic. Critically, this delegation is reversible—users can change or remove delegations, and they can continue using their account as a standard EOA whenever smart features aren't needed.
This approach solves several of the most challenging problems in Web3 wallet adoption. Users keep their existing addresses, preserving their entire transaction history, NFT collections, and reputation across dApps. There are no deployment costs to bear upfront, making smart features accessible without financial barriers. The same address works across all EVM chains without requiring separate deployments on each network, avoiding the fragmentation that plagues traditional Smart Wallet approaches.
The limitations are important to understand as well. The original EOA private key retains ultimate control and can override any delegation, meaning Smart EOAs don't eliminate the single-key risk that makes EOAs vulnerable. For use cases requiring true multi-signature security or irrevocable escrow arrangements, full Smart Wallets remain the better choice. Smart EOAs are best understood as EOAs with selectively enabled smart features rather than true Smart Wallets with EOA backward compatibility.
Comprehensive Comparison: Which Architecture Fits Your Needs?
| Feature | EOA | Smart Wallet | Smart EOA (EIP-7702) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setup Cost | Free | 100-300k gas | Free |
| Transaction Cost | Lowest (21k-65k gas) | Highest (+30-40% overhead) | Minimal (with delegation overhead) |
| Multi-signature | Not supported | Native support | Limited (EOA key overrides) |
| Account Recovery | Impossible if key lost | Social recovery, guardians | Depends on delegation |
| Gas Abstraction | Must hold native tokens | Paymaster support | Paymaster when delegated |
| Transaction Batching | Not supported | Multiple ops per tx | Supported when delegated |
| Key Rotation | Requires fund migration | Same address, new keys | EOA key remains fixed |
| dApp Compatibility | Universal | May have issues with older dApps | Backward compatible |
| Cross-chain | Same address, manual setup | Separate deployment per chain | Same address, chain-specific auth |
| Infrastructure Needs | None | Bundlers, paymasters, relayers | EIP-7702 compatible tools |
| Security Model | Single key = total control | Programmable policies | Hybrid (EOA key retains control) |
| Best For | Simple use cases, compatibility | Enterprise, high-security, complex UX | Cost-conscious smart features |
When Each Architecture Makes Sense
Understanding the technical differences is only half the battle. The real question is determining which architecture aligns with your application's needs, your users' expectations, and your business constraints. The answer depends on several key factors that go beyond simple feature checklists.
The EOA Use Case: Simplicity and Compatibility
EOAs continue to make sense for specific scenarios where their limitations are acceptable tradeoffs for their universal compatibility and minimal complexity. Applications focused on cryptocurrency trading, where users are sophisticated and comfortable with seed phrase management, often prefer EOAs because they minimize gas costs and eliminate dependencies on third-party infrastructure.
Cold storage and vault applications similarly benefit from EOA simplicity. When the primary goal is secure, long-term asset storage with minimal interaction, the lack of programmable features becomes irrelevant, and the absence of smart contract code eliminates potential bug surfaces. Hardware wallet users, who already manage private keys carefully, often prefer EOAs for their direct control model.
Developer tools and testing environments frequently default to EOAs because they work immediately without setup overhead. When building and iterating rapidly, the friction of deploying Smart Wallets for every test account can slow development velocity significantly. EOAs let developers focus on their application logic rather than wallet infrastructure.
The critical consideration is whether your users can handle the responsibility. Lost keys mean permanent loss of funds, phishing attacks directly target private keys, and users must manually manage gas fees for every transaction. These limitations are acceptable for sophisticated users but create unacceptable friction for mainstream applications.
The Smart Wallet Use Case: Security and Sophisticated UX
Smart Wallets become essential when security requirements exceed what a single private key can provide. Enterprise treasury management is the canonical example—organizations cannot accept a model where one person's compromised laptop means millions in lost funds. Multi-signature requirements, role-based permissions, and transaction approval workflows aren't nice-to-have features; they're fundamental security requirements.
DeFi protocols building automated strategies or yield optimization need Smart Wallets to implement their logic safely. An automated trading bot shouldn't have unlimited access to user funds; it should operate within programmatically enforced limits that protect users even if the bot is compromised. These safety boundaries require Smart Wallet programmability.
Consumer applications targeting mainstream users increasingly prefer Smart Wallets because the recovery features and gas abstraction dramatically improve conversion and retention. Studies show that seed phrase backup creates massive drop-off during onboarding, while social recovery mechanisms achieve much higher completion rates. Gas sponsorship eliminates the chicken-and-egg problem where new users need tokens to interact but need to interact to acquire tokens.
AI agents and autonomous systems represent an emerging use case where Smart Wallets aren't just better but necessary. An AI agent operating with blockchain permissions needs carefully scoped authorities—it might be allowed to swap tokens up to certain limits, but not transfer arbitrary assets. This level of nuanced control requires programmable authorization that only Smart Wallets provide.
The tradeoff is accepting higher costs, more complex infrastructure, and longer integration timelines. Organizations must run or depend on bundler services, manage paymaster economics, and handle the occasional compatibility issue with dApps that haven't been tested against Smart Wallets. For many applications, these costs are worthwhile for the security and UX benefits, but they're real considerations in architectural planning.
The Smart EOA Use Case: Pragmatic Modernization
Smart EOAs through EIP-7702 represent the pragmatic middle path for applications that want smart wallet benefits but need to maintain EOA compatibility and cost efficiency. This architecture particularly excels for applications upgrading existing EOA infrastructure without forcing users to migrate.
Gaming applications have been early adopters of Smart EOAs because they solve critical pain points. Players often need gas sponsorship so they can interact without holding native tokens, and session keys allow games to process player actions without constant wallet popups. But games also need to maintain compatibility with NFT marketplaces and other ecosystem tools that expect EOAs. Smart EOAs enable both requirements simultaneously.
Social applications benefit similarly. Users want gasless interactions for liking content, posting comments, and social transactions that should feel instant. But they also want to maintain their existing identity and social graph associated with their EOA address. Migration would fragment their digital presence across the ecosystem, making Smart EOAs the only viable path to enhanced features.
Financial applications building payment infrastructure find Smart EOAs compelling because they enable critical UX improvements without the per-user deployment costs that make Smart Wallets economically challenging at scale. When onboarding thousands of users per day, eliminating 200,000 gas per user deployment represents massive cost savings. Smart EOAs let applications sponsor the authorization transactions (around 23,000 gas) and then provide smart features without the full deployment overhead.
The critical limitation to remember is that Smart EOAs don't eliminate the security concerns of single-key control. The EOA private key remains a potential single point of failure. For use cases where true multi-signature security or irrevocable time locks are required, Smart EOAs don't provide the same guarantees as full Smart Wallets. They're best understood as EOAs with enhanced UX capabilities rather than simplified Smart Wallets.
Why Openfort Defaults to EOA + EIP-7702
Openfort, a leading wallet infrastructure platform for developers, has made a strategic architectural choice to default to EOA + EIP-7702 while maintaining support for full Smart Wallets when required. This decision reflects careful analysis of the real-world constraints facing applications building on blockchain infrastructure today.
The Economic Reality: Lower Fees Matter at Scale
When building applications designed to onboard thousands or millions of users, per-user costs compound rapidly. A traditional Smart Wallet deployment costs approximately 200,000 to 300,000 gas per user. On Ethereum mainnet, this can represent $10 to $50 per user depending on gas prices. Even on Layer 2 networks with lower fees, these costs add up quickly.
Smart EOAs eliminate this deployment cost entirely. Users can start interacting with EOA addresses they already have, and authorization transactions cost only around 23,000 gas—more than 90% cheaper than Smart Wallet deployment. This cost structure enables application developers to sponsor user onboarding economically, removing a major barrier to Web3 adoption.
The ongoing transaction costs also favor Smart EOAs for many use cases. While Smart Wallets add 30-40% overhead to every operation due to contract execution costs, Smart EOAs only incur this overhead when smart features are actively used. Simple transfers and basic operations maintain standard EOA efficiency, creating a "pay for what you use" cost model that optimizes economic efficiency.
The Multi-Chain Challenge: No Fragmentation
One of the most underappreciated problems with traditional Smart Wallets is address fragmentation across chains. When users deploy a Smart Wallet, they get a different contract address on each chain where they deploy. A user might have 0xabc...123 on Ethereum mainnet, 0xdef...456 on Polygon, and 0x789...xyz on Base. This fragmentation creates significant UX and operational challenges.
Identity becomes fragmented as users must track multiple addresses and explain to others which address to use for which chain. Asset management becomes more complex as users must bridge funds between their own addresses on different chains, incurring bridge fees and complexity. Support burden increases as teams must help users understand why their "wallet address" is different depending on which chain they're viewing.
Smart EOAs solve this elegantly because the same EOA address exists across all EVM chains simultaneously. Users have one address for their entire multi-chain presence. While EIP-7702 authorizations are chain-specific, the underlying address remains constant. Users can receive assets on any chain to the same address, and their digital identity remains unified across the ecosystem.
This matters enormously for applications building multi-chain experiences. Payment applications can give users a single address to receive funds regardless of which chain the sender uses. Gaming applications can maintain unified player identities even as they expand across multiple chains. NFT platforms can display complete collections without fragmenting based on deployment chains.
Developer Experience and Integration
Beyond cost and multi-chain considerations, Openfort chose EIP-7702 because it provides superior developer experience for most integration scenarios. Developers can build applications using familiar EOA patterns and standard tooling like ethers.js and web3.js. The learning curve is minimal, and integration timelines are shorter.
As applications mature and need more sophisticated features, they can progressively enhance the EOA experience by adding delegation to contracts that implement gas sponsorship, transaction batching, or session keys. This progressive enhancement approach means applications don't need to architect for maximum complexity upfront—they can start simple and add capabilities as needed.
For the subset of applications that genuinely require full Smart Wallet security from day one, Openfort maintains complete support. Enterprise customers building treasury management solutions, DeFi protocols implementing complex risk models, or high-value asset platforms can deploy Smart Wallets through the same infrastructure. This flexibility ensures that Openfort can serve the full spectrum of use cases without forcing suboptimal architectural choices.
The Infrastructure Maturity Timeline
Openfort's choice also reflects the current maturity state of EIP-7702 infrastructure versus ERC-4337 bundler networks. While both are rapidly maturing, EIP-7702 benefits from being implemented at the protocol level with the Pectra upgrade, meaning it will have native support across all Ethereum clients without requiring specialized infrastructure.
ERC-4337 requires bundler networks that may have varying availability and reliability, especially on newer chains or during network congestion. While bundler infrastructure has improved significantly, it represents an additional dependency and potential failure point. EIP-7702's native implementation reduces infrastructure surface area and potential points of failure.
As the ecosystem continues to evolve, Openfort's architecture allows applications to adapt. When EIP-7702 features become insufficient for an application's needs, migrating users to full Smart Wallets is possible through well-documented patterns. The platform doesn't lock developers into irreversible architectural decisions made at launch.
Implementation Guidance for Developers
Building with any of these wallet architectures requires understanding not just the high-level tradeoffs but the practical implementation details that determine success or failure in production.
Implementing with EOAs: Security First
When building with EOAs, security education becomes paramount. Your application should assume users will make mistakes and implement defensive measures. Transaction simulation before signing helps users understand what they're approving, catching phishing attempts and malicious contracts before funds are at risk.
Clear gas fee explanation prevents users from overpaying or having transactions fail due to insufficient gas. Implementing proper gas estimation with safety margins improves reliability. Consider adding transaction queuing that batches operations when possible or waits for optimal gas prices, helping users save on fees even within EOA constraints.
Hardware wallet integration should be standard for any application handling significant value. While this adds integration complexity, it dramatically improves security for users who are willing to use hardware devices. Support for WalletConnect enables mobile hardware wallets, expanding the security-conscious user base.
Account backup UX deserves careful attention. Rather than dumping a seed phrase on users during signup, implement progressive backup flows that trigger before high-value interactions. Test backup restoration regularly to ensure your users can actually recover their accounts. Consider supporting multiple backup methods to increase completion rates.
Implementing with Smart Wallets: Infrastructure and Architecture
Smart Wallet implementation begins with choosing your account abstraction approach. ERC-4337 has become the de facto standard, but you'll need to decide between using a wallet-as-a-service provider or running your own infrastructure. For most applications, leveraging existing infrastructure makes sense initially, allowing you to move to self-hosted solutions if scale justifies the operational complexity.
Module architecture requires careful planning. Determine which features should be core to your account contract versus implemented as modules that can be added or removed. Modular designs provide flexibility but add complexity and potential attack surfaces. Monolithic designs are simpler to audit but harder to upgrade.
Paymaster economics must be sustainable. If you're sponsoring user transactions, implement controls that prevent abuse while maintaining good UX. Consider rate limits, spending caps per user, and geographic restrictions if appropriate. Monitor paymaster spending carefully—unexpected viral growth can quickly exhaust gas budgets if you're not prepared.
Bundler selection and monitoring matters more than many teams initially realize. Test bundler performance across different chains, during congestion, and under failure scenarios. Implement fallback bundlers and monitoring that alerts when submission rates drop. User transactions failing due to bundler issues creates terrible experiences that are hard to recover from.
Implementing with Smart EOAs: Progressive Enhancement
Smart EOA implementation should start with capability detection. Check whether connected wallets support EIP-7702 before attempting to use features that depend on it. Implement graceful degradation for users with wallets that don't yet support the standard, ensuring your application remains functional even without smart features.
Authorization management needs careful UX design. Users must understand what they're authorizing and what authority they're granting. Make delegation contracts auditable and clearly explain what permissions are included. Consider time-limited authorizations that expire and must be renewed, providing an additional safety mechanism.
Feature flagging allows you to progressively roll out smart features as infrastructure matures. Start with simple capabilities like gas sponsorship for specific actions, then add transaction batching, session keys, and more sophisticated features as your comfort with the infrastructure grows.
State management should track delegation status and available features for each user. Don't assume all users have the same capabilities—some may have authorized delegations while others operate as pure EOAs. Your application should adapt to each user's current state without creating confusing experiences.
Security Considerations Across Architectures
Security concerns vary significantly across wallet architectures, and understanding these differences helps teams build appropriate defenses.
EOA Security: Protecting the Single Key
EOA security reduces to a single question: how well is the private key protected? If an attacker gains access to the key through any means, they have complete and immediate control over the account. This creates several critical vulnerabilities that applications must help users defend against.
Phishing attacks targeting EOA users are distressingly effective because users must sign transactions regularly and often don't carefully verify what they're approving. Applications should implement transaction simulation that shows users in plain language what a transaction will do before they sign. Display token approvals clearly, showing exactly what assets can be accessed and by which contracts.
Social engineering remains a persistent threat. Users must understand that legitimate projects will never ask for seed phrases or private keys. Applications can help by never implementing features that would train users to share sensitive information, even within your own ecosystem.
Key storage vulnerabilities arise when users store seed phrases insecurely—in cloud storage, email drafts, or photos that may be backed up automatically. Education around proper storage methods is essential, but applications should also consider supporting hardware wallets to eliminate software key storage entirely for users willing to use them.
Smart Wallet Security: Contract Risk and Complexity
Smart Wallets introduce an entirely different security model where the contract code itself becomes the primary security boundary. Bugs in wallet contracts can affect all users of that wallet implementation, making thorough auditing essential. Any application deploying custom Smart Wallet logic should invest in professional security audits by firms experienced in wallet contract security.
Upgrade mechanisms create both security benefits and risks. The ability to upgrade wallet logic protects users against discovered vulnerabilities, but malicious upgrades could compromise all users. Carefully designed governance around upgrades—requiring multiple signers, time delays, or community consensus—helps prevent upgrade-based attacks.
Module security in modular wallet designs requires trusting each module implementation. A compromised or poorly written module can potentially access wallet functionality beyond its intended scope. Implement proper module isolation and least-privilege principles, ensuring modules only have access to the specific functionality they require.
Infrastructure dependencies mean Smart Wallet security extends beyond contract code to include bundlers, paymasters, and other off-chain infrastructure. An attacker compromising a bundler might be able to prevent transactions from processing, creating denial-of-service conditions. While not directly stealing funds, this can still create significant problems, especially for time-sensitive operations.
Smart EOA Security: Hybrid Model Challenges
Smart EOAs inherit security considerations from both EOAs and Smart Wallets while introducing some unique challenges. The fundamental issue is that the EOA private key retains ultimate authority, meaning all the EOA security concerns remain relevant even when smart features are active.
Delegation risk emerges as a new concern specific to EIP-7702. Users must understand and trust the contracts they delegate to, as those contracts will execute with the account's authority. Malicious delegation contracts could drain funds, approve unlimited transfers, or execute harmful operations. Applications must make delegation targets auditable and help users understand the trust assumptions.
Authorization confusion can occur when users don't fully understand the relationship between their EOA key and delegated contract behavior. They may believe they have multi-signature security when in reality their EOA key can still unilaterally act. Clear communication about the security model is essential to prevent users from having false security assumptions.
Delegation management complexity grows as users may have different delegations on different chains or different delegations for different purposes. Applications should provide clear visibility into active delegations and make it easy for users to revoke authorizations they no longer need or trust.
The Future of Wallet Infrastructure
The wallet infrastructure landscape continues to evolve rapidly, and understanding emerging trends helps teams make decisions that remain relevant as the ecosystem matures.
Near-Term Evolution: 2025-2026
EIP-7702 adoption will accelerate throughout 2025 as major wallet providers implement support and developers discover its pragmatic benefits. Expect to see most major wallet providers adding EIP-7702 functionality, making Smart EOAs available to a large portion of the user base. Infrastructure tooling will mature quickly, with SDKs and developer tools making integration increasingly straightforward.
Native account abstraction proposals may emerge that build on lessons learned from ERC-4337 and EIP-7702. The Ethereum community continues to explore protocol-level improvements that would make programmable accounts truly native rather than requiring special transaction types or infrastructure. If adopted, these proposals could obsolete current approaches, but the migration path should be relatively smooth.
Cross-chain account standards will likely emerge as the industry recognizes that per-chain deployments create unacceptable UX fragmentation. Solutions that enable unified account control across multiple chains without separate deployments represent a significant opportunity. Smart EOAs provide one approach, but expect innovation in this space.
Long-Term Outlook: Beyond 2026
Post-quantum cryptography will eventually require wallet infrastructure updates as quantum computers pose increasing threats to current elliptic curve cryptography. Smart Wallets and Smart EOAs that support key rotation or algorithm upgrades will have significant advantages over pure EOAs when migration becomes necessary. This is a long-term consideration but one that favors programmable account architectures.
AI agent integration will drive demand for sophisticated permission systems that allow autonomous systems to operate with carefully scoped authorities. The wallet infrastructure of 2027 will likely include standardized patterns for agent authorization, spending limits, and safety boundaries. Smart Wallets and Smart EOAs are better positioned for this evolution than pure EOAs.
Identity and reputation systems built on blockchain will increasingly rely on account history and activity. This creates advantages for wallet architectures that maintain stable addresses across time and chains. Smart EOAs' ability to preserve identity while upgrading capabilities positions them well for this evolution.
Making Your Decision: A Framework
With all this context, how should you actually decide which wallet architecture to implement? Consider these key questions in sequence.
First, evaluate your security requirements. If you genuinely need multi-signature control where no single key can act unilaterally, Smart Wallets are your only option. If you need irrevocable escrow or time locks that even the account owner can't override, you need Smart Wallets. If single-key control is acceptable as long as UX is improved, Smart EOAs can work.
Second, assess your target users. Cryptocurrency natives comfortable with seed phrases can handle EOAs. Mainstream consumers need recovery mechanisms and gas abstraction that EOAs can't provide. Enterprise users need governance features that require Smart Wallets. AI agents need programmable permissions that favor Smart Wallets.
Third, consider your economics at scale. If you're onboarding thousands of users monthly, deployment costs matter significantly. Calculate the total cost difference between architectures at your projected scale. Factor in ongoing transaction costs as well, since Smart Wallet overhead compounds with usage.
Fourth, evaluate multi-chain requirements. If users will operate across multiple chains and unified identity matters, Smart EOAs provide significant advantages over traditional Smart Wallets. If you're focused on a single chain, this consideration becomes less important.
Fifth, assess your team's capabilities and timeline. Smart Wallets require more sophisticated infrastructure and longer integration timelines. If you need to ship quickly and iterate based on user feedback, starting with EOAs or Smart EOAs allows faster iteration.
For most applications building in 2025, the pragmatic answer is starting with Smart EOAs through a platform like Openfort. This provides enhanced UX at reasonable cost while maintaining the option to migrate to full Smart Wallets if future requirements demand it. You're not locked into an irreversible decision, and you can adapt as your understanding of user needs grows.
Conclusion: Choose Based on Your Context, Not Ideology
The wallet infrastructure debate often devolves into ideological arguments about what blockchain accounts "should" be. These debates miss the point. The right architecture depends entirely on your specific context—your users, your use case, your security requirements, and your constraints.
EOAs remain relevant for applications where their simplicity and universal compatibility outweigh their UX limitations. They're not obsolete; they're specialized tools for particular contexts. Smart Wallets are essential for enterprise and high-security use cases where their costs and complexity are justified by their capabilities. Smart EOAs represent a pragmatic middle path that provides substantial UX improvements at reasonable cost for applications serving mainstream users.
Openfort's decision to default to EOA + EIP-7702 while supporting full Smart Wallets reflects this contextual approach. By providing cost-effective smart features without address fragmentation across networks, while maintaining the option for full Smart Wallet deployment when required, the platform enables developers to choose appropriate architectures for their specific needs.
The wallet infrastructure you select today shapes your application's evolution for years to come. Choose based on your real requirements, not on theoretical purity. Understand the tradeoffs deeply, test with your actual users, and remain flexible enough to adapt as both your application and the underlying infrastructure continue to evolve. The right answer for your application may be different from the right answer for others, and that diversity of approaches will ultimately strengthen the entire ecosystem.