Now that this is public, I wanted to speak up a bit. I was in most of these discussions as an L2 builder and smart account dev. I’m sad we ended up here too. But honestly, given the conversations I witnessed, I think this was only a matter of time. Both sides were already pushing the limits of what they could accept. Some of those constraints just weren’t going to line up. I agree with Derek on ACD. It’s for Ethereum core development, not for deciding what every EVM chain should ship. Having L2 builders in the room doesn’t change that. And this isn’t just L1 vs L2. Other EVM L1s are part of this too. Using the EVM doesn’t mean they share Ethereum’s priorities. On scaling and UX, I often found their concerns closer to those of L2s. So if we wanted everyone to stay aligned, we needed that conversation outside ACD, and much earlier. Or just agree to disagree on certain things. What I’m still confused about is: - What exactly has to stay aligned? Account models? Tx formats? Execution semantics? - What should go into a RIP for chains to adopt independently, and what do we actually need to keep aligned across EVM chains? Where do we draw that line? - Why did AA specifically trigger all this drama, given how much the underlying priorities already differed? Honestly, some of this gives me SegWit-era vibes. Not the technical changes, but the arguments over who gets to decide which tradeoffs everyone else should accept. Either way, I don’t think this stops at Base vs Ethereum. I expect more chains to ship their own native AA rather than wait for everyone to agree. And I think those chain-specific account models will drive a lot more EVM fragmentation, with wallet and app devs left to handle the differences. Buckle up.