A place for talking about the Ethereum Virtual Machine on Farcaster.

We really need to come to a standard on how bundlers simulate transactions for account abstraction.

It’s critical for features like pay fee in ERC20 that open up new models into tokenomics.

The ethereum foundation won’t take a stance on this. A leader must rise up to this challenge.

I’m not sure I understand. What do you see as missing with the current 4337 bundling spec https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4337#bundling. What’s missing from the bundler implementations we have today like alto https://github.com/pimlicolabs/alto and voltaire https://github.com/candidelabs/voltaire?

Working on building products with zkTLS. A ruthless empiricist.

http://opacity.network

Advisor @ EV3 Ventures

https://hackmd.io/@Vid201/aa-bundler-rust

Take a look at the write up for this implementation of AA.

Building pods.media to help you collect conversations.

building @lutralabs.eth • masca.io • ERC-4337 Silius • r&d Blockchain Lab:UM • @ethereum protocol fellow ⟠

I never said there was an issue. Just that there needs to some better standards for the bundler layer to take off.

I never said there was an issue. Just that there needs to some better standards for the bundler layer to take off.

https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/account_abstraction_roadmap#Transaction-inclusion-lists

I don’t get the issue though: why does simulation need more standards? UserOps are valid or they aren’t. Why do you say there’s an issue with ERC20 paymasters?