Ethereum’s Year of Interoperability: A Deep Dive into EIL, a Grand Experiment in Entrusting “Trust” to Game Theory?

With the completion of several foundational upgrades in 2025 and the finalization and advancement of the Interop roadmap, the Ethereum ecosystem is gradually entering the “era of great interoperability.” Against this backdrop, EIL (Ethereum Interoperability Layer) is moving from behind the scenes to center stage (Further reading: Ethereum’s Interop Roadmap: Unlocking the ‘Last Mile’ for Mass Adoption).

If early technical discussions were still at the “proof-of-concept” stage, EIL has undoubtedly now entered the deep waters of standard implementation and engineering. This has sparked a series of major community discussions. For instance, as we pursue a seamless cross-chain experience akin to Web2, are we quietly altering the trust boundaries that Ethereum has long upheld?

Objectively speaking, when any technological vision moves towards engineering implementation, trade-offs between efficiency and security are inevitable. This article also attempts to move beyond technical slogans and, by examining the specific design details of EIL, deconstruct its real trade-offs between efficiency, standards, and security assumptions.

1. What Exactly is EIL “Stitching” 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 protocol collections.

In short, the core logic of EIL is to standardize the “state proofs” and “message passing” of L2s without rewriting Ethereum’s underlying security model, enabling different L2s to possess composability and interaction capabilities like a single chain, all without altering their own security assumptions (Further reading: The End of Ethereum’s Islands: How EIL Reconstructs Fragmented L2s into a ‘Supercomputer’?).

As is well known, in the current Ethereum ecosystem, each L2 is an isolated island. For example, your account (EOA) on Optimism and your account on Arbitrum, while having the same address, have completely isolated states:

• Signature Isolation: Your signature on Chain A cannot be directly verified by Chain B.
• Asset Isolation: Your assets on Chain A are also invisible to Chain B.
• Interaction Barriers: Cross-chain operations require repeated authorizations, gas swapping, waiting for settlement, and more.

EIL, combining the capabilities of “Account Abstraction (ERC-4337)” and a “trust-minimized message layer,” constructs a unified execution environment of account layer + message layer, attempting to eliminate these artificial divisions.

In a previous article, the author gave an intuitive example: cross-chain interactions used to be like traveling abroad—you need to exchange currency (cross-chain assets), get a visa (re-authorization), and follow local traffic rules (purchase target chain Gas). Entering the EIL era, cross-chain interactions are more like using a Visa card globally:

No matter which country you are in, you just swipe your card once (signature), and the underlying banking network (EIL) automatically handles exchange rates, settlement, and verification. You don’t perceive the existence of national borders.

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

Source: Based on @MarcinM02, self-generated chart

The EIL proposal put forward by the Ethereum Foundation’s Account Abstraction team paints such a future: users only need one signature to complete a cross-chain transaction, without relying on centralized relayers or adding new trust assumptions. They can initiate transactions directly from their wallet and settle seamlessly across different L2s.

2. EIL’s Engineering Path: Account Abstraction + Trust-Minimized Message Layer

Of course, this raises a more practical question: whether the implementation details and ecosystem adaptation of EIL can achieve “theory equals practice” remains an open question.

We can break down EIL’s engineering implementation path. As mentioned above, it does not attempt to introduce a brand-new inter-chain consensus but is built upon two existing building blocks: ERC-4337 Account Abstraction (AA) + a trust-minimized cross-chain messaging and liquidity mechanism.

First is Account Abstraction based on ERC-4337. By decoupling accounts and private keys, it allows a user’s account to become a smart contract account with customizable verification logic and cross-chain execution logic, no longer confined to the traditional EOA key-pair model.

The significance of this for EIL is that cross-chain operations no longer need to rely on external executors (Solvers) to act on your behalf. Instead, they can be expressed at the account layer as a standardized User Operation object (UserOp), uniformly constructed and managed by the wallet.

These functionalities were previously impossible with EOA itself and required complex external contract wrappers. Account Abstraction based on ERC-4337 transforms a user’s account from a rigid “key pair” into a piece of programmable code. More plainly, users only need one signature (UserOp) to express cross-chain intent (Further reading: From EOA to Account Abstraction: Will Web3’s Next Leap Happen in the ‘Account System’?):

Account contracts can embed more complex verification/execution rules; one signature can trigger a series of cross-chain instructions. Combined with mechanisms like Paymaster, it can even achieve Gas abstraction—for example, paying target chain fees with source chain assets, eliminating the awkwardness of buying a few dollars of native Gas tokens before a cross-chain transfer.

This is also why the narrative around EIL is often tied to wallet experience, as what it truly aims to change is the entry point through which users interact with the multi-chain world.

The second component is the trust-minimized message passing mechanism—XLP (Cross-chain Liquidity Provider), which addresses the efficiency of cross-chain message delivery.

Because traditional cross-chain relies on relayers or centralized bridges, EIL introduces XLP. On this foundation, a theoretically efficient and ideally security-preserving path can be built:

• The user submits a cross-chain transaction on the source chain.
• XLPs observe this intent in the mempool and pre-fund/advance Gas on the target chain, providing a “payment voucher.”
• The user utilizes the voucher to self-execute the transaction 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 spot a problem: what if an XLP takes the money and doesn’t deliver? The ingenious design of EIL lies in the fact that if an XLP defaults, the user can submit proof to Ethereum L1 to trigger permissionless slashing of its staked assets.

The official bridge is only used for settlement and recourse in case of bad debt. This means the system runs extremely fast under normal conditions; in extreme cases, security is still backed by Ethereum L1.

This structure means moving the slow and expensive security mechanisms out of the default path, instead concentrating the trust pressure on failure handling.

Of course, this is precisely one source of controversy. When security relies more on the “executability of the failure path” and the “effectiveness of economic penalties,” is EIL truly not adding new trust assumptions? Or is it merely shifting trust from explicit relayers to a more hidden, more engineered set of conditions?

This leads to the more critical discussion below—while it looks elegant in theory, what potential centralization and economic frictions might it face in the real-world ecosystem, and why does the community remain cautious about it?

3. Between Vision and Engineering: Is EIL Truly ‘Minimizing Trust’?

At this point, EIL’s ambition is quite clear. Its design strives to avoid explicit relayer trust and attempts to converge the cross-chain process into one signature and one user operation at the wallet layer.

The problem is—trust doesn’t simply vanish; it only migrates.

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

Specifically, EIL’s efficiency stems from two points: first, AA bundles actions into one signature; second, XLP’s pre-funding allows users to bypass waiting. The former is understandable—it’s an efficiency gain from embedded AA. However, the latter’s pre-funding means that some security no longer comes from immediately verifiable finality, but from “economic guarantees that can be pursued and penalized.”

This undoubtedly pushes the risk exposure towards several more engineering-oriented questions:

• Under real market volatility, how are the XLP’s default probability, capital cost, and risk hedging priced?
• Is “slashing” timely and executable enough to cover losses in extreme scenarios?
• When amounts become larger and paths more complex (multi-hop/multi-chain), do failure scenarios become exponentially more difficult?

Ultimately, the trust foundation here is no longer mathematical proof but the validator’s staked collateral. If the attack cost is lower than the potential profit, the system still faces rollback risks.

Furthermore, objectively speaking, while EIL attempts to solve liquidity fragmentation through technical means, liquidity itself is a market behavior. If significant cost and trust disparities persist between chains, a mere communication standard (EIL) cannot make liquidity truly flow, as a pure communication protocol standard cannot solve the economic essence of “liquidity’s unwillingness to flow there.”

Extending this thought further, without accompanying economic incentive design, EIL might face the dilemma of having standardized pipelines but lacking executors because there’s no profit to be made.

Overall, however, EIL is one of the most important infrastructure concepts proposed by the Ethereum community in response to fragmented L2 experiences. It attempts to simplify UX while preserving Ethereum’s core values (self-custody, censorship resistance, disintermediation), which in itself is commendable (Further reading: Cutting Through the Ethereum ‘Degeneration’ Noise: Why is ‘Ethereum Values’ the Widest Moat?).

For ordinary users, there’s no need to hastily praise or dismiss EIL. Instead, 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. It is a technological and value-driven attempt to deeply integrate experience, economics, and the boundaries of security trust. It has the potential to push Ethereum towards truly seamless interoperability, but it might also expose new boundary effects and necessary compromises during implementation.

In Conclusion

In 2026, EIL is not a plug-and-play ultimate answer. It is more like a systematic test of trust boundaries, engineering feasibility, and the limits of user experience.

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

Before 2026, everything is still an experiment.

And this, perhaps, is Ethereum’s most authentic and most respectable aspect.

This article is sourced from the internet: Ethereum’s Year of Interoperability: A Deep Dive into EIL, a Grand Experiment in Entrusting “Trust” to Game Theory?

Related: Every country is heavily indebted, so who are the creditors?

Original author: Zhang Yaqi, Wall Street Insights Currently, every major power on Earth is mired in debt, raising the age-old question: “If everyone is in debt, then who is lending?” Recently, former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis provided an in-depth analysis of this complex and fragile global debt system in a podcast, warning that the system faces an unprecedented risk of collapse. Yanis Varoufakis argues that the lenders of government debt are far from outsiders, but rather a closed-loop system within the nation . In the United States, for example, the largest creditors are the Federal Reserve and internal government trust funds such as Social Security. A deeper secret lies in the fact that ordinary citizens hold substantial amounts of government bonds through their pensions and savings, making them the…