In the EVM ecosystem, account abstraction usually adds flexibility at the wallet layer. But Miden takes a different approach.
The key difference is: Miden doesn't add features to the account model later on, but makes the account itself programmable from the ground up. Permission management, policy execution, identity verification logic—these are all native features of Miden, directly baked into the protocol.
In other words, you don't need to hack around at the wallet layer to achieve flexible account control. Miden sinks these capabilities down to the protocol layer. This means more design freedom, as well as greater security and efficiency—because it doesn't rely on workarounds implemented by wallets.
This is a fundamental difference in architectural thinking: one is a remedial patch later, the other is an inherent design from the start.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
15 Likes
Reward
15
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
BetterLuckyThanSmart
· 7h ago
This is the real difference. The EVM approach is just patching, while Miden is designed from the ground up.
View OriginalReply0
PoetryOnChain
· 7h ago
Wow, this architectural idea is really awesome. The underlying design natively supports programmable accounts, eliminating the need for hacks and workarounds at the wallet layer.
View OriginalReply0
rugged_again
· 7h ago
Bro, this analysis has some substance. The underlying design and subsequent remediation are worlds apart. Miden's approach is indeed much cleaner.
View OriginalReply0
Gm_Gn_Merchant
· 7h ago
Wow, someone finally explained the concept of account abstraction clearly. The EVM side is indeed all about patching, and the Miden approach is considered a breakthrough.
View OriginalReply0
GweiTooHigh
· 7h ago
This approach is indeed different; Miden has thought it through from the source. Compared to the patchwork account abstraction of EVM, directly embedding flexibility into the protocol is indeed more straightforward.
View OriginalReply0
CodeAuditQueen
· 7h ago
Native support at the protocol layer vs. patches at the wallet layer, the difference is really significant. Removing a workaround layer means reducing an attack vector.
View OriginalReply0
StopLossMaster
· 7h ago
This is the way it should be. Designed from the ground up, a hundred times better than those patched together later.
In the EVM ecosystem, account abstraction usually adds flexibility at the wallet layer. But Miden takes a different approach.
The key difference is: Miden doesn't add features to the account model later on, but makes the account itself programmable from the ground up. Permission management, policy execution, identity verification logic—these are all native features of Miden, directly baked into the protocol.
In other words, you don't need to hack around at the wallet layer to achieve flexible account control. Miden sinks these capabilities down to the protocol layer. This means more design freedom, as well as greater security and efficiency—because it doesn't rely on workarounds implemented by wallets.
This is a fundamental difference in architectural thinking: one is a remedial patch later, the other is an inherent design from the start.