GM
EIP-7702’s ability to let EOAs temporarily act as contracts unlocks novel use cases. However, its inverse effect—granting contracts EOA-like transaction signing—is a paradigm shift requiring scrutiny.
While EOAs gaining smart contract-like behavior is transformative, the reverse—smart contracts wielding EOA-like signing authority—carries profound risks. Imagine widely-adopted, high-value contracts (e.g., WETH, vaults, cross-chain bridges) “autonomously initiating” (signing) transactions—what safeguards exist?.
Core Risks:
- Accountability Blur: Contracts wielding EOA-like signing keys could lack clear governance, revocation pathways, or ownership transparency.
- Risk Amplification: Contract initiated transactions could magnify systemic risks.
Proposed Safeguard: Sandboxed Delegation
- Mechanism:
-
Restrict delegated EOAs to ONLY sign transactions that modify/revoke their delegation .
- Preserve EIP-3607 safeguards—preventing delegated EOAs (contracts) from autonomously initiating transactions.
- While delegated, the EOA can only modify or revoke delegation.
- To regain initiating ability, the EOA must first revoke delegation, ensuring clear separation.
-
Pros: Adds friction to misuse while retaining flexibility.
-
Trade-offs: Uncharted territory—UX friction, Pandora’s box.
-
“With great power comes great responsibility” — a mantra worth embedding into EIP-7702’s adoption.