Withdrawing EIP-8363 from consideration for Hegotá.
EIP-8363 rapidly became one of the most commented-on EIPs in the history of the forum, with 200+ comments in a few weeks. As we progressed through the Hegotà CFI (Consideration For Inclusion) process, several parties in the industry as well as core protocol and client contributors voiced that a fork scoping exercise was not the right venue to settle an issuance policy change.
We agree and we’d rather acknowledge this now than carry on towards Hegotà in this context. The topic is too important and raised too many concerns that it deserves its own process. We commit to giving issuance its own process and we thank the entities such as Lido who offered to help steer such an initiative.
We stand by the motivation of this EIP, in particular: “a very high staking ratio is undesirable for two distinct reasons (…), preserving Ethereum’s security, neutrality and resistance to capture, and protecting ETH’s role as money.” Not everybody immediately relates to both reasons and for others recognizing just one of these reasons is enough to justify a change. Nevertheless, we will all benefit from improving our understanding of the issue and what is at stake. So far, the questions we have faced since we published EIP-8363 can be boiled down to 5 categories:
- Security: What does a lower ratio actually secure versus a higher ratio?
- Industry impact: What else is built on the yield and what will be the impact?
- Curve specs and alternate tools: Is this curve even the right instrument?
- Composition: Who is left staking (the effect on the composition of the validator set)?
- Decentralization: How will solo stakers be impacted by the reduction?
We already argued a lot, conceded some and adjusted a few points in the very long Ethereum-Magicians thread mentioned supra. For a broader consensus to emerge and a better issuance policy for Ethereum to be designed and adopted, we need a dedicated process. We call for all willing hands to help and contribute to this, please do reach out. Here’s our start at what a multi-node process would look like:
| When | What | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Nov, Devcon | Issuance Forum 2 (the EthCC 2026 roundtable was the 1st) | Problem statement, objectives, metrics agreed; in-scope objections |
| Post Devcon & Dec | Workshop 1, async | Each objection closed, narrowed or open-with-evidence; status-quo costed; cascade model stream submitted |
| Jan | Issuance Forum 3 at Columbia cryptoeconomics workshop (tentative, tbc), async one month and in person the decision forum at the end | Convergence on one feasible proposal (draft EIP) for I*, or the record of why none; transition included |
| Feb & March | Workshop 2, async two months | Proposal hardening; external review by academics; cascade model feedback; PFI planning |
| April, EthCC | Issuance Forum 4, in person with Q&A forum | Engage with Core devs and stakeholders, reach CFI / SFI |
Onward and forward, let’s improve Ethereum.