Ethereum welcomes a year of interoperability: a deep dive into EIL, handing "trust" over to a large-scale experiment of games?

1월 12, 2026 19:36:07

Share to

Author: imToken

The year 2026 is destined to be a significant year for the mass adoption of Ethereum.

With the dust settling on multiple underlying upgrades in 2025 and the finalization and advancement of the Interop roadmap, the Ethereum ecosystem is gradually entering the "Era of Great Interoperability." In this context, the Ethereum Interoperability Layer (EIL) is beginning to step into the spotlight.

If early technical discussions were still at the "proof of concept" stage, EIL is undoubtedly entering the deep waters of standard implementation and engineering realization. This has also led to a series of extensive community discussions. For example, when we pursue a smooth cross-chain experience similar to Web2, are we quietly altering the trust boundaries that Ethereum has long upheld?

Objectively speaking, when any technological vision moves towards engineering realization, it will inevitably make trade-offs between efficiency and security. This article attempts to set aside technical slogans and, by combining specific design details of EIL, dissect its real trade-offs between efficiency, standards, and security assumptions.

1. What Exactly is EIL "Sewing Together"?

First, we need to clarify the essence of EIL once again—it is not a new chain, nor a new consensus layer, but a set of interoperability communication frameworks and standard protocols.

In simple terms, the core logic of EIL is that it can standardize the "state proofs" and "message passing" of L2 without rewriting Ethereum's underlying security model, enabling different L2s to have composability and interaction capabilities like a single chain without changing their own security assumptions.

As we know, in the current Ethereum ecosystem, each L2 is an island. For example, your account (EOA) on Optimism and your account on Arbitrum, although they have the same address, are completely isolated in terms of state:

Signature Isolation: The signature on chain A cannot be directly verified by chain B;
Asset Isolation: The assets on chain A are invisible to chain B;
Interaction Barriers: Cross-chain operations require repeated authorization, gas changes, waiting for settlement, etc.;

EIL combines "Account Abstraction (ERC-4337)" and "Trust-Minimized Messaging Layer" capabilities to build a unified execution environment of account layer + messaging layer, attempting to eliminate these artificial separations:

I previously provided an intuitive example in an earlier article: cross-chain operations used to be like traveling abroad, where you need to exchange currency (cross-chain assets), obtain a visa (re-authorize), and follow local traffic rules (purchase target chain gas). Entering the EIL era, cross-chain operations feel more like using a Visa card globally:

No matter which country you are in, as long as you swipe your card once (sign), the underlying banking network (EIL) will automatically handle the exchange rate, settlement, and verification, and you won't perceive the existence of borders.

Compared to traditional cross-chain bridges, Relayers, and Intent/Solver models, the advantage of this design is also very intuitive—the Native route is the safest and most transparent but slow, leading to a fragmented experience; the Intent route offers the best experience but introduces trust and game theory with Solvers; while EIL attempts to push the experience closer to Intent without introducing Solvers, requiring deep cooperation between wallets and protocol layers.

The EIL proposal put forward by the Ethereum Foundation's Account Abstraction team envisions a future where users can complete cross-chain transactions with a single signature, without relying on centralized relayers or introducing new trust assumptions, allowing direct initiation from wallets and seamless settlement across different L2s.

2. The Engineering Path of EIL: Account Abstraction + Trust-Minimized Messaging Layer

Of course, this also brings up a more practical question: can the implementation details and ecological adaptation of EIL achieve "theory equals practice"? This remains an open proposition.

We can break down the engineering implementation path of EIL. As mentioned earlier, it does not attempt to introduce a brand-new inter-chain consensus but is built on two existing blocks: ERC-4337 Account Abstraction (AA) + Trust-Minimized Cross-Chain Messaging and Liquidity Mechanism.

First is the account abstraction based on ERC-4337, which decouples accounts and private keys, allowing user accounts to become smart contract accounts with customizable verification logic and cross-chain execution logic, no longer limited to the traditional EOA key-controlled model.

The significance of this for EIL is that cross-chain operations do not need to rely on external executors (Solvers) to complete them, but can be expressed at the account layer as a standardized user operation object (UserOp), constructed and managed uniformly by wallets.

These functionalities were previously impossible with EOA itself, which had to rely on complex external contract wrappers. However, with ERC-4337-based account abstraction, user accounts can transform from rigid "key pairs" into programmable code. More straightforwardly, users only need a single signature (UserOp) to express cross-chain intent:

Account contracts can embed more complex verification/execution rules, triggering a series of cross-chain instructions with one signature; combined with mechanisms like Paymaster, it can even achieve gas abstraction— for example, using source chain assets to pay for target chain fees, eliminating the awkwardness of needing to buy a few dollars' worth of native gas coins before cross-chain operations.

This is why EIL's narrative is often tied to wallet experiences, as it truly aims to change the entry form for users interacting with a multi-chain world.

The second aspect revolves around the trust-minimized messaging mechanism—XLP (Cross-Chain Liquidity Provider), which addresses the efficiency issue of cross-chain messaging.

Traditional cross-chain solutions rely on relayers or centralized bridges, while EIL introduces XLP. Based on this, an ideally efficient path can be constructed without sacrificing security as much as possible:

Users submit cross-chain transactions on the source chain;
XLP observes this intent in the memory pool and pre-funds the target chain with funds/gas, providing a "payment voucher";
Users utilize the voucher to complete self-execution on the target chain;

From the user's perspective, this process feels almost instantaneous, without waiting for the lengthy settlement of official bridges.

However, you might notice a problem: what if XLP takes the money and does nothing? The brilliance of EIL's design lies in the fact that if XLP defaults, users can submit proof via Ethereum L1 to permitlessly penalize (Permissionless Slashing) its staked assets.

The official bridge is only used to handle settlements and recourse after bad debts, meaning that under normal circumstances, the system operates extremely quickly; in extreme cases, security is still backed by Ethereum L1.

This structure means that slow and costly security mechanisms are removed from the default path, while trust pressure is concentrated on failure handling.

Of course, this is also one of the sources of controversy: when security relies more on "the executability of failure paths" and "the effectiveness of economic penalties," does EIL truly not introduce new trust assumptions? Or does it shift trust from explicit relayers to a more covert and engineered set of conditions?

This will lead to a more critical discussion below—while it appears theoretically elegant, what centralization and economic frictions might it still face in the real ecosystem, and why does the community remain vigilant about it?

3. Between Vision and Engineering: Is EIL Really "Minimizing Trust"?

At this point, EIL's ambition is quite clear; it is designed to avoid explicit relay trust as much as possible and attempts to condense cross-chain operations into a single signature and a single user operation at the wallet layer.

The problem is—trust does not disappear into thin air; it only migrates.

This is why platforms like L2BEAT, which have long focused on L2 risk boundaries, remain particularly cautious about the engineering realization of EIL. After all, once the interoperability layer becomes the default path, any hidden assumptions, incentive failures, or governance single points could amplify into systemic risks.

Specifically, the efficiency of EIL comes from two points: first, AA packages actions into a single signature; second, XLP's pre-funding allows users to bypass waiting. The former is acceptable as it is an efficiency improvement after embedding AA, but the latter's pre-funding means that some security no longer comes from immediately verifiable finality but from "economic guarantees that can be recourse and penalized."

This undoubtedly pushes the risk exposure towards several more engineered questions:

Under real market fluctuations, how are the default probabilities, funding costs, and risk hedges of XLP priced?
Is the "penalty" timely and executable enough to cover losses in extreme situations?
When amounts increase and paths become more complex (multi-hop/multi-chain), will failure scenarios become exponentially more difficult?

Ultimately, the foundation of trust here is no longer mathematical proof but the collateral of validators' stakes. If the cost of attack is lower than the profit, the system still faces rollback risks.

Moreover, objectively speaking, EIL attempts to solve liquidity fragmentation through technical means, but liquidity itself is a market behavior. If there are still significant cost and trust differences between chains, a simple communication standard (EIL) cannot truly make liquidity flow. After all, a mere communication protocol standard cannot address the economic essence of "liquidity unwilling to flow."

Extending this thought further, without accompanying economic incentive designs, EIL may face a situation where the pipeline is standardized but lacks executors due to lack of profitability.

Overall, EIL is one of the most important infrastructure concepts proposed by the Ethereum community in the face of fragmented L2 experiences. It attempts to simplify UX while maintaining Ethereum's core values (self-custody, censorship resistance, and decentralization), which is commendable in itself.

For ordinary users, there is no need to rush to praise or criticize EIL, but rather to understand its trade-offs and boundary assumptions in protocol design.

After all, for Ethereum today, EIL is not a simple upgrade to existing cross-chain pain points but a technical and value attempt to deeply integrate experience, economics, and security trust boundaries. It has the potential to push Ethereum towards truly seamless interoperability, but it may also expose new boundary effects and compromises during the realization process.

In Conclusion

As of 2026, EIL is not a plug-and-play ultimate answer but rather a systematic test of trust boundaries, engineering feasibility, and user experience limits.

If it succeeds, the L2 world of Ethereum will truly look like a single chain; if it is less successful, it will certainly leave clear lessons for the next generation of interoperability design.

Before 2026, everything is still in experimentation.

And this, perhaps, is the most genuine and respectable aspect of Ethereum.