1/ Early on, the Base team made smart contract wallet (AKA smart account) adoption one of their top priorities. Last week, Base had more ERC-4337 smart account activity than any other chain. Let's take a look at the stats 👇

Smart account (AKA smart contract wallet) adoption is one of the top priorities of the @Base team. Last month, Base ranked second for ERC-4337 smart account usage. [Polygon was #1] 81,000+ UserOps were made on Base in March. [UserOps are transactions made by ERC-4337 accounts] 60% of those UserOps were calls to the @Safe 4337Module. This module executes UserOps on behalf of Safe wallets, allowing them to act as 4337 accounts. 87% of those UserOps were bundled by @pimlicoHQ

ERC-4337 Paymasters allow - Apps to sponsor gas fees for their users - Users to pay gas with ERC20s Ive updated BundleBear to track which 4337 user operations are sponsored vs paid-with-ERC20s In February, ~97% of UserOps that used a paymaster were sponsored The dominant use case for paymasters is giving users a gas-free UX

I added Avalanche data to BundleBear, my ERC4337 dashboard 🔺✨ Here's a quick rundown of ERC4337 activity on Avalanche

Introducing "BundleBear Year In Review 🐻✨" A data-driven summary of the major trends that shaped ERC-4337 adoption this year. - User Behaviour - Popular apps - Bundler and Paymaster Performance And more!

How much does it cost to use an ERC4337 account? Smart contract wallets, also known as smart accounts, address many of the shortcomings of EOA wallets. They have customizable logic and enable features such as gas sponsorship, gas payments with ERC-20 tokens, multisig schemes, social recovery, spending limits, and other user-friendly experiences. If smart accounts allow for more security and an enhanced user experience, why haven't smart accounts surpassed EOAs in adoption? One major factor has been the cost of creating and using them on L1. During the peak of the 2021 bull run, it could cost hundreds of dollars to deploy a smart account on Ethereum. This problem killed a lot of early smart account teams, as they struggled to find users willing to pay the steep account creation costs and couldn't afford to pay the costs themselves. But times have changed. Today, the Ethereum ecosystem has dozens of L2s and sidechains where the use of smart accounts is more affordable. It's important that we investigate whether or not these networks are cheap enough to enable widespread smart account adoption. _______ Let's take a look at the cost of performing a native token transfer (eg. ETH on Optimism, MATIC on Polygon) using a smart account. We'll use historical data on the use of @Safe accounts and ERC4337 implementations by @zerodev and @Biconomy on @0xPolygon, @Optimism and @Arbitrum Polygon On Polygon, Safe users are currently spending the least on native transfers with a weekly average cost of $0.01, followed by Zerodev users at $0.025 and Biconomy users at $0.038. The small difference of $0.028 between the highest and lowest cost indicates that the chosen account implementation does not significantly impact the user experience on low-cost networks. This is particularly true because the current costs exhibit an unusually wide range of variation. In 87% of weeks, the difference between the highest and lowest cost is less than $0.015. Optimism On Optimism, it has been more expensive for smart accounts to make native transfers than on Polygon. Biconomy account users have a weekly average cost of $0.77 per native transfer, while Zerodev Kernel users spend $0.79 and Safe users spend $0.30. Arbitrum ERC4337 accounts have made fewer native transfers on Arbitrum compared to Polygon and Optimism, so we only have enough data to measure spending in the past three months. Arbitrum has been more expensive for native transfers than both Polygon and Optimism. The cost of native transfers currently sits at $0.46 for Safes, $0.76 for Zerodev Kernels, and $1.05 for Bionomy accounts. Insight Here we observe that selecting the most expensive network in the dataset (Arbitrum) instead of the cheapest one (Polygon) increases the average cost of making a native transfer by more than 30X. The impact of choosing one account implementation over another is negligible compared to the choice of network. It is also evident that 4337 operation fees and Safe transaction prices rose sharply in November. This can be attributed to a general increase in on-chain activity, caused by the recent surge in inscriptions, which is leading to higher gas fees. _______ For more insight into the cost of using smart accounts, check out my full research report on the @0xBundleBear blog 👇 (link in next tweet)