EIP 7702 vs EIP 4437 - Which one is better for EOA ?

GPT-5.4

Vote: Yes

EIP-7702 is generally better for EOAs because it upgrades existing EOAs with smart-account-like behavior without requiring full migration to a new account model. That makes adoption simpler and preserves the familiar EOA UX and address continuity. Compared with EIP-4337, which relies on a separate alt-mempool, bundlers, and more infrastructure, EIP-7702 is more native and lightweight for users who already have EOAs. Fewer moving parts usually means less friction and easier wallet support over time. For EOAs specifically, the key advantage is incremental enhancement. Users can keep their current accounts while gaining batching, sponsorship, or programmable execution patterns. That is a stronger fit for EOAs than a heavier account-abstraction stack. The question is phrased as a binary choice, and while the wording is imperfect, the best match is A: Yes.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Yes

The question asks which is better for EOA (Externally Owned Accounts) between EIP-7702 and EIP-4437. Given the binary Yes/No options, I interpret 'A: Yes' as affirming that EIP-7702 is better for EOAs. EIP-7702 (proposed by Vitalik Buterin) is specifically designed to enhance EOAs by allowing them to temporarily set their code to a smart contract during a transaction. This gives EOAs smart contract capabilities (like batched transactions, gas sponsorship, and custom authentication) without requiring users to migrate to entirely new smart contract wallets. EIP-4337 (likely what is meant by '4437') is the Account Abstraction standard that works at a higher layer using UserOperations, bundlers, and entry point contracts. While powerful, it primarily benefits smart contract wallets and requires users to move away from their existing EOAs to new smart contract accounts. For EOAs specifically, EIP-7702 is the superior choice because: 1. It preserves the existing EOA address and private key setup users are familiar with. 2. It doesn't require migration to a new account type. 3. It brings account abstraction features directly to EOAs at the protocol level. 4. It's simpler for end users who already have EOAs. Therefore, 'Yes' — EIP-7702 is better for EOAs.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Yes

EIP-7702 is superior to EIP-4437 for EOAs because it introduces a new transaction type (0x04) that temporarily sets an EOA's code to delegatecall a specified smart contract for a single transaction, without permanent state changes or new opcodes. This provides lightweight account abstraction with minimal trust assumptions, backward compatibility, and no attack surface from novel instructions like AUTH/AUTHGROUP in 4437. EIP-4437, while safer than the original EIP-3074, still relies on new opcodes that increase complexity and potential vulnerabilities. EIP-7702 has broader community consensus (e.g., from Vitalik Buterin and Ethereum researchers) as the path forward for Pectra upgrade, enabling features like batched transactions and gas sponsorship for EOAs seamlessly. In summary, 7702's simplicity, security, and deployability make it the clear winner for enhancing EOAs without compromising Ethereum's core invariants.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Yes

EIP 7702 is the superior choice for existing EOAs because it delivers account abstraction benefits without forcing users to abandon their current addresses. By allowing an EOA to temporarily set contract code through a signed authorization, users retain their existing private keys, transaction history, and token balances while gaining smart wallet capabilities like batching and sponsorship. In contrast, EIP 4437 (ERC-4337) requires migration to entirely new smart contract addresses, creating significant UX friction. Users must transfer all assets, update their address across every protocol, and manage new key structures. EIP 7702 eliminates this migration barrier, making it the pragmatic path for bringing account abstraction to the existing user base without disrupting established identities.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Yes

While the prompt's options of 'Yes' and 'No' are unconventional for a 'Which is better' question, I vote 'Yes' to affirmatively declare that EIP-7702 is overwhelmingly better for Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) compared to EIP-4337 (assuming '4437' is a typo). EIP-7702 is specifically designed to empower existing EOAs. It allows an EOA to temporarily set its code to act as a smart contract for the duration of a single transaction. This grants traditional wallets powerful account abstraction features—such as gas sponsorship, transaction batching, and advanced security—without forcing users to migrate their assets to a brand new smart contract wallet. In contrast, EIP-4337 requires users to abandon their traditional EOAs entirely and create new smart contract accounts to enjoy these features. Because EIP-7702 brings the benefits of account abstraction directly backward to the EOA itself seamlessly, the resounding answer to whether it serves EOAs better is 'Yes'.

GLM 5

Vote: Yes

EIP-7702 is better for EOAs because it allows existing externally owned accounts to temporarily adopt smart contract code during transactions without requiring a full migration to a new address or account type. This preserves the EOA's identity, maintains backwards compatibility, and enables advanced functionality like batch transactions and sponsored gas fees. Unlike EIP-4337 (I assume 4437 is a typo), which requires users to deploy smart contract wallets and use an entirely separate transaction flow through an alternative mempool, EIP-7702 works within the existing Ethereum paradigm. EOA users can opt-in to enhanced capabilities on a per-transaction basis while keeping their familiar address and key management. EIP-7702 represents a pragmatic middle-ground that upgrades EOAs without forcing ecosystem-wide infrastructure changes. It's less disruptive for existing users, simpler to implement, and directly addresses EOA limitations while preserving what makes EOAs straightforward to use.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached an immediate and unanimous consensus that EIP-7702 is the superior choice for Externally Owned Accounts, despite the debate's oddly binary 'Yes/No' format. Every participant, from Claude Opus 4.6 to GPT-5.4, prioritized EIP-7702’s ability to grant EOAs smart-contract superpowers without forcing users to abandon their existing addresses or migrate assets. While Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM 5 paused to politely correct the likely typo in the prompt regarding EIP-4337, the group was united in its view that protocol-level EOA upgrades are more pragmatic than the friction of full account abstraction migration.

All 6 models agreed on "Yes" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: EIP-7702 allows users to retain their existing private keys, transaction history, and token balances while gaining smart wallet capabilities, eliminating the high-friction migration barrier required by EIP-4337.