The "Universal Safe" Initiative: Incentivizing Cross-Chain Address Unification

[Proposal] The “Universal Safe” Initiative: Incentivizing Cross-Chain Address Unification

Title: The “Universal Safe” Initiative: Gas Sponsorship for Deterministic Deployment
Author: @xinbenlv, “Victor Zhou forum.safe.global@zzn.im
Status: Draft / RFC (Request for Comments)
Topic: Growth Strategy / Protocol Infrastructure / Cross-Chain UX


1. Executive Summary

This proposal outlines a strategic initiative for Safe DAO to partner with major Chain Foundations (L2s/Sidechains) to sponsor the gas fees for user deployment of Safe accounts.

The objective is to establish a “Universal Address” standard: ensuring that a user’s Safe address on Mainnet is mathematically guaranteed to be their address on every supported L2, with zero cost to the user. By removing the economic friction of the “Cold Start,” we can cement Safe as the unified identity layer of the EVM ecosystem.


2. Historical Context: The Evolution of Determinism

To understand why we shall act now, we should first look at the archaeological layers of Ethereum’s address derivation. The technological prerequisites have finally converged after an 8-year evolutionary arc.

  • 2018: The Foundation (EIP-1014 / CREATE2)

    • The Breakthrough: EIP-1014 introduced CREATE2, allowing for “counterfactual instantiation.” We could finally predict a contract’s address based on its init code and salt before deployment.
    • The Limit: While mathematically possible, economic friction remained. A user needed native tokens (ETH, MATIC, OP) on every chain to “materialize” their identity.
  • 2023: The Decoupling (ERC-4337)

    • The Breakthrough: ERC-4337 decoupled the “Signer” from the “Payer.” Paymasters enabled third parties to subsidize transaction fees.
    • The Shift: It became technically feasible for a chain to pay for a user’s onboarding without the user ever holding the chain’s native token.
  • 2024-2026: The Unification (EIP-7702 & Beyond)

    • The Horizon: EIP-7702 allows EOAs to temporarily “behave” as smart contracts. As the line between EOA and Safe blurs, users will demand the portability of an EOA with the power of a Safe.
    • The Opportunity: We are currently in a “coordination gap.” The tech exists, but the economic incentive to use it is fragmented.

3. The Problem: Identity Entropy & The “State Drift” Fear

Currently, the multi-chain ecosystem suffers from Identity Entropy. When a user moves from Ethereum Mainnet to Arbitrum or Base, they face:

  1. The Cold Start: They have no address history and no gas tokens.
  2. The Divergence: If they deploy a new Safe with a different nonce or proxy factory, they get a different address. This breaks the mental model of “One Identity.”
  3. The Loss of Funds: As documented in prior forum discussions (see References), users frequently send assets to their Mainnet Safe address on an L2 where that address does not exist.

The “State Drift” Counter-Argument:
In previous years (circa 2023), Safe core developers rightly pointed out the risk of “State Drift”—where the same address on two chains has different owners.

  • Rebuttal: State Drift is an education issue, not an infrastructure blocker. The risk of stuck funds due to non-existent addresses is a far greater practical problem than unsynchronized owner sets.

4. The Solution: A Two-Sided Market Strategy

This is a collective action problem. Individual users cannot negotiate gas waivers; individual chains are inefficient at building custom onboarding. Safe DAO acts as the Schelling Point.

The Proposal

Safe DAO initiates a “Universal Deployment Grant Program.”

  1. The Offer to Chains (L2s):

    • “Sponsor the deployment gas (approx. $0.05 - $0.50 per Safe) via a Paymaster.”
    • Benefit: You instantly ‘import’ high-value Safe users from Mainnet with zero friction.
  2. The Offer to Builders (Wallets/Interfaces):

    • “Integrate the ‘Universal Deploy’ SDK.”
    • Benefit: Safe DAO provides $SAFE token incentives to interfaces that facilitate these cross-chain deployments.
  3. The Mechanism:

    • The user signs a single intent: “Deploy my Safe on Base, Optimism, and Arbitrum.”
    • The Paymaster (funded by the Chains) executes the CREATE2 call.
    • The user’s address is now live and unified across 4+ chains instantly.

5. References & Prior Art

This proposal builds upon years of community discussion. We are moving from “complaint” to “incentive.”

  • The “User Pain” Discussion (Jan 2023):

  • The “Feature Request” (June 2023):

  • The Optimism Precedent (Aug 2022):

    • Grant: Safe DAO’s application for OP Grant (Historical context via Governance forum)
    • Summary: We know chains are willing to pay for growth. We simply need to direct that capital toward infrastructure (unified addresses) rather than just generic liquidity mining.

6. Next Steps

  1. Technical Feasibility Check: Verify that the ProxyFactory addresses are consistent across the target chains (Base, OP, Arb, Polygon) to ensure CREATE2 salt consistency.
  2. Partner Outreach: Solicit “Soft Commitments” from 2-3 major L2 foundations to seed the gas sponsorship pool.
  3. Snapshot Vote: Move to a formal signal vote to authorize the BD team to negotiate these sponsorships.

Discussion:

  • Do we prioritize L2s only?
  • Should we require the “Initial Owner Set” to be identical to Mainnet to prevent immediate State Drift?

7. Security Consideration

It is also important to explore the full picture of security considerations such as

  • dis-synced signer setup between same deployments onto different chains
  • the additional trust users put on the deployers or 3P deployment UIs

Thanks for the proposal.

The Safe Foundation did a very similar inititaitive in the past, the Safe Gast Station:

As you rightfully say, convincing the networks to contribute was not the biggest issue. However, the developer adoption and general impact wasn’t there.

Despite quite some marketing and distribution activities it wasn’t yielding really a high impact and was quite disproportional compared to ressoruces invested (mostly human resources, as the technical cost is minimal).

1 Like

Thanks for the history, during my historic research I missed this effort. @lukas

If the DAO would agree to do it this time, what would you consider we do differently?