

EIP Fun
1.1K posts

@EIPFun
Ethereum standards education & research | Serve Ethereum builders. Supported by @EthPanda_org, co-initiated @LXDAO_Official @PlanckerDAO. TG: https://t.co/0xrLbMYL1f



















Who decides what goes into the Ethereum forks’ package? Does Ethereum have gatekeepers? Recently, there were various takes on why Ethereum's Pectra doesn’t have RIP-7212, aka passkeys. This was being questioned by some builders, asking who chose to add EIPs to Ethereum, as there is no formal process overseeing such decisions. The answer is, there is no single person, no single official entity, no CEO—everyone can. But not everyone has the same influence. Contributing to Ethereum’s upgrades and direction is open and transparent, but the most critical decisions are still made by the OG devs who show up, code the clients, and maintain the network’s infra. Ethereum is decentralized? Technically, yes. Its decision-making? Distributed influence on it? Not quite. There is no formal process. Just rough consensus. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes, having someone who knows what they're doing is better than handing the steering wheel to whales with tokens and opinions. Or is it? Decide for yourself at the end of the post. How is this open, transparent... and a bit uneven process? Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) are the core mechanism for protocol upgrades. It works as: • propose: post an EIP on GitHub. • discuss: debate it on forums, core dev calls, GitHub, or even X. • rough consensus: if most devs agree and objections are handled, it moves forward. • implement: client teams code the changes. • adopt: node operators decide whether to update. Technically, anyone can jump in. But practically? Most proposals are shaped by a small group of well-established contributors. See the numbers from the past years. A small but mighty crew: According to research by Fracassi, Khoja, and Schär (January 2024), Ethereum’s governance has some pretty clear bottlenecks: • 10 individuals proposed 68% of all implemented Core EIPs. • The distribution of influence had a Gini coefficient of 0.62. This coefficient measures inequality—0 means perfect equality, 1 means absolute concentration. Ethereum's Core EIPs was sitting well above 0.6. Why does this happen? Because protocol-level changes are technical as hell. Writing an EIP that actually makes it into the network isn’t just about having a clever idea. It requires deep protocol knowledge, the ability to navigate complex discussions, and arguably a bit of social capital. The study found that EIPs authored by devs with larger followings and more GitHub clout receive significantly more engagement. If you’ve got a strong network, your ideas get more attention. And if you’re part of the inner technical circle, your odds of success go up. The client side: Even when the community rallies around an EIP, it’s client devs who make it real. Ethereum runs multiple clients: Geth, Nethermind, Besu, Erigon. But just like EIP authorship, client development used to be heavily concentrated: • 80% of all code changes came from about 10 developers per client. • In mid-2023, Geth alone was powering 85% of Ethereum’s nodes. Today, that’s around 50%, with Nethermind as the runner-up at about 23%. There’s more balance here now. Essentially these client teams don’t just write code,they’re effectively the final filter on protocol changes. Fat-tail influence risk no one wants to talk about: Even if the devs implement a change, the ecosystem still hinges on two other key players: stablecoin issuers and oracles. In early 2023, USDC and USDT accounted for 90% of the stablecoins used on Ethereum. Today, they are even more dominant as the go-to stablecoins across whole crypto. If Circle or Tether refuse to recognize an upgrade, it instantly loses massive liquidity. Ethereum prides itself on being permissionless, but when it comes to protocol-level decisions, the support of a few centralized services can make or break a fork. So is this bad? It depends. You need to understand the thesis behind it and the reasoning for opposing any form of on-chain governance at Ethereum's base layer. This difference in governance philosophy is actually one of the fundamental reasons that separated how Gavin Wood and Vitalik Buterin saw the future of Ethereum: who should hold the keys? Gavin’s argument: “Why not adapt our blockchain tech so that consensus dictates not just what happens on the chain, but also what happens with the chain itself?” In other words, use the same decentralized decision-making process that secures and validates transactions to also provide governance for the network. Vitalik’s view: Base layer should be minimal and ossified, like the internet’s TCP/IP layer. It should remain simple, stable, and predictable. Introducing OpenGov-like mechanisms or complex governance frameworks at the core would turn Ethereum into a perpetual social experiment with unpredictable outcomes and systemic risks. In short: • Base layer: Keep it minimal, neutral, and predictable. • Rollups & apps: Go nuts with DAOs, futarchy, and prediction markets. Market-based governance = Plutocracy risk? Polkadot’s OpenGov uses token-based voting with conviction weighting. The idea: those with the most skin in the game get the biggest say because they have the most to lose. Vitalik’s counter: “The more we rely on markets in base layer governance, the closer we get to plutocracy.” He isn’t against market dynamics tho. He just thinks applying them at the base layer could turn governance into a token-driven oligarchy. But Vitalik loves prediction markets? Yes. He’s written extensively about prediction markets as truth-seeking tools. But he sees them as advisory mechanisms, like weather forecasts, useful for insights, not for decision-making at the protocol level. OpenGov treats governance like a continuous, dynamic process. Ethereum treats it like software maintenance. Govern only when necessary protocol changes arise. Make it rare and boring. Polkadot with 1400+ proposals and counting, like a parliament in permanent session. So, who decides the next Ethereum fork? Definitely not the entire community or tokenholders. It’s decided by those active in the trenches, coding clients and keeping the network running. Mostly the same group of people, year after year. The Gav-Vitalik Meetup (ETHPrague 2024) Last year at ETHPrague, @gavofyork and @VitalikButerin were asked about their latest takes on on-chain vs. off-chain governance, after seeing the implications of both having it and not having it. In his response, Vitalik expressed that Ethereum's base layer indeed needs tools that provide signaling for its decision making in a much more democratic manner. And, Gav actually stated that the base layer tech should be maximum minimal and opinionless and thus not a target for upgrades, at least not in the long term. This actually aligns with Vitalik's view. But the only thing is, to get to that point, there is a long way to go. And to reach that point, certain decisions still have to be made. And the question remains, who should make those decisions? • A few core devs, relying on nebulous consensus? • Or tokenholders with skin in the game? From this talk, and considering what Polkadot becomes with JAM, it will be like giving devs subatomic particles (the fundamental building blocks) so granular that base-layer governance becomes irrelevant. JAM will essentially function like the internet’s TCP/IP layer, remaining simple, stable, and predictable, while the governance layer will operate on the services level. On the Ethereum side, I can really see that once there is enough data, services, and tools for futarchy, it will likely be implemented to provide a healthy signal regarding Ethereum's direction. If you're curious more, check out the ETHPrague panel short clips below. x.com/0xgoku_/status…






Pectra is coming to Ethereum testnets 🌃 On Feb 24th, at epoch 115968, the upgrade will go live on Holesky. Then, on Mar 5, at epoch 222464, it will activate on Sepolia. Assuming both of these go smoothly, we'll then pick an epoch for mainnet activation. More info below 👇



EF Treasury has deployed: - 10,000 ETH into Spark - 10,000 ETH into Aave Prime - 20,800 ETH into Aave Core - 4,200 ETH into Compound We're grateful for the entire Ethereum security community that has worked diligently to make Ethereum DeFi secure and usable!
