账户抽象初学者指南:打造简单、安全、强大的加密用户体验

深潮Published on 2024-07-26Last updated on 2024-07-26

账户抽象是一套框架和标准,可以大幅提升加密钱包(账户)的功能。

作者:cygaar

编译:深潮TechFlow

“账户抽象是加密货币的未来。”

你可能听过这句话很多次,但并不清楚它的具体含义。今天,让我们来解决这个问题。

我将为你介绍账户抽象的初学者指南——它是什么,如何运作,以及它将如何彻底改变加密货币应用。

我们不会深入探讨账户抽象的技术和实现细节(那是以后的话题)。相反,这里将提供一个高层次的概述,并通过实际例子展示账户抽象在过去几年中如何改善了加密货币的用户体验。

简单来说,账户抽象是一套框架和标准,可以大幅提升加密钱包(账户)的功能。

你可以把它想象成给一辆1999年的本田思域加上飞行能力,它仍然可以作为汽车行驶,但现在它还能做更多事情。

你可能会问,为什么加密钱包默认不具备这些强大功能呢?答案是,在一些现代区块链上,它们确实很强大,但对于像以太坊这样的传统区块链,账户是在我们完全理解其所有潜在用途和缺陷之前设计的。

在以太坊(和许多EVM链)上,我们主要使用外部拥有账户(EOAs)。这些是简单的钱包,只能持有资产并发起交易。它们绑定到一个单一的私钥,无法执行复杂操作。

同时,我们还有智能合约,在区块链上自动执行的代码。智能合约几乎可以被编程来执行任何任务。

如果我们能将智能合约的灵活性添加到每个人的加密钱包中,那不是很酷吗?这就是合约账户(CAs)登场的地方——它们是账户抽象的核心部分。

合约账户将智能合约的无限功能融入钱包中,使其功能大幅增强。这些钱包仍然可以持有资金,但不再依赖于单一的私钥。

过去,如果你丢失了私钥,就相当于丢失了钱包。

这对于非加密货币用户来说,体验非常糟糕。而有了合约账户,钱包可以通过多种认证方式进行操作,而不再需要传统的私钥签名。

你可以使用指纹识别、第三方提供商(如Google、Apple)、多重签名或不同的签名方案来进行认证。

即使你真的丢失了原始私钥,也可以通过设定的方法恢复账户。

构建账户验证的方法有很多。这些方法不仅能提升钱包的安全性,账户抽象(AA)还赋予钱包新的功能。

在外部拥有账户(EOAs)中,所有交易必须使用链上的原生燃料代币支付,并且必须由发起者支付。此外,一次只能进行一笔交易。

但有了AA:

  • 交易可以完全由第三方(通常是应用程序)赞助

  • 交易可以用不同的代币支付(例如,用USDC支付而不是ETH)

  • 交易可以批量处理,节省 gas 费,并允许在不需要单独批准的情况下进行代币交换

由此可见,AA 能够显著改善加密应用的用户体验。之前,我们被僵化的结构束缚,使得加密货币的入门变得繁琐和困难。而现在,有了 AA,我们可以创造出与传统 Web2 应用媲美甚至超越的用户体验。

需要强调的是,这些智能合约账户仍然完全由用户自己掌控,没有第三方能够访问用户的资金——所有资产仍然是自我托管的。

那么,AA 的现状如何呢?

在 EVM 上,我们有 ERC-4337 和 EIP-7702 等提案,为AA奠定了基础。

如今,我提到的许多功能已经实现。然而,将现有钱包转变为合约钱包仍需要大量工作。

未来,我会发布一份详细的账户抽象指南,介绍更多细节。

目前,你只需知道 AA 是我们实现简单、安全和强大用户体验的关键,它将迎接下一波加密用户的到来。

Related Reads

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

Glue Finance founder argues that Ethereum's current price underperformance, despite high on-chain activity, stems from its incomplete state and lingering dependency on central stewards like the Ethereum Foundation. The core thesis is that the market is discounting ETH not for lack of use, but because the protocol remains a "machine under construction." Key unresolved issues include centralized L2 sequencers with limited escape hatches, state bloat, vulnerable public mempools, and the looming quantum computing threat. This perpetual "work-in-progress" status forces reliance on a small group of maintainers, undermining the network's promise of credible neutrality and immutability. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed paths: a "wartime mode" of centralizing for speed (surrendering Ethereum's unique value) or merely replacing the Foundation with another governing entity. The only solution is to complete and then "freeze" the protocol's neutral core through a focused "Manhattan Project" dubbed "Lean Ethereum." This project aims to bundle critical upgrades—consensus layer overhaul, massive scaling via ZK-proofs, quantum resistance, and statelessness—into a decisive push to finalize the base layer. Once the core rules are cryptographically solidified and beyond anyone's control (passing the "walk-away test"), Ethereum would shed its dependency discount and earn a "rigidity premium" for its credible neutrality and programmability, potentially surpassing Bitcoin's valuation. The race is between completing this hardening and the risks of protocol capture or stagnation.

链捕手4m ago

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

链捕手4m ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit1h ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit1h ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit1h ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit1h ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News1h ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight News1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片