ACDE #228: Call Minutes + Insights
Long-term decision-making with short-term deadlines
Good evening,
Today, Ethereum developers came one Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) short of finalizing the shortlist of candidates for consensus-breaking features in the Glamsterdam fork.
Below, I discuss the impacts of short-term decision-making timelines on long-term thinking about protocol development.
Yours truly,
Christine D. Kim
🔔Programming note: Sponsorship opportunities in 2026 for the ACD After Hours newsletter are now available. If you have a business or product that you want to get featured in this newsletter, please reply directly to this email.
🗒️ Call Minutes
(For background on the ACD process and jargon used on these calls, refer to the Ethereum Governance 101 document in the ACD Toolkit.)
Glamsterdam Devnet-2 Scope
Ethereum Foundation (EF) Developer Operations Engineer Stefan Starflinger noted that EIP 7843 impacts both the consensus layer (CL) and execution layer (EL) of Ethereum. EIP 7843 was one of four EIPs that developers agreed to schedule for inclusion in the next block-level access lists (BALs) devnet. Developers had initially thought that all four EIPs only impact the EL.
Starflinger asked client teams’ views on BALs Devnet-2 scope and whether EIP 7843 implementation should be delayed.
Developers agreed to reach a decision on next Monday’s All Core Developers Testing (ACDT) call.
Glamsterdam EIP Clarifications
The following is a list of proposed changes to Glamsterdam EIPs that developers agreed to continue discussing asynchronously from the call.
Glamsterdam EIP Decisions
Developers agreed to decline for inclusion (DFI) seven proposed EIPs for Glamsterdam and newly include one, EIP 7954, into the fork scope.
They also agreed to postpone a decision on EIP 8037, State Creation Gas Cost Increase, until next Monday’s ACDT call.
Regarding EIP 8037, developers are divided on whether to include a new metering mechanism to measure state growth in Glamsterdam or defer these changes to a future fork.
Developers are evaluating alternatives to EIP 8037 for limiting state growth on Ethereum, such as EIP 8075, and considering the trade-offs between fork complexity and high state growth rates that could result from additional Layer-1 scaling improvements.
For a full overview of Glamsterdam’s scope for both the EL and CL, see this Google spreadsheet.
🌕 That’s all for my summary of ACDE #228. Continue reading for pointed takeaways from the call, featuring direct quotes and additional context on key topics. To read the rest of the newsletter, make sure you are signed up for a premium subscription:
🌓 New to the ACD calls and want to learn more about Ethereum protocol development? Explore the ACD Toolkit, which is included with a premium subscription. It contains evergreen resources and materials that teach you the fundamentals of tracking the evolution of Ethereum like a pro:
🌑 I also offer professional consultations on Ethereum protocol development and governance. If you’d like to learn more, please visit my advisory services website:
🔎 Insights
(Quotes featured in this section may be edited for grammar and clarity. For more information on the people quoted in this section, refer to the ACD Call Directory in the ACD Toolkit.)
Long-term decision-making with short-term deadlines
On ACDE #228, developers agreed to give themselves just two business days to reach a decision on EIP-8075, but only after first agreeing—several times—that deciding on the call itself would be premature.
“We are unprepared to contribute to the decision today,” insisted Besu client developer Justin Florentine when asked by the call chair, EF Researcher Ansgar Dietrichs, about the Besu team’s views on the proposal.
That tension—between urgency and caution in the decision-making process—defined much of today’s call.
