Meeting Time: Monday, June 29, 2026 at 14:00 UTC (60 minutes)
The meeting focused on DevNet 6 status updates and discussions about system contract parameters. Barnabas reported that the network had recovered well after issues with Prism and Nethermind validators, with only Prism and Nethermind still offline. Felix presented updates on system contract implementation, including changes to the EAP and new fee parameters for builder deposits. The team discussed whether to make queue parameters updatable via system calls or deploy new contracts at fork boundaries, with Nico suggesting lowering the target and max parameters to reduce builder DOS potential. The group also briefly discussed upcoming changes for DevNet 7, which will likely include forward-compatible data structures and possible iterations on existing EIPs, particularly regarding authorizations and state growth.
The meeting began with discussions about the CL breakout agenda, which was noted to be light but still valuable for discussion. Barnabas agreed to start the breakout sessions, and Justin Traglia confirmed he would lead the CL side discussions. The meeting then transitioned to updates on DevNet six status, with a request for an update from someone from Eve Pandrops, though the transcript ended before this update was provided.
Barnabas reported that deposits were made over the weekend for consolidation testing, but Prism experienced issues, leading to the slashing of validators. The team successfully tested excluding slashed validators from the validator set and has recovered the network, with only Prism and Nethermind currently offline. Marc identified a bug in the newest Nethermind execution release and is working on fixing it, which may be causing the syncing issues.
The team discussed issues with Prism nodes being offline, with Potus reporting two specific cases involving Nethermind and Etherex nodes showing invalid blocks. While the connection to Prism isn’t clear, Potus is continuing to investigate and monitor the situation. Dragan confirmed that a working branch would likely be available later that day.
The team discussed updates on DevNet 6, with Teku confirming they were the first to implement it and Saulius from Grandin indicating they would be ready within the week with some small changes still needed. The meeting included plans for breakout sessions on repricing topics, with Justin leading a CL breakout and another person handling an EL breakout. The discussion concluded with a mention of EIP-8282 and a system contract PR made by Felix that needed further discussion to move forward.
Felix discussed updates to the EAP contract implementation, including removing assets and committing bytecode to the SysASM repository for easier devnet launches. He implemented a fee increase for every request added to the contract and merged the initial version to the repository. Felix also explained his work on making queue parameters more flexible, though this implementation has some challenges with fee computation. The team discussed potentially reducing fee parameters to optimize the CL specification and prevent potential attacks, with Nico expected to provide further explanation on this point.
Nico proposed reducing the target and max values for builder deposits from 32 and 256 to 8 and 64 respectively to prevent builders from blocking validator sweeps. Felix suggested an alternative approach of launching a new contract when parameters need to change, with a mechanism to disable the old contract and prevent further deposits. Felix offered to raise a PR implementing this solution, which would involve adding a flag to reject deposits once the contract is disabled.
The team discussed lowering the deposit limit to 64 and reviewed PK’s PR for implementing this change. Tony expressed support for modifying the contract state rather than deploying a new contract to keep the process simpler. Potuz raised concerns about potential censorship attacks if the limit is too low, while Barnabas questioned how to handle the fork transition with the new deposit system. Felix preferred creating a new standalone contract over using a dynamic contract or proxy approach, arguing it would be easier to analyze and implement.
The team discussed potential risks and approaches for implementing a new contract, with Barnabas and Felix highlighting concerns about attack vectors and contract complexity. Toni and others expressed preference for keeping the EL requests coming from a single address rather than changing it during a fork. The group agreed to continue these discussions asynchronously rather than spending more time on this topic, as they are focused on DevNet 6. The team decided to keep using constants instead of dynamic options and will implement a disable switch to avoid needing a new contract.
The team discussed expected changes for DevNet 7, with Barnabas noting that W7 would likely involve forward compatible data structures (7688) and potential changes to existing EIPs rather than new ones. Maria identified open questions regarding authorization metering related to EIPs 3737 and 2780, while Toni clarified that the BAL-related issues had been resolved with the decision to keep current implementations unless client teams specifically request changes. The conversation ended with plans to finalize the scope of changes during the upcoming ACDE and ACDC sessions.
P.98iW&?)P.98iW&?)P.98iW&?)YouTube recording available: https://youtu.be/f8E2cUgAssg