Security researchers, get ready! The Glamsterdam upgrade is approaching. The Ethereum Foundation’s bug bounty program will begin accepting reports for Glamsterdam bugs once the Sepolia upgrade blog post is published. And take note of the reward multipliers!

hegota scope narrowing in CL teams addressed ~9 of 23 eips today: 1 CFI, 1 expected CFI, 7 DFIs like EL teams last week, tackled the "easy" decisions first. future meetings will need to make tougher ones. multiple teams voiced desire for a smaller, faster shipped fork 🛳️

Glamsterdam is pushing hard on L1 capacity, and for Hegotá we think the next major focus should be latency. Quick slots gives us a way to start doing that progressively, by reducing slot times as the network demonstrates it can support them while preserving decentralisation. Our priorities are: 1. A focused upgrade that makes Ethereum faster and better to use. 2. Well-defined, concrete work towards major future improvements. 3. Removing unnecessary protocol complexity wherever we can.

Big news: S&P Global has entered an agreement to acquire OpenZeppelin. We started in 2015 with the vision of a secure, open financial system powered by blockchains and smart contracts. Ten years and $37 trillion in value transferred later, the standards and rails our team and community built carry major DeFi protocols and blockchain networks as well as the largest stablecoins and tokenized funds. With @spglobal, those standards and rails can now reach the benchmarks, risk frameworks, and institutional reach global markets already run on. Proud of the @OpenZeppelin team, everything we’ve accomplished, and everything we’ll continue to build together!

Dropping our ranking of consensus-layer EIPs proposed for inclusion in Hegotá FOCIL is our top priority, alongside proposals that help scale Ethereum Read more from our very own @terencechain 👇

4 years ago today, Ethereum completed The Merge Fitting day for part 2. These are the EIPs we don't think belong in Hegota, ranked by whether we want them at all... S: must-have, likely next fork A: strong want, needs work B: needs doing, lots left to discuss C: nice-to-have, unproven D: we don't want these

Now that this is public, I wanted to speak up a bit. I was in most of these discussions as an L2 builder and smart account dev. I’m sad we ended up here too. But honestly, given the conversations I witnessed, I think this was only a matter of time. Both sides were already pushing the limits of what they could accept. Some of those constraints just weren’t going to line up. I agree with Derek on ACD. It’s for Ethereum core development, not for deciding what every EVM chain should ship. Having L2 builders in the room doesn’t change that. And this isn’t just L1 vs L2. Other EVM L1s are part of this too. Using the EVM doesn’t mean they share Ethereum’s priorities. On scaling and UX, I often found their concerns closer to those of L2s. So if we wanted everyone to stay aligned, we needed that conversation outside ACD, and much earlier. Or just agree to disagree on certain things. What I’m still confused about is: - What exactly has to stay aligned? Account models? Tx formats? Execution semantics? - What should go into a RIP for chains to adopt independently, and what do we actually need to keep aligned across EVM chains? Where do we draw that line? - Why did AA specifically trigger all this drama, given how much the underlying priorities already differed? Honestly, some of this gives me SegWit-era vibes. Not the technical changes, but the arguments over who gets to decide which tradeoffs everyone else should accept. Either way, I don’t think this stops at Base vs Ethereum. I expect more chains to ship their own native AA rather than wait for everyone to agree. And I think those chain-specific account models will drive a lot more EVM fragmentation, with wallet and app devs left to handle the differences. Buckle up.

Base is proceeding with our plans to ship EIP-8130 in an upgrade later this year. As a reminder, this will unlock features many users and developers have been excited about like: - Batch transactions - Gas abstraction - Multiple (performant) key types - Key rotation - Path to post-quantum safety Most importantly, EIP-8130 is ready to be implemented today! It’s simple and gives accounts that are portable across chains. Over the last few weeks, we’ve worked closely with EthLabs to explore how we can bring 8130 and 8141 together. We made major progress by identifying a few options for expressing Keystore accounts on Frames while maintaining performance benefits. This gives us confidence that implementing 8130 is not a one-way door and does not block us from enabling 8141 in the future. At the same time, there are also significant challenges with 8141 as it’s written today: - The generality of Frames, including arbitrary account-defined authentication and two-dimensional gas accounting, comes at the cost of simplicity for chain operators. - This complexity extends to tooling. In 8130, authentication and fee payment are explicit transaction fields with clear defaults, whereas in 8141 they must be composed as frame prefixes, which is harder to implement and reason about. - And most importantly, optimistically it’s at least a year out. We’re grateful for the collaboration with EthLabs and other stakeholders. Because of those discussions, we now have confidence we can ship EIP-8130 without it being a one-way door for Base or any other chains that ship it, with a path to adding in support for 8141 in the future as it makes sense. We believe EIP-8130 is the best path forward, one that delivers cross-chain compatibility without compromising on performance. We’re excited to deliver these features to users and developers later this year, and would love to talk to other chain operators who are looking to do the same.

Everyone has benefited from this effort even if we don't have one spec at the end. The intense effort to find common ground, spot irreducible conflicts, to understand the other spec, and port over good concepts, resulted in both EIP-8130 and EIP-8141 being much better.

AA update: The Frame Transactions EIP was moved today to Scheduled status for the Hegotá upgrade. It was proposed as a headliner and moved in March of this year to Considered status. There was strong consensus that it was important to ship Account Abstraction in Hegotá even if the specific implementation was still up for debate. There's been a lot of progress in the past few weeks as another implementation, EIP-8130, became a contender. This EIP is scheduled to be shipped on @base in September. It spurred productive conversation async and in a breakout this past Tuesday about the best way to not fracture standards across the ecosystem by shipping two incompatible Account Abstraction implementations between the L1 and L2s. The crux of the issue is arriving at a shared transaction type that both preserves flexibility and future-proofness for the L1 and allows L2s to statically analyze transactions for performance and DoS-resistance reasons. At a minimum, we should make sure that the AA scheme we adopt for the L1 is flexible enough that 8130, or any future account system, can be built on top of it so that from the user's perspective the same account can work across L1 and L2s. Authors of both EIPs, core devs, researchers, and testing teams have been working toward a solution that respects the imperative to get Account Abstraction in the next fork without delay but avoids fracturing ecosystem standards. That said - Account Abstraction _will_ ship in Hegotá, so core devs decided today to move EIP-8141 from Considered to Scheduled today. This was made with the caveat that the version of Account Abstraction that ships in Hegotá may significantly change from what's on the Hegotá Meta EIP right now: potentially the EIP number, the transaction type, etc. The move to Scheduled doesn't materially change the conversation that's been happening over the past few weeks or enshrine the current spec. When an EIP is proposed as a headliner and moved to Scheduled, it just signals an intention to make the fork schedule dependent on that feature being shipped. It's more common than not for the implementation to change significantly between being Scheduled and shipping. Big appreciation to @_chunter of @base, @Offchain, @EthLabs_org, and client teams for moving the conversation forward. Progress is ongoing and can be followed at the AA breakouts on Tuesdays at 14:00 UTC or asynchronously on Forkcast.