pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10160 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-11 · 💻 cs.CE · cs.CR

GasLiteAA: Optimizing ERC-4337 for Efficient and Secure Gas Sponsorship

Hongxu Su , Mingzhe Liu , Jie Xu , Xiaohua Jia , Xuechao Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cs.CR
keywords ERC-4337account abstractiongas sponsorshippaymasterTrusted Execution Environmentsverifiable offloadingEthereum scalabilitysmart contract wallets
0
0 comments X

The pith

GasLiteAA offloads ERC-4337 paymaster logic to Trusted Execution Environments to cut on-chain gas costs while anchoring integrity via attestations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes a framework called GasLiteAA to address the high gas overhead in ERC-4337 account abstraction, which stems from repeated on-chain validation and state updates for paymasters. It moves the stateful parts of gas sponsorship and user quota tracking into Trusted Execution Environments, where rules are enforced off-chain. Integrity is preserved by posting lightweight cryptographic attestations back to the blockchain. This approach keeps full compatibility with Ethereum Layer 1 and maintains verifiability without requiring trust in any single party. A sympathetic reader would care because lower fees could make programmable smart-contract wallets practical at larger scale.

Core claim

GasLiteAA delegates the secure execution of stateful gas sponsorship logic and user quota management to Trusted Execution Environments, enforcing validation rules off-chain while anchoring their integrity on-chain via lightweight cryptographic attestations. This verifiable offloading architecture significantly reduces on-chain computation and storage costs without sacrificing verifiability or decentralization.

What carries the argument

Verifiable offloading of paymaster logic to TEE combined with on-chain cryptographic attestations for state integrity.

If this is right

  • Transaction fees for sponsored operations drop substantially while the system stays fully compatible with Ethereum Layer 1.
  • Complex, stateful paymaster policies become feasible without proportional on-chain cost increases.
  • Account-abstraction deployments can scale to larger user bases without hitting current gas bottlenecks.
  • Security properties of verifiability and decentralization remain intact through the attestation mechanism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same offloading pattern could be applied to other state-heavy components in account abstraction, such as session keys or social recovery logic.
  • If TEE attestation costs and latency remain low, the technique might generalize to other layer-2 or side-chain sponsorship schemes.
  • Adoption would depend on hardware availability and standardization of attestation formats across Ethereum clients.

Load-bearing premise

Trusted Execution Environments can securely run the stateful sponsorship and quota logic without being compromised, and the on-chain attestations are sufficient to guarantee that off-chain decisions match the intended rules.

What would settle it

A concrete experiment that measures actual gas savings on Ethereum mainnet for a set of sponsored transactions and finds no meaningful reduction, or a successful attack that forges a valid attestation while violating quota rules without on-chain detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10160 by Hongxu Su, Jie Xu, Mingzhe Liu, Xiaohua Jia, Xuechao Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: GasLiteAA Framework Overview. anchored on-chain to guarantee transparency and verifiability. The update of the UserStateRoot is atomic with the transaction execution. While Bundlers utilize pre-execution simulations to minimize failures, any on-chain revert automatically inval￾idates the proposed state transition, preventing state drift. For recovery, the full UserState and its ordered update log are persi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Off-chain computation latency comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Storage and proof size comparison. GasLiteAA is uniquely positioned to handle complex, pro￾grammable paymaster logic without sacrificing performance or demanding high-end hardware. VI. CONCLUSION In this paper, we presented GasLiteAA, a TEE-assisted framework for ERC-4337 that offloads complex paymaster val￾idation logic to reduce gas consumption while preserving on￾chain state consistency and verifiabilit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Memory resource consumption (RAM) comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

ERC-4337, the Ethereum account abstraction standard, simplifies account management and transaction fee payment in decentralized applications by introducing programmable smart contract wallets and gas sponsorship via paymasters. However, its heavy reliance on on-chain validation and frequent state updates incurs substantial gas overhead, leading to performance bottlenecks and limiting scalability in large-scale deployments. To mitigate these issues, we propose GasLiteAA, a framework that optimize ERC-4337 by offloading paymaster logic to Trusted Execution Environments (TEE). GasLiteAA delegates the secure execution of stateful gas sponsorship logic and user quota management to TEE, enforcing validation rules off-chain while anchoring their integrity on-chain via lightweight cryptographic attestations. This verifiable offloading architecture significantly reduces on-chain computation and storage costs without sacrificing verifiability or decentralization. Experimental results demonstrate that GasLiteAA substantially lowers transaction fees, while remaining fully compatible with Ethereum Layer 1. By balancing security, efficiency, and deployability, GasLiteAA provides a practical and scalable approach to gas sponsorship for account-abstraction-based decentralized applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GasLiteAA, a framework that optimizes ERC-4337 account abstraction by offloading paymaster logic for gas sponsorship and user quota management to Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs). Stateful execution occurs off-chain while integrity is anchored on-chain via lightweight cryptographic attestations. The central claim is that this verifiable offloading architecture substantially reduces on-chain computation and storage costs (and thus transaction fees) without sacrificing verifiability, security, or decentralization, while remaining fully compatible with Ethereum Layer 1.

Significance. If the security and performance claims hold, the work could meaningfully improve scalability for ERC-4337-based applications by lowering the gas overhead of paymaster operations, potentially enabling wider adoption of account abstraction in production dApps. The architectural pattern of TEE offloading combined with on-chain attestation is a practical attempt to balance efficiency and verifiability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the architecture 'significantly reduces on-chain computation and storage costs without sacrificing verifiability or decentralization' is load-bearing for the entire contribution, yet the manuscript supplies no experimental data, baselines, quantitative results, error bars, or methods to support the magnitude of fee reduction.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (and implied architecture description): the security argument rests on the assumption that TEEs can correctly execute stateful gas sponsorship and quota management while on-chain attestations suffice to detect violations and preserve decentralization; no threat model, side-channel analysis, or formal argument is provided to substantiate that a TEE compromise would not allow invalid sponsorships that the on-chain contract would otherwise reject.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: grammatical error in 'a framework that optimize ERC-4337' (should be 'optimizes').

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important areas for strengthening the manuscript. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that will improve the rigor of the claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the architecture 'significantly reduces on-chain computation and storage costs without sacrificing verifiability or decentralization' is load-bearing for the entire contribution, yet the manuscript supplies no experimental data, baselines, quantitative results, error bars, or methods to support the magnitude of fee reduction.

    Authors: We agree that the load-bearing claim in the abstract requires detailed empirical backing. The manuscript currently references experimental results only at a high level in the abstract without providing the underlying data, methods, baselines, or quantitative analysis in the body. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated evaluation section with gas cost measurements for GasLiteAA versus standard ERC-4337 paymasters, specific reduction percentages, comparison baselines, and statistical details including error bars and experimental methodology. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and implied architecture description): the security argument rests on the assumption that TEEs can correctly execute stateful gas sponsorship and quota management while on-chain attestations suffice to detect violations and preserve decentralization; no threat model, side-channel analysis, or formal argument is provided to substantiate that a TEE compromise would not allow invalid sponsorships that the on-chain contract would otherwise reject.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the security argument needs explicit substantiation. The current manuscript relies on the standard properties of TEEs and on-chain attestations without a dedicated threat model or analysis of side-channels. In the revision, we will insert a new security analysis section that defines the threat model (including TEE compromise and attestation forgery), explains how on-chain verification rejects invalid sponsorships, and discusses side-channel risks with references to established mitigations and the narrow scope of our paymaster logic. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: architectural proposal with independent design claims

full rationale

The paper proposes an off-chain TEE-based architecture for ERC-4337 paymaster optimization, anchored by on-chain attestations. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided text or abstract. Claims of reduced gas costs and preserved verifiability rest on the proposed design and external TEE properties rather than any self-referential construction, self-citation chain, or renaming of known results. The derivation chain is self-contained as a systems proposal without reducing outputs to inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on domain assumptions about TEE security properties and attestation reliability rather than new mathematical derivations or fitted parameters.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Trusted Execution Environments provide isolated, tamper-resistant execution for stateful paymaster logic and quota management.
    Invoked to justify moving validation off-chain while preserving security.
  • domain assumption Lightweight cryptographic attestations are sufficient to anchor off-chain execution integrity on-chain without reintroducing full on-chain computation.
    Central to the claim of reduced costs without loss of verifiability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 1370 out tokens · 32689 ms · 2026-05-10T15:49:15.189381+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ethereum white paper,

    V . Buterinet al., “Ethereum white paper,”GitHub repository, vol. 1, pp. 22–23, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Web3 challenges and opportunities for the market,

    D. Sheridan, J. Harris, F. Wear, J. Cowell Jr, E. Wong, and A. Yazdinejad, “Web3 challenges and opportunities for the market,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02446, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Effect of the gas price surges on user activity in the daos of the ethereum blockchain,

    Y . Faqir-Rhazoui, M.-J. Ariza-Garz ´on, J. Arroyo, and S. Hassan, “Effect of the gas price surges on user activity in the daos of the ethereum blockchain,” inExtended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI EA ’21. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery,

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451755

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451755

    work page doi:10.1145/3411763.3451755

  5. [5]

    Hsm-based key management solution for ethereum blockchain,

    W. M. Shbair, E. Gavrilov, and R. State, “Hsm-based key management solution for ethereum blockchain,” in2021 IEEE International Confer- ence on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), 2021, pp. 1–3

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Attainable hacks on keystore files in ethereum wallets—a systematic analysis,

    P. Praitheeshan, Y . W. Xin, L. Pan, and R. Doss, “Attainable hacks on keystore files in ethereum wallets—a systematic analysis,” inFuture Network Systems and Security: 5th International Conference, FNSS 2019, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, November 27–29, 2019, Proceedings

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Springer, 2019, pp. 99–117

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Defi protocol risks: The paradox of defi,

    N. Carter and L. Jeng, “Defi protocol risks: The paradox of defi,” Regtech, suptech and beyond: innovation and technology in financial services” riskbooks–forthcoming Q, vol. 3, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Sok: Decentralized finance (defi),

    S. Werner, D. Perez, L. Gudgeon, A. Klages-Mundt, D. Harz, and W. Knottenbelt, “Sok: Decentralized finance (defi),” inProceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, 2022, pp. 30–46

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Examining usability issues in blockchain-based cryptocurrency wallets,

    M. Moniruzzaman, F. Chowdhury, and M. S. Ferdous, “Examining usability issues in blockchain-based cryptocurrency wallets,” inCyber Security and Computer Science: Second EAI International Conference, ICONCS 2020, Dhaka, Bangladesh, February 15-16, 2020, Proceedings

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Springer, 2020, pp. 631–643

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Account abstraction via singleton entrypoint contract and verifying paymaster,

    A. Kumar Singh, I. Ul Hassan, G. Kaur, S. Kumar, and Anmol, “Account abstraction via singleton entrypoint contract and verifying paymaster,” in2023 2nd International Conference on Edge Computing and Applications (ICECAA). IEEE, Jul 2023 07, p. 1598–1605. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICECAA58104.2023.10212316

    work page doi:10.1109/icecaa58104.2023.10212316 2023

  13. [13]

    Account abstraction,

    “Account abstraction,” [Accessed 12-10-2025]. [On- line]. Available: https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/account-abstraction/ #account-abstraction

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Elrom,Ethereum Wallets and Smart Contracts

    E. Elrom,Ethereum Wallets and Smart Contracts. Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2019, pp. 173–212. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4842-4847-8 5

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Account abstraction, analysed,

    Q. Wang and S. Chen, “Account abstraction, analysed,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00448

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Credential control balance: A universal blockchain account model abstract from bank to bitcoin, ethereum external owned account and account abstraction,

    H. Jiao, N. Udomlertsakul, and A. Tamprasirt, “Credential control balance: A universal blockchain account model abstract from bank to bitcoin, ethereum external owned account and account abstraction,”

    work page

  17. [17]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10616

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10616

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    Time-travel investigation: Toward building a scalable attack detection framework on ethereum,

    S. Wu, L. Wu, Y . Zhou, R. Li, Z. Wang, X. Luo, C. Wang, and K. Ren, “Time-travel investigation: Toward building a scalable attack detection framework on ethereum,”ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1–33, 2022

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Metamask,

    “Metamask,” [Accessed 12-10-2025]. [Online]. Available: https: //metamask.io/

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Trust wallet,

    “Trust wallet,” [Accessed 12-10-2025]. [Online]. Available: https: //trustwallet.com/?{utm\ source}=cryptwerk

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    [Online]

    “Argent,” [Accessed 12-10-2025]. [Online]. Available: https://www. argent.xyz/zh

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    [Online]

    “Dune,” [Accessed 12-10-2025]. [Online]. Available: https://dune.com/ queries/3632302/6118358

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Eip-4337: Account abstraction via entry point contract specification,

    V . Buterin, Y . Weiss, K. Gazso, N. Patel, D. Tirosh, S. Nacson, and T. Hess, “Eip-4337: Account abstraction via entry point contract specification,” 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    A measurement investigation of erc-4337 smart contracts on ethereum blockchain,

    Z. Lin, T. Wang, C. Zhao, S. Zhang, Q. Yang, and L. Shi, “A measurement investigation of erc-4337 smart contracts on ethereum blockchain,” in2024 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC). IEEE, Feb 2024 02, p. 1164–1170. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNC59896. 2024.10556301

    work page doi:10.1109/icnc59896 2024

  25. [25]

    Etherless ethereum tokens: Simulating native tokens in ethereum,

    J. Andrews, M. Ciampi, and V . Zikas, “Etherless ethereum tokens: Simulating native tokens in ethereum,”Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 135, p. 55–72, Aug 2023 08. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2023.02.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2023.02.001 2023

  26. [26]

    Biconomy,

    “Biconomy,” [Accessed 06-10-2025]. [Online]. Available: https: //legacy-docs.biconomy.io/paymaster

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Ethereum gas station network (gsn),

    “Ethereum gas station network (gsn),” [Accessed 06-10-2025]. [Online]. Available: https://docs.opengsn.org/

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Stackup,

    “Stackup,” [Accessed 06-10-2025]. [Online]. Available: https://docs. stackup.sh/docs/erc-4337-overview

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Gas cost calculation,

    “Gas cost calculation,” [Accessed 12-10-2025]. [Online]. Available: https://ethereum.org/zh/developers/docs/transactions/#on-gas

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Trusted execution en- vironment: What it is, and what it is not,

    M. Sabt, M. Achemlal, and A. Bouabdallah, “Trusted execution en- vironment: What it is, and what it is not,” in2015 IEEE Trust- com/BigDataSE/ISPA, vol. 1, 2015, pp. 57–64

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    2025 crypto crime report,

    “2025 crypto crime report,” [Online; accessed 2025-12-31]. [Online]. Available: https://go.chainalysis.com/2025-Crypto-Crime-Report.html

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    EIP-7702: Set Code for EOAs,

    V . Buterin, S. Wilson, A. Dietrichs, and lightclient, “EIP-7702: Set Code for EOAs,” Ethereum Improvement Proposals, May 2024, available: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7702

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Web Authentication: An API for accessing Public Key Credentials Level 2,

    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), “Web Authentication: An API for accessing Public Key Credentials Level 2,” W3C, Tech. Rep., 2021, w3C Recommendation, April 8, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn-2/

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Wallet contracts on ethereum,

    M. Di Angelo and G. Slazer, “Wallet contracts on ethereum,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–2

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Characteristics of wallet contracts on ethereum,

    M. Di Angelo and G. Salzer, “Characteristics of wallet contracts on ethereum,” in2020 2nd Conference on Blockchain Research & Appli- cations for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 232–239

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Wallid: Secure your id in an ethereum wallet,

    M. Tavares, A. Guerreiro, C. Coutinho, F. Veiga, and A. Campos, “Wallid: Secure your id in an ethereum wallet,” in2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems (IS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 714–721

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Tirosh, A

    D. Tirosh, A. Forshtat, shahafn, Y . Weiss, D. Chiang, L. Siri, R. Meissner, K. Gazso, X. Yang, D. Coombs, taek, livingrockrises, kaiix, A. Wahid, H. Jadeja, Jammyaa, josh crites, Mikhail, G. John, L. Vincent-Genod, bittervec, soham, vuittont60, and Jayden,eth- infinitism/account-abstraction, 1 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/eth-infinitism...

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Glossary – safe docs

    Safe. Glossary – safe docs. [Online]. Available: https://docs.safe.global/ home/glossary

    work page

  39. [39]

    (2025) Pimlico paymasters

    Pimlico. (2025) Pimlico paymasters. [Online]. Available: https: //docs.pimlico.io/references/paymaster

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Introduction - ZKsync Docs — docs.zksync.io,

    “Introduction - ZKsync Docs — docs.zksync.io,” https://docs.zksync.io/ zksync-protocol/account-abstraction, [Accessed 19-01-2025]

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    What is native account abstraction and how does it benefit crypto users? — starknet.io,

    Starknet, “What is native account abstraction and how does it benefit crypto users? — starknet.io,” https://www.starknet.io/ blog/account-abstraction/native-account-abstraction/, [Accessed 19-01- 2025]

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Welcome to paymaster – coinbase developer documentation

    Coinbase. Welcome to paymaster – coinbase developer documentation. [Online]. Available: https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/ paymaster/introduction/welcome

    work page

  43. [43]

    (n.d.) Alchemy gas manager – web3 wallet tools – alchemy

    Alchemy. (n.d.) Alchemy gas manager – web3 wallet tools – alchemy. [Online]. Available: https://www.alchemy.com/dapps/gas-manager

    work page

  44. [44]

    Paymaster — biconomy

    Biconomy. Paymaster — biconomy. [Online]. Available: https: //legacy-docs.biconomy.io/paymaster

    work page

  45. [45]

    Pufferfinance/rave,

    Benjamin and A. Forouzani, “Pufferfinance/rave,” 7 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/PufferFinance/rave

    work page 2024