Account Abstraction Wallets: Safe vs Argent vs Braavos

Choosing between Safe, Argent, and Braavos comes down to one question: what job do you need the wallet to do? These three wallets all use smart contract accounts instead of a single private key, but they solve different problems. Safe protects treasuries and DAOs with multi-signature approval. Argent and Braavos protect individual Starknet users with guardians, passkeys, and recovery options built into the account itself. Picking the wrong one for your use case creates real risk, whether that means slower transactions when you needed speed, or a lack of multi-party oversight when you needed it most.

Panaprium is independent and reader supported. If you buy something through our link, we may earn a commission. If you can, please support us on a monthly basis. It takes less than a minute to set up, and you will be making a big impact every single month. Thank you!

What Account Abstraction Actually Changes

A normal wallet is an externally owned account (EOA). One private key signs everything, and losing that key means losing the funds permanently. Account abstraction (AA) turns the wallet into a smart contract that can enforce its own rules: multiple signers, daily spending limits, social recovery, passkey logins, or sponsored gas.

The tradeoff is that a contract account has its own attack surface. Instead of protecting one key, you are trusting the wallet's code, its upgrade path, and in some cases a centralized front end that displays transactions before you sign them. That last point matters more than most users realize, and it is central to how these three wallets differ.

Safe, Argent, and Braavos at a Glance

Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) is a multi-signature smart account built for treasuries, DAOs, and teams that need M-of-N approval before a transaction executes. It secured roughly $100 billion in assets across 15+ EVM chains as of early 2026 and remains the default choice for DAO treasuries, protocol multisigs, and corporate crypto operations, enforcing M-of-N signature thresholds with typical configurations of 2-of-3 for small teams or 5-of-9 for large DAOs.

Argent is built for individuals, not committees. Argent is a non-custodial smart-contract wallet, meaning each user's account is a deployed contract that enforces rules like daily limits, guardian approvals, and trusted contact whitelists. The company ships two products: Argent X, a browser extension for Starknet, and Argent Mobile, a multi-chain wallet covering Ethereum and Layer 2 networks including Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and Polygon.

Braavos is a Starknet-native wallet that leans into consumer DeFi. Founded in 2022 and headquartered in Tel Aviv, it was built around the idea that self-custody should feel as intuitive as a banking app without sacrificing decentralization, and it is available as a browser extension and as native mobile apps for iOS and Android. Its feature set includes a daily spending limit, passkey signer, hardware signer, multi-owner account support, staking boost, and a built-in dApp gallery.

Image source: safe.global/

How Each Wallet Handles Account Abstraction Technically

The mechanism behind "smart account" is not identical across these three, and it affects cost and speed.

• Safe originally used its own multisig contract logic, not ERC-4337. It later added ERC-4337 support through a module, so Safe accounts can now use bundlers and paymasters where needed, but its core design still assumes deliberate, multi-party review rather than one-tap consumer transactions.
• Argent X runs on Starknet, which has native account abstraction at the protocol level. Because every Starknet account is a contract account by default, Argent X does not need ERC-4337 bundler infrastructure the way Ethereum mainnet wallets do. Argent Mobile, by contrast, uses ERC-4337 smart accounts on Ethereum and EVM L2s.
• Braavos also runs on Starknet's native AA and adds its own signer architecture on top. It supports Hardware Signer and Multi-Signer features that enforce true multi-factor authentication, something the user knows, has, and is, layered on Starknet's built-in account abstraction.

This matters practically: Starknet-native wallets like Argent X and Braavos avoid the bundler and paymaster overhead that ERC-4337 wallets on Ethereum mainnet deal with, which is part of why Starknet transactions can feel cheaper and faster.

Protocol Comparison

How to Evaluate the Options Before You Commit Funds

Before moving meaningful capital into any smart contract wallet, check these factors. They matter more for AA wallets than for a plain EOA because the contract logic itself is part of your risk surface.

• Audit history and upgrade path. Ask whether the wallet contract has been audited, by whom, and whether the contract is upgradeable. An upgradeable contract can be improved, but it also means a compromised upgrade key can drain funds, which is close to what happened in the Bybit case below.
• Front-end trust assumptions. Even a perfectly secure smart contract can be undermined if the website or app that displays your transaction is compromised. Check whether the wallet supports independent verification tools or hardware wallet confirmation that shows the raw transaction data, not just what the interface renders.
• Recovery mechanism specifics. "Social recovery" and "guardians" sound similar across wallets but differ in who can be a guardian, how many are required, and how long a recovery takes. A weak guardian setup can be a single point of failure disguised as a safety feature.
• Chain and asset coverage. Confirm the wallet actually supports the chains and assets you plan to use before depositing, not after.
• Gas sponsorship terms. If a wallet sponsors gas, understand what happens if that sponsorship program changes or ends. Free transactions today are not guaranteed to stay free.

The Bybit Incident: What Safe Users Need to Understand

On February 21, 2025, Bybit lost approximately $1.5 billion after an attacker compromised a Safe developer's machine through social engineering. The attacker injected malicious JavaScript into Safe's front-end infrastructure, so the interface displayed a legitimate-looking transaction while the actual payload upgraded Bybit's Safe contract to a malicious implementation, handing the attacker full control once signers approved it.

A forensic review by external security researchers found no vulnerabilities in the Safe smart contracts themselves or in the frontend source code. The failure point was operational security around a developer's credentials, not the multisig logic. This is the core lesson for anyone using a smart contract wallet: the contract can be flawless, and you can still lose everything if the interface you sign through is compromised.

The practical takeaway from security researchers who audited Safe's contracts afterward is that projects managing large funds need to actively configure built-in protections like Safe Guards and timelocks, since these features exist specifically to catch this kind of attack but only work if a team turns them on. If you run a Safe multisig for a treasury, this is not optional homework. It is the difference between having a safety net and assuming one exists.

Best Choice by User Type

If you are trying to decide how these wallets fit alongside your other holdings, How to Choose the Right Wallet Setup for Managing Multiple Crypto Wallets in DeFi walks through how to separate cold storage, active DeFi funds, and treasury multisigs instead of using one wallet for everything.

Common Mistakes Users Make With AA Wallets

• Treating a smart contract wallet as inherently safer than an EOA without checking whether the specific contract has been audited or exploited before.
• Signing transactions on a multisig without independently verifying the transaction data against what a hardware device displays, which is exactly the gap the Bybit attackers exploited.
• Assuming guardian-based recovery is instant. Most designs include a delay window specifically to prevent an attacker from triggering fast malicious recovery, and users are sometimes surprised by this when they actually need it.
• Splitting funds across many wallets without a system, making it harder to track exposure or respond quickly if one wallet is compromised.
• Ignoring gas sponsorship terms and assuming "gasless" is a permanent feature rather than a program that can change.

When Each Wallet Makes Sense (and When It Does Not)

Safe makes sense when multiple people need to approve spending, when you are holding treasury-scale funds, or when governance requires an on-chain record of who signed what. It does not make sense for someone who wants fast, single-signer consumer transactions, since the multisig approval flow adds friction by design.

Argent makes sense for an individual Starknet or L2 user who wants guardian-based recovery instead of a raw seed phrase, and who values a wallet team that helped shape Starknet's account abstraction design from the protocol level up. It makes less sense if you need multisig treasury controls, since Argent's guardian model is built for individual recovery, not organizational approval.

Braavos makes sense if you want Starknet DeFi and Bitcoin exposure inside one interface with layered multi-factor signing options. It makes less sense if your activity is primarily on Ethereum mainnet or other EVM chains outside Starknet, since Braavos is Starknet-focused.

My Take

For treasury and DAO management, Safe is still the strongest option despite the Bybit incident, because the failure was operational, not structural, and Safe's guard and timelock features directly address it when configured. Anyone running a Safe multisig with meaningful funds should treat enabling those protections as mandatory, not optional. Skipping them after a documented $1.5 billion lesson is a decision, not an oversight.

For individual users on Starknet, the choice between Argent X and Braavos comes down to what you value more. Argent has a longer track record building account abstraction concepts and a cleaner focus on guardian-based recovery. Braavos leans harder into consumer DeFi features, staking, and multi-asset custody, including Bitcoin, which suits someone who wants an all-in-one app rather than a minimal wallet.

Whichever wallet you choose, the biggest risk is not the smart contract itself. It is the interface you use to interact with it. Before moving significant funds, check whether the wallet supports hardware confirmation that shows raw transaction data, and if you are managing large or shared funds, verify that guard and timelock features are actually turned on rather than just available. If you are trying to spot risk before it hits your own wallet, How to Track Crypto Whale Wallets for Free Using On-Chain Tools covers on-chain monitoring techniques that apply just as well to watching your own multisig activity for anomalies.

Risks and Tradeoffs Across All Three

• Smart contract upgrade risk: any wallet whose contract can be upgraded introduces a new attack path if the upgrade key or process is compromised, as seen in the Bybit case.
• Front-end dependency: a compromised website or app can misrepresent what you are actually signing, regardless of how secure the underlying contract is.
• Recovery delay tradeoffs: guardian and social recovery systems intentionally add time delays to prevent instant malicious recovery, which means legitimate recovery is also not instant.
• Chain concentration: Argent X and Braavos depend heavily on Starknet's ecosystem health and liquidity, which is smaller than Ethereum mainnet or major L2s like Arbitrum.
• Gas sponsorship dependency: features like sponsored or gasless transactions depend on a company continuing to subsidize them, which is not guaranteed long-term.

Conclusion

Safe, Argent, and Braavos are not interchangeable options competing for the same use case. Safe is built for shared custody and treasury governance, and its multisig model has proven resilient at the contract level even through the largest crypto hack in history. Argent and Braavos both build on Starknet's native account abstraction to give individuals guardian recovery, passkeys, and consumer DeFi tools without a seed phrase, with Argent leaning toward minimal guardian-based security and Braavos leaning toward an all-in-one DeFi and Bitcoin experience.

The practical next step is not picking a single "best" wallet, but matching the wallet to the job: use Safe for shared or treasury funds with guards and timelocks enabled, and use Argent or Braavos for personal Starknet activity based on whether you prioritize a lean recovery model or a fuller DeFi feature set. Whatever you choose, verify the transaction data independently before signing, especially for high-value transfers.

FAQs

1. Is Safe still safe to use after the Bybit hack?

Forensic investigators found no vulnerability in Safe's smart contracts or core code, and the breach stemmed from a compromised developer machine and front-end tampering. Using Safe's built-in guards and timelocks significantly reduces this specific risk.

2. Can I use Argent or Braavos outside of Starknet?

Argent Mobile supports Ethereum and several EVM Layer 2 networks including Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and Polygon, while Argent X and Braavos are built specifically for Starknet. Check each wallet's current chain list before depositing, since coverage can change.

3. Do I need a hardware wallet if I already use an account abstraction wallet?

Yes, if you are managing significant funds, because a hardware device that displays raw transaction data protects you from the exact front-end spoofing attack used against Bybit. Smart contract security does not protect you from a compromised interface showing you false transaction details.

4. Which wallet is best for a small DAO treasury?

Safe is the standard choice for DAO treasuries because it supports configurable M-of-N signer thresholds and governance-friendly features like guards and timelocks. Most established DAOs and protocol treasuries already use it, which also means more community tooling and precedent for configuration.

5. Does account abstraction eliminate the risk of losing funds?

No, it changes the risk rather than removing it, shifting exposure from private key loss toward smart contract, front-end, and recovery-process risk. Users still need to evaluate audit history, upgrade permissions, and interface trustworthiness before depositing funds.

References

Safe documentation (via Eco Best Smart Wallets 2026): https://eco.com/support/en/articles/15039721

Argent Wallet Deep Dive 2026: https://eco.com/support/en/articles/15254043

Braavos Wallet Features: https://braavos.app/wallet-features

Solana Compass, Braavos Project Overview: https://solanacompass.com/projects/braavos

BlockSec, Bybit Incident Analysis: https://blocksec.com/blog/bybit-incident-a-web2-breach-enables-the-largest-crypto-hack-in-history

BleepingComputer, Lazarus hacked Bybit via breached Safe Wallet developer machine: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/lazarus-hacked-bybit-via-a-breached-safe-wallet-developer-machine/

Ackee, A Safe-Native Solution to the Bybit Hack: https://ackee.xyz/blog/a-safe-native-solution-to-the-bybit-hack

Was this article helpful to you? Please tell us what you liked or didn't like in the comments below.

Chanuka is a content writer, editor and contributor at Panaprium, specializing in long-form editorial articles. He conducts in-depth research and produces well-structured, carefully edited content with a strong focus on clarity, SEO best practices, and consistent formatting. His work spans lifestyle, fashion, wellness, and technical topics, and all articles are reviewed and refined to meet Panaprium’s editorial standards.