Explanation

MultichainAccountService

• Unified wallet creation into one flow (createMultichainAccountWallet) that handles import/restore/new vault.
• Builds a single ServiceState index in one pass and passes state slices to wallets/groups (cuts repeated controller scans/calls).
• Simplified init path and removed dead accountIdToContext mapping.

MultichainAccountWallet

• init now consumes a pre-sliced wallet state (entropySource → groups → providerName → ids) instead of querying providers.
• Emits clear events on group creation/updates; alignment orchestration uses provider state instead of full scans.

MultichainAccountGroup

• init registers account IDs per provider and fills reverse maps; calls provider.addAccounts(ids) to keep providers in sync.
• Added getAccountIds() for direct access to underlying IDs.
• Improved partial‑failure reporting (aggregates provider errors by name).

BaseBip44AccountProvider

• Added addAccounts(ids: string[]), enabling providers to track their own account ID lists.
• getAccounts() paths rely on known IDs (plural lookups) rather than scanning the full controller list.

EvmAccountProvider

• Switched from address‑based scans to ID‑based fetches (getAccount(s)) for create/discover (removes $O(n)$ scans).

Performance Analysis

n = total BIP-44 accounts in the AccountsController
p = number of providers (currently 4)
w = number of wallets (entropy sources)
g = total number of groups
e = number of created EVM accounts

When fully aligned $g = n / p$.
When accounts are not fully aligned then $g = max(f(p))$, where $f(p)$ is the number of accounts associated with a provider.

Consider two scenarios:

1. State 1 -> State 2 transition, the user has unaligned groups after the transition.
2. Already transitioned to State 2, the service is initialized after onboarding and every time the client is unlocked.

General formulas

For Scenario 2, the formulas are as follows:

Before this refactor, the number of loops can be represented $n * p * (1 + w + g)$, which with $p = 4$, becomes $n^2 + 4n(1 + w)$.

Before this refactor, the number of controller calls can be represented as $1 + w + g$, which with $p = 4$, becomes $1 + w + n/4$.

After this refactor, the number of loops can be represented by $n * p$, which with $p = 4$, becomes $4n$.

After this refactor, the number of calls is just $1$.

For Scenario 1, the formulas are entirely dependent on the breakdown of the number of accounts each provider has amongst the $n$ accounts, let's consider a scenario where Solana has $n/2$, Ethereum has $n/8$, Bitcoin has $n/4$ and Tron has $n/8$, the formulas would be as follows:

Before this refactor, the number of loops in the alignment process can be represented as $(p * g) + (n * e)$, which with $p=4$ and $g = n/2$, becomes $2n + 3n^2/8$. Therefore the number of loops for initialization + alignment in this scenario with $p = 4$ and $g = n/2$, becomes $(19/8)n^2 + (4w + 6)n$.

Before this refactor, the number of controller calls in the alignment process can be represented as $e$, which becomes $3n/8$. Therefore the number of controller calls for initialization + alignment in this scenario with $p = 4$, becomes $1 + w + 5n/8$.

After this refactor, the number of loops in the alignment process can be represented as $p * g$, which becomes $2n$. Therefore, the number of loops for initialization + alignment in this scenario with $p = 4$ and $g = n/2$, becomes $6n$.

After this refactor, the number of controller calls in the alignment process can be represented as $e$ which becomes $3n/8$. Therefore, the number of controller calls for initialization + alignment in this scenario with $p = 4$ and $g = n/2$, becomes $1 + 3n/8$.

In short, previous init performance for loops and controller calls was quadratic and linear, respectively. After, it is linear and constant.

Performance Charts

Below are charts that show performance (loops and controller calls) $n = 0$ -> $n = 256$ for Scenario 1 and 2 with $w = 2$, respectively:

References

N/A

Checklist

• I've updated the test suite for new or updated code as appropriate
• I've updated documentation (JSDoc, Markdown, etc.) for new or updated code as appropriate
• I've communicated my changes to consumers by updating changelogs for packages I've changed, highlighting breaking changes as necessary
• I've prepared draft pull requests for clients and consumer packages to resolve any breaking changes