Original author: Mike, Stokes

Original compilation: Kate, Mars Finance

Overview

More than three years have passed since Vitalik published the Rollup-centered Ethereum Roadmap on paper. While much has changed in the interim, the vision ages like fine wine as the Ethereum community continues down this path. The launch, merging, withdrawals, and upcoming proto-danksharding fork of the Beacon Chain exemplify the excellence in engineering, research, and coordination of the individuals and teams contributing to the protocol. However, as 2024 approaches, there is more noise than ever. We feel it is worthwhile to restore the Rollup-centered roadmap with an updated world view. Modern problems may require new solutions.

Rather than starting with problems and assessing which are the most pressing or deserving of attention, we suggest using values ​​as a starting point. While this may seem dogmatic and disconnected from reality, we believe it is useful and helps answer What is the right problem to solve? We use a past, present, future structure to provide an overview of the protocols evolution. Overall view. Section 1 (Past) provides an overview of recent Ethereum history. Section 2 (Now) highlights todays key issues. Sections 3 and 4 pause the timeline to focus on what Ethereum does well (Section 3), and what Ethereum is not trying to do (Section 4). This multi-part episode sets the stage for the forward-looking plans presented in Section 5 (Future), which we break down into near-term (2024 Prague/Electra fork [§ 5.1]) and mid-term (next 3-4 years [§ 5.2 ]).

Finally, we would like to emphasize that this article represents solely the views of the author. The views expressed in no way represent the official views of EF (it feels presumptuous to even mention this, but we do it anyway to err on the side of caution). The goal of Sections 1-4 is objectivity as we lay the foundation for the more subjective ideas described in Section 5.

Section 1 - A brief history of Ethereum

^ would read like that

Before looking to the future, let’s take stock of the current state of Ethereum and how we got here. In the 3.5 years since Vitalik published his classic work Rollup-centric Ethereum Roadmap in October 2020, a lot has changed. Taking protocol upgrades as a mileage mark of progress, we focus on the key points of each consensus upgrade. For an exhaustive list of execution layer upgrades and EIPs for each branch, seeEthereum Historypage.

• [December 1, 2020] - The origin of the beacon chain

In just 35 seconds in the last month of the year, we had the first beacon chain block (we probably should have adjusted the slot times to 0, 12, 24, 36, 48 instead of 11, 23, 35, 47, 59 (slide 41), but alas).

Please seeannouncement。

• [October 27, 2021] - Altair

This fork requires updating validator incentives and adding lightweight client support. It also serves as a test fork for the consensus layer in preparation for the merge.

SeeConsensus NormsandAnnotation specifications。

• [September 15, 2022] - Bellatrix / Paris

merge. Ethereum is now completely proof-of-stake.

SeeConsensus Norms、Annotation specificationsandExecution specifications。

• [April 12, 2023] - Capella / Shanghai

Withdrawal. A small fork to close the loop on the proof-of-stake mechanism.

SeeConsensus Norms、Annotation specificationsandExecution specifications。

• [March 13, 2024 (estimated)] - Deneb / Cancun

Proto-danksharding (EIP- 4844). Upgrade data sharding.

SeeConsensus NormsandExecution specifications。

At this reduced granularity, the rationale for the upgrade path is clear.

From December 2020 to April 2023 (approximately 2.5 years), core developers and researchers performed a Proof-of-Stake Marathon™. The level of engineering, research, coordination and collaboration that went into this merger remains astounding, and the fact that it went so smoothly is a testament to the technical excellence of the community.

From early 2023 to today (1 year), the community focus has shifted to releasing proto-danksharding (EIP-4844). “Dencun” represents the first step in scaling Ethereum by reducing L2 data costs. While the upgrade proved complicated, the end is in sight—the mainnet fork is scheduled for March 13, 2024.

The strategy developed through these hard forks is clear, focused, and consistent with the rollup-centric roadmap. Tim Beiko likens each fork to a music festival roster. While many performers (EIPs) were tied to a single event, one headliner defined the fork. The headlines so far have been “Beacon Origins”, “Validator Incentives”, “Merges”, “Withdrawals” and “Raw Data Sharding”. Even with the benefit of hindsight, we are not changing the focus of any hard forks so far.

Part 2 - Ethereum in 2024, a vibe check

Is anyone excited for the new Wicked movie?

Well, stop patting your butt and looking back smugly. Let’s take a look at Ethereum today. As Dorothy points out in the image above, Were not in 2020 anymore. Modern issues require honest reflection. As the ecosystem grows and specializes, many topics compete for attention and action. The resulting noise makes it difficult to discern what is important and why. We distilled the many discussion threads into three core pillars: scaling, MEV [1] and staking (roughly related to “Surge”, “Scourge”, and “Merge” on Vitalik’s roadmap). Nonetheless, we highlight several key issues related to each topic.

1. Scaling – How should Ethereum continue to scale?

• Given the proliferation of alternative DA sources, how should Ethereum think about scaling DA?

• As we pursue the data sharding roadmap, should Ethereum try to scale execution?

• Should Ethereum have a clear story to deal with cross-chain liquidity fragmentation and L2 composability enabled by L1?

2.MEV - How should Ethereum respond to MEV?

• Is the current state of builder centralization acceptable?

• How does Ethereum maintain strong censorship resistance in a world of power-law distributed block production?

• How should Ethereum deal with its reliance on mev-boost and recent issues surrounding out-of-protocol software (prysm bug, low-carb crusador, bloXroute optimistic failure)?

• Should Ethereum respond to the emergence of mainnet timing games?

3. Staking – How should Ethereum staking develop?

• How opinionated should Ethereum be in reducing staking centralization?

• Should Ethereum actively consider retaining some LST functionality?

• What are the medium-term risks of Coinbase and other centralized exchanges accumulating large amounts of Ethereum staking (especially given that the custodian of a Bitcoin ETF may convert ETH and staked ETH ETF files)?

• How do we protect individual stakers at all costs, considering they are already a relatively small part of the network?

• How can the risk of rehypothecation be adequately addressed?

While this wall of problems can be scary, we can’t let it lead to analysis paralysis. The subsequent chapters aim to reframe the discussion around the objectives (§ 3) and non-objectives (§ 4) of the agreement.

Section 3 - What is special about Ethereum?

Pausing our current timeline, let’s take a look at Ethereum’s Exceptionalism®. Because of all these external pressures, Ethereum’s priorities are rarely clear. Rather than reasoning top-down about which risks are “most dangerous,” we propose a bottom-up reexamination of what Ethereum is and what makes it unique✨.

1. Decentralized, censorship-resistant, trustworthy and neutral, permissionless and trustless.

• These descriptors are the source of Ethereum’s value. Each has a slightly different meaning (we wont nitpick), but they all tap into the same energy and embody the spirit of the agreement. They are the it-factor.

• Decentralization is a means of providing censorship resistance. Without decentralization, a political party or group can exert influence over the blockchain, and with this power, it is only a matter of time before it is exploited.

• Censorship resistance is a means of providing trusted neutrality. By definition, a system must treat all individuals equally in order to be trustworthy and neutral.

• Censorship resistance is a means of maintaining permissionless status. Permissionless covers the use of the blockchain (as a transaction signer), the ability to deploy applications (as a developer), and the ability to interact with the blockchain without any trusted third party (as a validator) Feasibility – each is critical.

• Individual stakers[2] decentralize Ethereum. Every decision in the design of Ethereum must be made with the individual staker in mind. Without individual stakers, there is no meaningful decentralization.

• Resistance to censorship manifests itself in black swan moments. You will only feel it is relevant if it becomes the only important attribute. In Canada, for example, protecting your private property rights doesnt feel urgent until 2022 when they are severely stripped away.

2. Community.

• Decentralized governance. Ethereum aims to continue to be much larger than any single entity. The open source spirit runs through all aspects of client software, protocol specifications, research, events, coordination, etc.

• Client diversity. Ethereum has a thriving multi-client ecosystem. Technical advantages aside, client diversity creates a pool of developers who are familiar with the protocol and contribute valuable energy, skills, and perspectives to improving it.

• Ethereum is warm and approachable. People (often called layer 0) are an essential component. With regular conferences around the world, thousands of connections, and a general good vibe, Ethereum has long been the “digital home” for new crypto participants.

3. Ethereum assets.

• distribute. While we believe that Proof of Stake is the correct consensus algorithm + witch protection for Ethereum, there is no denying that having seven years of Proof of Work is a great token distribution mechanism.

• Lindy. Through its long-term existence, the Ethereum network has proven its antifragility, which creates trust in the network’s tokens and their value proposition.

• Utility. We like to compare Bitcoin to digital gold and Ethereum to digital oil. After all, Ethereum is the gas token of the Ethereum network.

• Currency properties. Unlike its analog counterpart (extending the oil analogy), Ethereum also has currency properties (collateralized assets in DeFi, unit of account for digital goods and economic security, medium of exchange for the entire ecosystem) that extend its value and give it Currency Premium. Ethereum’s candidacy as an “internet commodity currency” remains strong.

• Value is a requirement for security. The core principle of the super-sound money theory is that the security of the network depends on the value of the Ethereum asset. We think this is true. If Ethereum’s goal is to become the settlement layer for trillions of dollars of economic bandwidth, then the tokens that represent the security of these settlements must be valuable.

• Network effects. Liquidity, existing applications and developers, EVM, rapidly growing L2 adoption, and more all contribute to the strong network effects of the Ethereum asset and the entire Ethereum ecosystem.

The foregoing is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive. These points highlight Ethereum’s differentiating elements. This enumeration is particularly relevant when we now turn our attention to the “non-objectives” of the agreement. In our estimation, focusing on the following would be missing the forest for the trees, even if doing so would bring short-term benefits.

Section 4 - What is Ethereum not trying to do?

Youre on a mission again. If this is your current attitude, this section is for you. We also tried to identify clear non-goals (in our opinion) for the Ethereum network, as opposed to what Ethereum is good at.

1. Provide the most friendly L1 implementation.

• This is a critical starting point because a rollup-centric roadmap *explicitly* aims to push user activity to L2. By sharding data rather than execution, Ethereum takes the opinionated position that L1 execution may still be expensive and unsuitable for daily transactions.

• Resulting Example - While application layer developers complain about long slots and high fees, the fact remains that Ethereum L1 is not intended to be a place for applications. Designing Ethereum as the best DA and settlement layer for L2 may directly contradict the wishes of L1 application developers. For example, reducing slot time (purely hypothetically) would greatly improve the user experience of L1 transactions, but would harm the individual staker community. It doesnt seem like the trade-off is worth it.

• However, this does not mean that Ethereum should actively make L1 execution worse. Because L1 still provides forced transaction execution support for L2, it is important to ensure that transaction processing on L1 is still reasonable. The discussion on raising the gas limit might be helpful.

2. Provide the cheapest DA layer.

• This is important as alternative DA layers and the “modular” blockchain narrative continue to gain momentum. The alternative DA layer does not use any magical technology that Ethereum cannot use. On the contrary, they do not intend to build and cultivate an ecosystem of individual stakers.

• Resulting example - Ethereum will not scale byte-for-byte at the same rate as these networks because Ethereum is not willing to compromise on maintaining bandwidth (and compute) requirements to keep individual stakers Reasonable requests.

• However, Ethereum’s goal is to continue to be the “Manhattan” of the block + blob space. It is critical to expand blob space fast enough to maintain high utility without compromising security. Ethereum has taken the “catbird” position and benefited from it. The existing liquidity, composability, applications and L2 network effects are very powerful. Ethereum DA should continue to provide the best value for Rollup in terms of price per security.

3. Run like a startup.

• As mentioned above, Ethereum has truly decentralized governance. With multiple consensus and execution clients, application developers, infrastructure providers, application layer service providers, researchers, educators, etc., there are many people in the game and potentially conflicting interests regarding the future of the protocol. Have a say. Ethereum governance cannot and should not attempt to imitate the operational efficiency of a company/startup with a clear organizational hierarchy and centralized decision-making.

• Resulting Example – Network upgrades are a daunting task. Many outsiders have complained about the delays between upgrades, the lack of concrete timelines, and the ACD process, but the ship is working as planned! Recall § 1.

• However, Ethereum should still try to be as effective and efficient as the decentralized governance mechanism allows. While protocols must eventually solidify (protocols are slow to change in practice - see IP v4/IPv 6), there are still significant improvements to manage the long-term viability of the network. Ethereum should avoid premature sclerosis due to politicization and continue to implement roadmap projects.

* Get off the podium. *While we find the previous section uncontroversial (plug your ears to avoid screaming), we allow it to lean into more subjective territory. The next section goes into the mature opinion zone. But its necessary. With limited resources, difficult decisions must be made about the future of Ethereum. We present our views on the Prague/Electra bifurcation (§ 5.1) and mid-term (§ 5.2).

Part 5 - Looking to the future

Wake up feeling optimistic

If youre still here, thank you for supporting us. We finally feel like we have the ability to solve the problem of looking forward. That’s what roadmaps are for, right? This paper on a rollup-centric roadmap, and understanding it today, aims to build the future of Ethereum based on what was previously stated:

• Acknowledge the historical perspective outlined in § 1.

• Awareness of the current reality of Ethereum as presented in § 2.

• Consistent with the special features of Ethereum highlighted in § 3.

• Default in § 4 is something Ethereum is not trying to achieve.

Until then, we have been objective and focused on the facts. Instead, offering opinions about how Ethereum should move forward falls entirely into the realm of subjectivity. What follows is the author’s opinion and therefore carries their biases – please be aware. However, we believe it is best to try to express our views while listening to other perspectives. Strong opinions, loosely held.

Now that the final phase has been discussed in detail, we divide our look ahead into two shorter time frames. First, we outlined a hypothetical Prague/Electra hard fork (conditioned on an EOY 2024 target, which seems to be a rough consensus). Second, we look at the medium-term future, which we define as the next 3-4 years. Within each subsection, we divide the vision into the three previously mentioned tracks: scaling, MEV, and staking.

§ 5.1 - By Prague/Electra (target end of 2024)

Inspired by reth, prysm and sigma prime posting their thoughts on the Prague/Electra fork, we share what an ideal (from our POV) year-end fork would contain.

• Scaling – “Continue to scale Ethereum to become the ‘Manhattan’ of block and blob space.”

To increase the blob count based on mainnet 4844 data analysis, the CALLDATA cost may also need to be adjusted. Start implementing PeerDAS without hitting the bottleneck of the Prague/Electra fork on it [3].

• MEV – “Take the first step towards addressing the MEV centralization risk in the protocol by loading the inclusion list.”

See EIP-7547 and related work.

• Staking – “Improve the staking user experience and start investing development resources into Verkle trees and statelessness.”

Add EL-triggered exits (EIP-7002) and fulfill the verkle promise of the Osaka hard fork.

Zooming out a bit (but not entirely), the 3-4 year window gives us more room to consider broader themes.

§ 5.2 – and beyond (“mid-term” ≈ 3-4 years)

• Scaling – “Expand Ethereum DA by 3x in the next four years.”

The ambitious goal laid out by Ansgar is far from a foregone conclusion, but it provides a mental model for how Ethereum might reasonably aim to scale in the medium term. The following measures resulted in an 81-fold increase in data throughput over four years…

2023 (approximately) - 3x by adding EIP-4844

2024 - 3x, modified by increasing blob count and gas

2025 - 3x by adding PeerDAS

2026 - 3x by adding full Danksharding

This will allow Ethereum DA to maintain its competitiveness in terms of price per byte per security. Preserving blue chip universal rollups on Ethereum DA is necessary because Ethereums scaling roadmap depends on the existence of rollups that do not affect security.

• MEV – “Conduct research and development to identify long-term agreement solutions for MEV.”

With ePBS, execution tickets, pre-confirmation based, MEV-burn, encrypted mempools, timed games, censorship-resistant diversity, etc., there are many open questions about how protocols should respond to MEV.

We believe that in the medium-term framework, a joint effort should be made to research and implement terminal protocol features to deal with MEV.

• Staking – “Individual stakers who protect Ethereum as we iterate on Proof of Stake.”

Implement verkle tree and max_effecve_balance. Both upgrades are widely supported, benefiting individual stakers, and will ideally ship as soon as possible.

Determine the path to the final single slot. The route depends on decisions made around the target number of Ethereum validators and modifications to the issuance (See recent work by Anders [1, 2])。

Coping with the centralization of staking, the impact of re-staking, and the significant uncertainty brought about by LST + LRT (probably the most important task).

In the end, Ethereum is defined by the community. A lot has changed since 2020, but “people” have not. Beyond any technical direction highlighted above, putting “alignments,” politics, and zero-sum thinking aside while striving to continue being the most open and welcoming community possible is critical to the success of the project.

Thank you for reading📖🤓

1. We use MEV to broadly capture the externalities associated with executing the protocol: MEV, censorship, time games, etc. Once again, Vitaliks Scourge is the correct mental model, but we use MEV as an umbrella term because its familiar. ↩︎

2. We use “solo stakers” to broadly classify the long tail of Ethereum validators participating in consensus. In the future, this involvement may change, but what remains unchanged is that there are individuals from many different jurisdictions involved. The counterfactual that “all staking/validation/consensus participation is handled by specialized operators in a small geographical area” exposes the protocol to external pressures. ↩︎

3. An unmentioned fact about PeerDAS is that outside of every client implementing the interface, it does not need to be rolled out in every client during a specific hard fork. Once everyone has spoken to PeerDAS, clients can safely choose which blobs to download. The client that downloads all blobs is actually a super node. For more information about PeerDAS, see Francescos documentation.