web3 lifecycle: From Discovery to Decommissioning—An Engineering View

Short description: A 2025-ready, engineering-first playbook for decision‑makers to evaluate, build, ship, operate, and safely retire blockchain systems—packed with concrete patterns across L2 selection, account abstraction (ERC‑4337/EIP‑7702), modular smart accounts (ERC‑7579), upgrades, security, observability, interoperability, and decommissioning.

Why a lifecycle approach matters in 2025

Ethereum’s 2024 Dencun upgrade (EIP‑4844 “blobs”) slashed data availability costs for rollups and changed L2 economics; in 2025, Pectra added EIP‑7702 to let EOAs temporarily behave like smart accounts, reshaping wallet and auth roadmaps. Meanwhile, major L2s advanced their trust-minimization: Optimism enabled permissionless fault proofs (Stage‑1) and Arbitrum shipped BoLD to unlock permissionless validation. If you’re planning a web3 initiative today, these are not “nice to have” details—they determine feasibility, UX, security posture, and unit economics across the product lifecycle. (blog.ethereum.org)

What follows is 7Block Labs’ end‑to‑end, engineering‑centric lifecycle—from discovery to decommissioning—annotated with concrete 2024–2025 realities and battle‑tested patterns.

Phase 1 — Discovery: align business outcomes with today’s chain realities

Decision lens for 2025:

Economic viability: After EIP‑4844, rollups publish data to “blobs” retained ~18 days, creating a new fee market. Expect material fee reductions vs legacy calldata—model with your L2 of choice, not L1. (ethereum.org)
Security/trust assumptions: Prefer rollups progressing toward permissionless validation and user‑exitable designs. As of June 10, 2024, Optimism enabled permissionless fault proofs on OP Mainnet (Stage‑1 per L2BEAT), and in Feb 2025 Arbitrum activated BoLD on One and Nova for permissionless validation and bounded confirmation times. Use these facts in risk memos. (docs.optimism.io)
Maturity signals: L2BEAT’s “Stages Framework” (0/1/2) is a crisp shorthand for decentralization and upgrade constraints; insist vendors cite their current Stage, withdrawal guarantees, and Security Council powers. (l2beat.com)

Practical example: If you’re moving an internal loyalty ledger to an L2, your cost model post‑Dencun will be dominated by blob pricing rather than calldata; and your procurement checklist should ask, “Is the rollup at least Stage‑1 with permissionless fault proofs and ≥7‑day challenge period?” This aligns with L2BEAT guidance on Stage‑1 requirements. (forum.l2beat.com)

Chain shortlist rubric (starter):

Stage and proof status (OP/Arbitrum specifics above).
Data availability fee model post‑4844 (documented by your L2).
Ecosystem/tooling: indexers (subgraphs/substreams), node/RPC quality, wallets, AA infra.
Governance constraints (Security Council scope, upgrade delay windows). (blog.ethereum.org)

Phase 2 — Architecture decisions that age well

2.1 Accounts and auth: ERC‑4337 vs EIP‑7702 vs modular smart accounts

ERC‑4337 (account abstraction via alt‑mempool) is mature and widely adopted: smart accounts with custom validation, paymasters for gas sponsorship, and batched operations through the EntryPoint. Use when you want programmable auth and gas flexibility independent of protocol changes. (ercs.ethereum.org)
EIP‑7702 (Pectra) adds a new transaction type that lets EOAs temporarily delegate to on‑chain code (delegation set via an authorization list), enabling batching, sponsorship, and scoped permissions without a permanent smart account migration. Plan wallet flows to support type‑4 txs and nonces/chain‑binding. (eips.ethereum.org)
Modular smart accounts (ERC‑7579) standardize wallet‑side modules—validators, executors, hooks—so teams can compose features like MFA, rate limits, session keys across implementations (Kernel, Safe7579, Nexus, Prime). This reduces vendor lock‑in across smart account stacks. (eips.ethereum.org)

Recommendation: For consumer UX today, pair ERC‑4337 smart accounts with a 7579‑compatible stack for modularity. Add EIP‑7702 support in your wallet backlog to deliver batched/sponsored actions for legacy EOAs—especially valuable for first‑time users during onboarding campaigns. (docs.erc4337.io)

2.2 Upgradeability and kill‑switches

Prefer UUPS proxies over Transparent for gas and governance flexibility; enforce EIP‑1967 storage slots and implement explicit authorization in _authorizeUpgrade. Maintain storage layout discipline and test upgrades across versions. (docs.openzeppelin.com)
Plan a “freeze” path: in UUPS, you can permanently disable upgrades by revoking/renouncing upgrade authority or shipping an implementation that rejects upgrades—documented in OZ guidance. Don’t rely on selfdestruct: EIP‑6780 changed semantics so SELFDESTRUCT no longer deletes storage except in the creation tx. Design decommissioning via config flags, role revocations, and pausable paths instead. (docs.openzeppelin.com)

2.3 Interoperability and bridging

Canonical rollup bridges are safest for L2<->L1 asset movement; third‑party bridges introduce additional trust and complexity—reflect this in risk acceptances. (ethereum.org)
If you need cross‑chain messaging and token movement across heterogeneous chains, evaluate Chainlink CCIP (v1.5) with its Cross‑Chain Token (CCT) standard, RMN‑style risk management, rate limits, and developer attestations—features aimed at institutional risk models. Still, treat any non‑canonical path as additional risk. (docs.chain.link)

2.4 Data architecture

Default path: subgraphs for APIs, but design for high‑throughput syncs with The Graph Substreams/Firehose or managed equivalents for parallelized backfills and reorg‑aware pipelines. Solutions like Goldsky offer subgraphs plus streaming (Mirror) to Postgres/ClickHouse with reorg handling and webhooks. (docs.thegraph.academy)
Off‑chain reads with on‑chain verification: If your contract needs off‑chain data, adopt CCIP‑Read (EIP‑3668) patterns—revert with OffchainLookup, verify proofs/signatures in callbacks—to keep trust boundaries explicit. (eips.ethereum.org)

Phase 3 — Build: a concrete “golden path” you can replicate

Repository layout (for EVM projects)

contracts/: Solidity with UUPS patterns and storage gaps; interfaces carry EIP‑712 types for permits/intents. (eips.ethereum.org)
test/: Foundry tests (unit + fuzz + invariants) with forge‑std; enable forked‑state tests for integration. Use cheatcodes for EOA simulation, time warp, and EIP‑712 hashing. (getfoundry.sh)
auditspec/: Certora specs for critical invariants (e.g., conservation of value, role‑bounded effects). (docs.certora.com)
ops/: Deployment scripts, upgrade manifests, and runbooks.

Testing stack

Foundry for fast unit/fuzz/invariant tests; pin solc versions and fuzz seeds for reproducibility. (getfoundry.sh)
Slither in CI for static analysis (detectors, upgradeability checks). (github.com)
Echidna for property‑based fuzzing (especially for token accounting and complex state machines). Use the maintained Docker image and GitHub Action. (github.com)
Formal methods where it pays: Certora Prover for critical paths (liquidations, auctions, vault flows). Timebox the spec effort and keep specs living with code. (docs.certora.com)

Security references: The legacy SWC registry is no longer actively maintained; augment with EEA EthTrust and SCSVS guidance. Keep this in your quality gates so findings map to recognized taxonomies. (github.com)

Phase 4 — Launch: deployment, governance, and user safety

Deployment checklist

Gatekeeper address model: separate deployer, proxy admin (if used), and ops relayer addresses; enforce timelocks on sensitive upgrade paths; document emergency pause scopes. (docs.openzeppelin.com)
For ERC‑4337 stacks, confirm EntryPoint version compatibility and paymaster deposit policies; for EIP‑7702, test type‑4 transaction flows and ensure gas accounting (preVerificationGas) reflects authorization overhead. (ercs.ethereum.org)
Bridges: if you must initialize liquidity, prefer canonical bridges for L2<->L1 flows; for multi‑chain UX, isolate CCIP (or any bridge) behind explicit risk flags in the UI. (ethereum.org)

Governance guardrails

Stage‑aware commitments: publish your upgrade delays and Security Council remit; target Stage‑1 semantics (≥7‑day exit/challenge) where applicable. (forum.l2beat.com)
Role hygiene: use on‑chain role registries, publish signer policies; commit to a freeze plan (“no-upgrades after block X unless critical bug”). (docs.openzeppelin.com)

Phase 5 — Operate and observe: SLOs for on‑chain systems

Observability

Transaction‑level monitoring and alerting: Tenderly Alerts + Web3 Actions for function/event triggers to Slack/PagerDuty; simulate governance/ops transactions before sending; attach runbooks to alerts. (docs.tenderly.co)
Threat detection: subscribe to Forta detection kits (DeFi, Bridge, Governance) to catch exploit patterns early. (docs.forta.network)
Keyed automations: OpenZeppelin Defender Relayers (still operational, but sunsetting by July 1, 2026) remain a practical signing backend with nonce/gas management; plan migration to open‑source replacements per OZ’s sunset FAQ. (docs.openzeppelin.com)

Ops realities

Relayer throughput: budget ≤50 tx/min per relayer (vendor guidance) and scale horizontally; backpressure when blob fees spike or sequencers degrade. (docs.openzeppelin.com)
Indexing: prefer reorg‑aware sources (Substreams/Firehose) or managed pipelines (Goldsky) for real‑time dashboards and automated backfills; wire webhooks for stateful bots. (docs.thegraph.academy)
Incident drills: define L2‑to‑L1 forced exit procedures tied to your rollup’s proof/live challenge windows (OP Stage‑1; Arbitrum BoLD bounded confirmations). (docs.optimism.io)

Key management

Institutional custody best‑practice: MPC‑based signing (e.g., Fireblocks MPC‑CMP) gives quorum‑controlled signatures, key‑share rotation, and HSM/TEE options; useful for ops relayers, treasuries, and admin keys with programmable policies. (fireblocks.com)

Phase 6 — Evolve safely: upgrades, migrations, and progressive decentralization

Upgrades: use UUPS with explicit owner/governor controls, timelocks, and upgrade simulators; record storage layouts and run differential tests before/after. Publish a “proof-of-upgrade” checklist in your repo. (docs.openzeppelin.com)
Protocol maturity: communicate a Stage trajectory (e.g., to Stage‑2 longer term) that constrains Security Council actions to on‑chain adjudicable bugs and provides ≥30‑day exit windows before major changes. (l2beat.com)
Cross‑chain migrations: if consolidating liquidity or moving from legacy bridges, plan token migrations with deterministic paths (burn/mint), rate limits, and guardian delays; CCIP’s CCT standard plus developer attestation can help, but treat it as an explicit risk domain. (blog.chain.link)

Phase 7 — Decommissioning: a precise, reversible‑where‑possible shutdown plan

In 2025, you can’t “self‑destruct and walk away.” The SELFDESTRUCT opcode no longer wipes state except during creation‑tx usage. Decommissioning requires a controlled, auditable change set and clear user exits. (eips.ethereum.org)

Recommended playbook

Communicate and set dates

Publish a deprecation notice with concrete dates (feature freeze, last deposits, final settlements, contract freeze). Pin a commit hash and IPFS artifact with the plan.

Enable user exits

For L2s, document withdrawal windows (challenge/confirmation periods); for bridged assets, route through canonical bridges; if you used third‑party bridges, provide explicit, audited exit scripts and timelines. (l2beat.com)

Freeze upgrades and privileged operations

UUPS: transfer/renounce upgrade authority or ship an implementation that permanently disables upgrade functions.
Roles: revoke minters/pausers, set fee parameters to zero, lock allowlists. Publish the on‑chain tx bundle and simulate it publicly (Tenderly/Defender). (docs.openzeppelin.com)

Drain and settle

Sweep protocol treasuries to designated multisigs with MPC policies; finalize reward accruals; halt emissions. Log final Merkle roots if you’ll process off‑chain redemptions.

Data preservation and APIs

Freeze subgraphs; snapshot indexer datasets; publish off‑chain mirrors of critical state. If your on‑chain views depend on CCIP‑Read gateways, plan read‑only gateways for archival UX. (eips.ethereum.org)

Post‑mortem and attestation

Publish a final attestation: contract addresses, last block numbers, final implementations (EIP‑1967 slots), roles set to null, and hashes of the migration scripts. This lets third parties verify “frozen‑and‑harmless” state. (eips.ethereum.org)

Engineering patterns with real 2024–2025 context

Cost modeling after Dencun: model blobprice variability and 18‑day retention in your SLOs; treat blob scarcity events as brownouts for high‑volume pipelines. (ethereum.org)
Wallet UX in a 7702 world: support type‑4 txs to offer batched approvals and sponsored gas to EOAs while you migrate heavy users to smart accounts using 4337 + 7579 modules for policy controls. (eips.ethereum.org)
Security baselines: keep SWC for lingua franca but rely on living standards (EthTrust, SCSVS); encode invariants in Echidna/Certora; wire Forta kits for runtime threat patterns. (github.com)
Rollup maturity tracking: cite OP’s Stage‑1 fault proofs and Arbitrum’s BoLD activation in board updates; map their guarantees into your risk register (e.g., bounded confirmation, permissionless challenges). (docs.optimism.io)

A pragmatic 30/60/90 for decision‑makers

30 days
- Pick target chain with documented Stage, proof system, and blob cost model.
- Stand up a Foundry repo with UUPS templates, Slither/Echidna in CI, and subgraph scaffolding. (github.com)
60 days
- Integrate ERC‑4337 smart accounts and plan EIP‑7702 support; define upgrade and freeze policies; wire Tenderly alerts and Forta kits; pick canonical bridges. (ercs.ethereum.org)
90 days
- Run an external review; publish governance and decommission plans; pilot on testnet with blob‑aware traffic and incident drills for forced exits. (blog.ethereum.org)

Closing note

The web3 lifecycle is now a mature engineering discipline: your choices on accounts (4337/7702/7579), rollup stages and proofs, upgrade paths, and observability directly determine UX, cost, and risk. Treat discovery, build, operate, and decommission as code—versioned, simulated, and auditable. If you want a hands‑on blueprint for your domain, 7Block Labs can tailor this lifecycle to your product and regulatory envelope.

Sources

Ethereum Dencun (EIP‑4844) and activation details: EF and ethereum.org. (blog.ethereum.org)
Pectra (EIP‑7702 and friends) timeline and scope. (blog.ethereum.org)
ERC‑4337 AA and docs. (ercs.ethereum.org)
ERC‑7579 modular smart accounts. (eips.ethereum.org)
UUPS/EIP‑1967 proxy patterns. (docs.openzeppelin.com)
SELFDESTRUCT semantics (EIP‑6780). (eips.ethereum.org)
L2 decentralization milestones: OP fault proofs; Arbitrum BoLD. (docs.optimism.io)
L2BEAT Stages Framework. (l2beat.com)
Interop and bridges: ethereum.org bridging risks; CCIP v1.5 and CCT. (ethereum.org)
Substreams/Goldsky data infra. (docs.thegraph.academy)
Tenderly alerts/actions; Forta kits; Defender relayers + sunset. (docs.tenderly.co)
Testing: Slither, Echidna, Certora, Foundry docs. (github.com)