Account Abstraction

Account Abstraction


  • Please note that with the system update released in Feb 2023, the ergs concept is only used by the VM while the API layer operates with gas.
  • For more information, read the [changelog].


On Ethereum there are two types of accounts: externally owned accounts (EOAs)open in new window and contracts accountsopen in new window. The former type is the only one that can initiate transactions, while the latter is the only one that can implement arbitrary logic. For some use-cases, like smart-contract wallets or privacy protocols, this difference can create a lot of friction. As a result, such applications require L1 relayers, e.g. an EOA to help facilitate transactions from a smart-contract wallet.

Accounts in zkSync Era can initiate transactions, like an EOA, but can also have arbitrary logic implemented in them, like a smart contract. This feature, called "account abstraction" (AA), aims to resolve the issues described above.


  • zkSync Era is the first EVM-compatible chain to implement native account abstraction. We are evaluating how well the implementation works with EVM projects on testnet and mainnet. No incompatibilities have been found so far.
  • Due to the early stage nature of the feature, you may see some breaking changes to the account abstraction API/interfaces. However, given that accounts are versioned in zkSync Era, older accounts will still work even after breaking changes are released.

Native Account Abstraction on zkSync Era fundamentally changes how accounts operate by introducing the concept of Smart Accounts and Paymasters. Smart Accounts are fully programmable, allowing for various customizations such as signature schemes, native multi-sig capabilities, spending limits, and application-specific restrictions.


The native account abstraction of zkSync and Ethereum's EIP 4337 aim to enhance accounts' flexibility and user experience, but they differ in key aspects; learn more here.

Paymasters, conversely, can sponsor transactions for users, enabling users to pay transaction fees in ERC20 tokens. This innovative approach to account management significantly enhances user experience, security, and flexibility, paving the way for broader adoption of blockchain technology.


To better understand this page, we recommend you take some time to first read a guide on accountsopen in new window.


The account abstraction protocol on zkSync is very similar to EIP4337open in new window, though our protocol is still different for the sake of efficiency and better UX.

Keeping nonces unique


  • The current model does not allow custom wallets to send multiple transactions at the same time and maintain deterministic ordering.
  • For EOAs, nonces are expected to grow sequentially; while for custom accounts the order of transactions cannot be guaranteed.
  • In the future, we plan to switch to a model where accounts can choose between sequential or arbitrary nonce-ordering.

One of the important invariants of every blockchain is that each transaction has a unique hash. Holding this property with an arbitrary account abstraction is not trivial, though accounts can, in general, accept multiple identical transactions. Even though these transactions would be technically valid by the rules of the blockchain, violating hash uniqueness would be very hard for indexers and other tools to process.

There needs to be a solution on the protocol level that is both cheap for users and robust in case of a malicious operator. One of the easiest ways to ensure that transaction hashes do not repeat is to have a pair (sender, nonce) always unique.

The following protocol is used:

  • Before each transaction starts, the system queries the NonceHolder to check whether the provided nonce has already been used or not.
  • If the nonce has not been used yet, the transaction validation is run. The provided nonce is expected to be marked as "used" during this time.
  • After the validation, the system checks whether this nonce is now marked as used.

Users will be allowed to use any 256-bit number as nonce and they can put any non-zero value under the corresponding key in the system contract. This is already supported by the protocol, but not on the server side.

More documentation on various interactions with the NonceHolder system contract as well as tutorials will be available once support on the server side is released. For now, it is recommended to only use the incrementMinNonceIfEquals method, which practically enforces the sequential ordering of nonces.

Standardizing transaction hashes

In the future, it is planned to support efficient proofs of transaction inclusion on zkSync. This would require us to calculate the transaction's hash in the bootloader. Since these calculations won't be free to the user, it is only fair to include the transaction's hash in the interface of the AA methods (in case the accounts may need this value for some reason). That's why all the methods of the IAccount and IPaymaster interfaces, which are described below, contain the hash of the transaction as well as the recommended signed digest (the digest that is signed by EOAs for this transaction).

IAccount interface

Each account is recommended to implement the IAccountopen in new window interface. It contains the following five methods:

  • validateTransaction is mandatory and will be used by the system to determine if the AA logic agrees to proceed with the transaction. In case the transaction is not accepted (e.g. the signature is wrong) the method should revert. In case the call to this method succeeds, the implemented account logic is considered to accept the transaction, and the system will proceed with the transaction flow.
  • executeTransaction is mandatory and will be called by the system after the fee is charged from the user. This function should perform the execution of the transaction.
  • payForTransaction is optional and will be called by the system if the transaction has no paymaster, i.e. the account is willing to pay for the transaction. This method should be used to pay for the fees by the account. Note, that if your account will never pay any fees and will always rely on the paymaster feature, you don't have to implement this method. This method must send at least tx.gasprice * tx.gasLimit ETH to the bootloader address.
  • prepareForPaymaster is optional and will be called by the system if the transaction has a paymaster, i.e. there is a different address that pays the transaction fees for the user. This method should be used to prepare for the interaction with the paymaster. One of the notable examples where it can be helpful is to approve the ERC-20 tokens for the paymaster.
  • executeTransactionFromOutside, technically, is not mandatory, but it is highly encouraged, since there needs to be some way, in case of priority mode (e.g. if the operator is unresponsive), to be able to start transactions from your account from ``outside'' (basically this is the fallback to the standard Ethereum approach, where an EOA starts transaction from your smart contract).

IPaymaster interface

Like in EIP4337, our account abstraction protocol supports paymasters: accounts that can compensate for other accounts' transactions execution. You can read more about them here.

Each paymaster should implement the IPaymasteropen in new window interface. It contains the following two methods:

  • validateAndPayForPaymasterTransaction is mandatory and will be used by the system to determine if the paymaster approves paying for this transaction. If the paymaster is willing to pay for the transaction, this method must send at least tx.gasprice * tx.gasLimit to the operator. It should return the context that will be one of the call parameters to the postTransaction method.
  • postTransaction is optional and is called after the transaction executes. Note that unlike EIP4337, there is no guarantee that this method will be called. In particular, this method won't be called if the transaction fails with out of gas error. It takes four parameters: the context returned by validateAndPayForPaymasterTransaction, the transaction itself, a flag that indicates whether the transaction execution succeeded, and the maximum amount of gas the paymaster might be refunded with.

Reserved fields of the Transaction struct with special meaning

Note that each of the methods above accept the Transactionopen in new window struct. While some of its fields are self-explanatory, there are also 6 reserved fields, the meaning of each is defined by the transaction's type. We decided to not give these fields names, since they might be unneeded in some future transaction types. For now, the convention is:

  • reserved[0] is the nonce.
  • reserved[1] is msg.value that should be passed with the transaction.

The transaction flow

Each transaction goes through the following flow:

The validation step

During the validation step, the account should decide whether it accepts the transaction and if so, pay the fees for it. If any part of the validation fails, the account is not charged a fee, and such transaction can not be included in a block.

Step 1. The system checks that the nonce of the transaction has not been used before. You can read more about preserving the nonce uniqueness here.

Step 2. The system calls the validateTransaction method of the account. If it does not revert, proceed to the next step.

Step 3. The system checks that the nonce of the transaction has been marked as used.

Step 4 (no paymaster). The system calls the payForTransaction method of the account. If it does not revert, proceed to the next step.

Step 4 (paymaster). The system calls the prepareForPaymaster method of the sender. If this call does not revert, then the validateAndPayForPaymasterTransaction method of the paymaster is called. If it does not revert too, proceed to the next step.

Step 5. The system verifies that the bootloader has received at least tx.gasPrice * tx.gasLimit ETH to the bootloader. If it is the case, the verification is considered complete and we can proceed to the next step.

The execution step

The execution step is considered responsible for the actual execution of the transaction and sending the refunds for any unused gas back to the user. If there is any revert on this step, the transaction is still considered valid and will be included in the block.

Step 6. The system calls the executeTransaction method of the account.

Step 7. (only in case the transaction has a paymaster) The postTransaction method of the paymaster is called. This step should typically be used for refunding the sender the unused gas in case the paymaster was used to facilitate paying fees in ERC-20 tokens.


In EIP4337 you can see three types of gas limits: verificationGas, executionGas, preVerificationGas, that describe the gas limit for the different steps of the transaction inclusion in a block. zkSync Era has only a single field, gasLimit, that covers the fee for all three. When submitting a transaction, make sure that gasLimit is enough to cover verification, paying the fee (the ERC20 transfer mentioned above), and the actual execution itself.

By default, calling estimateGas adds a constant to cover charging the fee and the signature verification for EOA accounts.

Using the SystemContractsCaller library

For the sake of security, both NonceHolder and the ContractDeployer system contracts can only be called with a special isSystem flag. You can read more about it here. To make a call with this flag, the systemCall/systemCallWithPropagatedRevert/systemCallWithReturndata methods of the SystemContractsCalleropen in new window library should be used.

Using this library is practically a must when developing custom accounts since this is the only way to call non-view methods of the NonceHolder system contract. Also, you will have to use this library if you want to allow users to deploy contracts of their own. You can use the implementationopen in new window of the EOA account as a reference.

Extending EIP4337

To provide DoS protection for the operator, EIP4337 imposes several restrictionsopen in new window on the validation step of the account. Most of them, especially those regarding the forbidden opcodes, are still relevant. However, several restrictions have been lifted for better UX.

Extending the allowed opcodes

  • It is allowed to call/delegateCall/staticcall contracts that were already deployed. Unlike Ethereum, we have no way to edit the code that was deployed or delete the contract via selfdestruct, so we can be sure that the code during the execution of the contract will be the same.

Extending the set of slots that belong to a user

In the original EIP, the validateTransaction step of the AA allows the account to read only the storage slots of its own. However, there are slots that semantically belong to that user but are actually located on another contract’s addresses. A notable example is ERC20 balance.

This limitation provides DDoS safety by ensuring that the slots used for validation by various accounts do not overlap, so there is no need for them to actually belong to the account’s storage.

To enable reading the user's ERC20 balance or allowance on the validation step, the following types of slots will be allowed for an account with address A on the validation step:

  1. Slots that belong to address A.
  2. Slots A on any other address.
  3. Slots of type keccak256(A || X) on any other address. (to cover mapping(address => value), which is usually used for balance in ERC20 tokens).

What could be allowed in the future?

In the future, we might even allow time-bound transactions, e.g. allow checking that block.timestamp <= value if it returned false, etc. This would require deploying a separate library of such trusted methods, but it would greatly increase the capabilities of accounts.

Building custom accounts

As already mentioned above, each account should implement the IAccount interface.

An example of the implementation of the AA interface is the implementationopen in new window of the EOA account. Note that this account, just like standard EOA accounts on Ethereum, successfully returns empty value whenever it is called by an external address, while this may not be the behaviour that you would like for your account.


If you are building a smart wallet, we also highly encourage you to implement the EIP1271open in new window signature-validation scheme. This is the standard that is endorsed by the zkSync team. It is used in the signature-verification library described below in this section.

The deployment process

The process of deploying account logic is very similar to the one of deploying a smart contract. In order to protect smart contracts that do not want to be treated as an account, a different method of the deployer system contract should be used to do it. Instead of using create/create2, you should use the createAccount/create2Account methods of the deployer system contract.

Here is an example of how to deploy account logic using the zksync-ethers SDK (v5):

import { ContractFactory } from "zksync-ethers";

const contractFactory = new ContractFactory(abi, bytecode, initiator, "createAccount");
const aa = await contractFactory.deploy(...args);
await aa.deployed();

Limitations of the verification step


  • The verification rules are not yet fully enforced.
  • Even if your custom account works at the moment, it could stop working in the future if it does not follow the rules below.

In order to protect the system from a DoS threat, the verification step must have the following limitations:

  • The account logic can only touch slots that belong to the account. Note, that the definition is far beyond just the slots that are at the users' address.
  • The account logic can not use context variables (e.g. block.number).
  • It is also required that your account increases the nonce by 1. This restriction is only needed to preserve transaction hash collision resistance. In the future, this requirement will be lifted to allow more generic use-cases (e.g. privacy protocols).

Transactions that violate the rules above will not be accepted by the API, though these requirements can not be enforced on the circuit/VM level and do not apply to L1->L2 transactions.

To let you try out the feature faster, we decided to release account abstraction publicly before fully implementing the limitations' checks for the verification step of the account. Currently, your transactions may pass through the API despite violating the requirements above, but soon this will be changed.

Nonce holder contract

For optimization purposes, both tx nonce and the deployment nonce are put in one storage slot inside the NonceHolder system contracts. In order to increment the nonce of your account, it is highly recommended to call the incrementMinNonceIfEqualsopen in new window function and pass the value of the nonce provided in the transaction.

This is one of the whitelisted calls, where the account logic is allowed to call outside smart contracts.

Sending transactions from an account

For now, only EIP712 transactions are supported. To submit a transaction from a specific account, you should provide the from field of the transaction as the address of the sender and the customSignature field of the customData with the signature for the account.

import { utils } from "zksync-ethers";

// here the `tx` is a `TransactionRequest` object from `zksync-ethers` SDK.
// and the zksyncProvider is the `Provider` object from `zksync-ethers` SDK connected to zkSync network.
tx.from = aaAddress;
tx.customData = {
  customSignature: aaSignature,
const serializedTx = utils.serialize({ ...tx });

const sentTx = await zksyncProvider.sendTransaction(serializedTx);


Imagine being able to pay fees for users of your protocol! Paymasters are accounts that can compensate for other accounts' transactions. The other important use-case of paymasters is to facilitate paying fees in ERC20 tokens. While ETH is the formal fee token in zkSync, paymasters can provide the ability to exchange ERC20 tokens to ETH on the fly.

If users want to interact with a paymaster, they should provide the non-zero paymaster address in their EIP712 transaction. The input data to the paymaster is provided in the paymasterInput field of the paymaster.

Paymaster verification rules


  • The verification rules are not yet fully enforced.
  • Even if your paymaster works at the moment, it could stop working in the future if it does not follow the rules below.

Since multiple users should be allowed to access the same paymaster, malicious paymasters can do a DoS attack on our system. To work around this, a system similar to the EIP4337 reputation scoringopen in new window will be used.

Unlike in the original EIP, paymasters are allowed to touch any storage slots. Also, the paymaster won't be throttled if either of the following is true:

  • More than X minutes have passed since the verification has passed on the API nodes (the exact value of X will be defined later).
  • The order of slots being read is the same as during the run on the API node and the first slot whose value has changed is one of the user's slots. This is needed to protect the paymaster from malicious users (e.g. the user might have erased the allowance for the ERC20 token).

Built-in paymaster flows

While some paymasters can trivially operate without any interaction from users (e.g. a protocol that always pays fees for their users), some require active participation from the transaction's sender. A notable example is a paymaster that swaps users' ERC20 tokens to ETH as it requires the user to set the necessary allowance to the paymaster.

The account abstraction protocol by itself is generic and allows both accounts and paymasters to implement arbitrary interactions. However, the code of default accounts (EOAs) is constant, but we still want them to be able to participate in the ecosystem of custom accounts and paymasters. That's why we have standardized the paymasterInput field of the transaction to cover the most common uses-cases of the paymaster feature.

Your accounts are free to implement or not implement the support for these flows. However, this is highly encouraged to keep the interface the same for both EOAs and custom accounts.

General paymaster flow

It should be used if no prior actions are required from the user for the paymaster to operate.

The paymasterInput field must be encoded as a call to a function with the following interface:

function general(bytes calldata data);

EOA accounts will do nothing and the paymaster can interpret this data in any way.

Approval-based paymaster flow

It should be used if the user is required to set certain allowance to a token for the paymaster to operate. The paymasterInput field must be encoded as a call to a function with the following signature:

function approvalBased(
    address _token,
    uint256 _minAllowance,
    bytes calldata _innerInput

The EOA will ensure that the allowance of the _token towards the paymaster is set to at least _minAllowance. The _innerInput param is an additional payload that can be sent to the paymaster to implement any logic (e.g. an additional signature or key that can be validated by the paymaster).

If you are developing a paymaster, you should not trust the transaction sender to behave honestly (e.g. provide the required allowance with the approvalBased flow). These flows serve mostly as instructions to EOAs and the requirements should always be double-checked by the paymaster.

Working with paymaster flows using zksync-ethers SDK

The zksync-ethers SDK provides methods for encoding correctly formatted paymaster params for all of the built-in paymaster flows.

Testnet paymaster

To ensure users experience paymasters on testnet, as well as keep supporting paying fees in ERC20 tokens, the Matter Labs team provides the testnet paymaster, that enables paying fees in ERC20 token at a 1:1 exchange rate with ETH (i.e. one unit of this token is equal to 1 wei of ETH).

The paymaster supports only the approval based paymaster flow and requires that the token param is equal to the token being swapped and minAllowance to equal to least tx.maxFeePerGas * tx.gasLimit. In addition, the testnet paymaster does not make use of the _innerInput parameter, so nothing should be provided (empty bytes).

An example of how to use testnet paymaster can be seen in the frontend quickstart tutorial.

Estimating gas when interacting with a paymaster

While the paymaster pays the fees for the user, it also consumes additional gas compared to a normal transaction, which includes:

  1. Computation inside the paymaster's validateAndPayForPaymasterTransaction as well as postTransaction.
  2. Paymaster sending funds to the bootloader.
  3. Assigning and spending the allowance for the ERC20 tokens by the user. (optional, in case the user pays the paymaster in an ERC20 token)

While the (1) is usually quite negligible (it, of course, depends on the implementation of each individual paymaster), (2) is roughly similar to what the user would pay in a transaction if it was to be spent by the user on its own, the (3) is unique for the paymaster operations, i.e. it is effectively an additional slot that is affected. Especially if the user grants allowance for the first time, since it would require 32 bytes to publish the storage key identifier, which may amount to roughly 400k gas under 50 gwei L1 gas price. Note, that even though the usual flow is "grant X allowance to the paymaster + paymaster spends all allowance", which means that the slot is zeroed out at the end of the execution, the cost for write is pre-charged during execution. In other words, we firstly charge for pubdata required for updating the allowance and if the slot has been zeroed out by the end of the transaction, the user will be refunded, but only at the end of the transaction.

All of the above means that the estimation of the transaction must be as close to the final execution as possible. Especially, with regard to pubdata-intensive operations, like writing to storage.

On the front-end side you should provide the corresponding paymasterInput to ensure that the paymaster is used during estimation. The corresponding snippet from the Custom paymaster tutorial shows how to do it:

const gasLimit = await, 5, {
  customData: {
    gasPerPubdata: utils.DEFAULT_GAS_PER_PUBDATA_LIMIT,
    paymasterParams: paymasterParams,

Here, the paymasterParams contain both the address of the paymaster as well as its input.

Often paymasterInput contains some parameters that are hard to know at the time of the estimation. For instance: the actual amount of tokens that the user needs to provide. Also, often paymasters may store the pricing data on the server side and so a signature that allows a certain conversion rate may be needed.

If some signature that depends on the content of the transaction is required, it is better to return magic = 0 from the validateAndPayForPaymasterTransaction, while consuming roughly the same amount of gas as verification of a valid signature would require. This way it will ensure that while the transaction wouldn't pass on mainnet (since magic = 0) it will still be able to estimate the correct number of gas needed for this function to work. Note, that gas estimation is basically a binary search that searches for the lower number of gas that makes the transaction not fail, so if for some reason the validation is reverted, the gas estimation will try to provide a higher gas value. If it always fails, the gas estimation will fail also. The correctness of the magic value is checked during transaction submission only and is not checked during estimation.

Sometimes, unfortunately it will create "chicken and egg" problem. In order to know how much tokens should user grant to the paymaster, the paymaster needs to know the gasLimit, but in order to know the gasLimit we need to know the state diff created by the changes to the allowance. We already add some % to the estimated gas, so a small difference from the final amount is usually acceptable, but at a relatively close estimate should be provided in the paymasterParams.

There are two ways to provide the allowance for estimate:

  • If you have a rough estimation on how many funds the user will end up paying, you can use it. If the difference is on the order of a few pubdata bytes, it won't cause the tx to fail as our estimation already takes it into account. This approach is prone to some issues: for instance if user has a balance of 100 USDC and creates a tx that transfers 95 USDC from the users' balance, while during estimation you will assume that the user spends 10 USDC for the fee, the tx will fail (since it wont have enough funds for the actual transaction).
  • Alternatively you could estimate the cost of an individual transaction where the user would just set the allowance to the paymaster and then add this cost on top of the original estimated one. This may introduce a noticeable overhead to the original estimation, since such estimated tx would also include changing the nonce/general validation logic.

Signature validation

Your project can start preparing for native AA support. We highly encourage you to do so, since it will allow you to onboard hundreds of thousands of users (many new Wallets are smart accounts by default, providing way smoother experience for users). We expect that in the future even more users will switch to smart wallets.

One of the most notable differences between various types of accounts to be built is different signature schemes. We expect accounts to support the EIP-1271open in new window standard.

The @openzeppelin/contracts/utils/cryptography/SignatureChecker.solopen in new window library provides a way to verify signatures for different account implementations. We strongly encourage you to use this library whenever you need to check that a signature of an account is correct.

Adding the library to your project

yarn add @openzeppelin/contracts

Example of using the library

pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

import { SignatureChecker } from "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/cryptography/SignatureChecker.sol";

contract TestSignatureChecker {
    using SignatureChecker for address;

    function isValidSignature(
        address _address,
        bytes32 _hash,
        bytes memory _signature
    ) public pure returns (bool) {
        return _address.isValidSignatureNow(_hash, _signature);

Verifying AA signatures within our SDK

It is also not recommended to use ethers.js library to verify user signatures.

Our SDK provides two methods with its utils to verify the signature of an account:

export async function isMessageSignatureCorrect(address: string, message: ethers.Bytes | string, signature: SignatureLike): Promise<boolean>;

export async function isTypedDataSignatureCorrect(
  address: string,
  domain: TypedDataDomain,
  types: Record<string, Array<TypedDataField>>,
  value: Record<string, any>,
  signature: SignatureLike
): Promise<boolean>;

Currently these methods only support verifying ECDSA signatures, but very soon they will support EIP1271 signature verification as well.

Both of these methods return true or false depending on whether the message signature is correct.