# The "Universal Safe" Initiative: Incentivizing Cross-Chain Address Unification **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [January 28, 2026, 8:40pm UTC](https://forum.safefoundation.org/t/the-universal-safe-initiative-incentivizing-cross-chain-address-unification/6913 "2026-01-28T20:40:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![xinbenlv](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forum.safefoundation.org/xinbenlv/32/4756_2.png) [@xinbenlv](https://forum.safefoundation.org/u/xinbenlv)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2026, 8:40pm UTC](https://forum.safefoundation.org/t/the-universal-safe-initiative-incentivizing-cross-chain-address-unification/6913/1 "2026-01-28T20:40:28Z")
# [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](mailto: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)** - **2023: The Decoupling (ERC-4337)** - **2024-2026: The Unification (EIP-7702 & Beyond)** * * * ## 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):** 2. **The Offer to Builders (Wallets/Interfaces):** 3. **The Mechanism:** * * * ## 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):** * * * ## 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 … ---
**Author:** ![lukas](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forum.safefoundation.org/lukas/32/725_2.png) [@lukas](https://forum.safefoundation.org/u/lukas)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2026, 10:09pm UTC](https://forum.safefoundation.org/t/the-universal-safe-initiative-incentivizing-cross-chain-address-unification/6913/2 "2026-01-28T22:09:07Z")
Thanks for the proposal. The Safe Foundation did a very similar inititaitive in the past, the Safe Gast Station: > **[Making Every App Gasless: Launching the Safe{Core} Multi-chain Gas Station](https://safefoundation.org/blog/making-every-app-gasless-launching-the-safe-core-multi-chain-gas-station)** > > The program offers a total of $250k in gas fee credit incentives, $200k for Polygon POS, and $50k for Gnosis Chain for developers building Safe smart accounts on Polygon and Gnosis Chain, with the vision of drastically simplifying the usability of... 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). ---
**Author:** ![xinbenlv](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/forum.safefoundation.org/xinbenlv/32/4756_2.png) [@xinbenlv](https://forum.safefoundation.org/u/xinbenlv)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2026, 10:51pm UTC](https://forum.safefoundation.org/t/the-universal-safe-initiative-incentivizing-cross-chain-address-unification/6913/3 "2026-01-28T22:51:42Z")
> [@lukas](#): > > 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). 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?