Ethereum Foundation Protocol Cluster Unveils Unified Tier List for Hegotál Upgrade, Charting a Clear Path for Future Development

The Ethereum Foundation (EF) Protocol cluster has released its inaugural unified tier list for the eagerly anticipated Hegotál upgrade, a landmark publication that consolidates the collective vision for Ethereum’s next major hard fork. This comprehensive evaluation, a first of its kind, assesses 62 Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) and provides a clear roadmap, categorizing each with a specific tier and a concise rationale. This unified approach marks a significant evolution in protocol development, moving beyond individual team perspectives to present a cohesive strategy agreed upon by a diverse group of researchers and engineers.

Historically, various client teams, such as Geth for the Execution Layer (EL), often published their own standalone tier lists, leading to potential fragmentation in focus and effort. However, this new unified list represents a collaborative endeavor involving approximately 60 individuals from across the Protocol cluster, encompassing both research and engineering disciplines. Their collective feedback, combined with input from other participating teams and individual contributors, forms the backbone of this document. The priorities guiding these evaluations are detailed in the companion post, EF Protocol: Current and Emerging Priorities, which outlines the overarching strategic direction for Ethereum’s evolution. This synchronized effort aims to streamline development, enhance coordination, and ensure that the Hegotál upgrade aligns with the network’s long-term vision for scalability, security, and decentralization.

Setting the Stage for Hegotál: Ethereum’s Continuous Evolution

Ethereum operates on a philosophy of continuous improvement, driven by community-proposed EIPs that are integrated into the network through periodic hard forks. These upgrades are crucial for introducing new features, optimizing performance, and addressing emerging challenges. The Hegotál upgrade is poised to be another pivotal moment in this journey, building upon the foundations laid by previous hard forks like the recent "Glamsterdam" upgrade. Each upgrade necessitates meticulous planning, extensive research, and robust implementation to ensure network stability and security.

The Ethereum Foundation Protocol cluster plays a central role in this process, guiding the technical direction and fostering collaboration among core developers. The decision to publish a unified tier list for Hegotál stems from a recognition of the increasing complexity of Ethereum’s development landscape. With a multitude of EIPs vying for inclusion, a clear, consolidated view becomes indispensable for efficient resource allocation and synchronized development efforts across various client teams. This strategic shift reflects a maturation in Ethereum’s governance and development practices, emphasizing collective intelligence and shared responsibility. The lessons learned from previous upgrade cycles, particularly the retrospectives conducted after Glamsterdam, heavily influenced the refined evaluation process for Hegotál, highlighting the importance of accurately sizing EIPs by integration depth, understanding compounding complexity, recognizing testing surface as a scarce resource, and guarding against champions underestimating their proposals’ intricacies.

The Rigorous Framework: How EIPs Were Evaluated and Tiered

The process for developing the Hegotál tier list was comprehensive and multi-faceted, designed to solicit broad input and arrive at a consensus-driven outcome. It involved the active participation of all nine Protocol cluster teams, supplemented by insights from several individual domain experts. A total of 16 contribution templates were filled out, with 12 contributors providing explicit tier grades for the EIPs. Notably, some experts focused their grading only on EIPs where they possessed deep expertise, ensuring specialized scrutiny. This rigorous approach yielded an impressive 397 individual tier grades across the 62 proposed EIPs, averaging 6.4 grades per EIP. The most extensively discussed proposals received as many as nine independent grades, underscoring the depth of analysis applied.

The scoring methodology was transparent and standardized: an S-tier grade was assigned 4 points, A-tier 3, B-tier 2, C-tier 1, and D/DFI (Declined for Inclusion) 0 points. Crucially, abstentions from grading an EIP did not count against its overall average, ensuring that only informed opinions influenced the outcome. The published tier for each EIP, referred to as a "steelman," was not merely a mathematical average. It was the product of extensive debate and argument in dedicated working sessions, where proposals were reviewed EIP-by-EIP, allowing for movements up or down the tiers based on reasoned discussions. This collaborative refinement ensured that the final tier reflected a well-considered collective judgment rather than a simple statistical aggregation. While per-team grades were kept confidential to encourage open discussion, the collective output stands as a testament to the cluster’s commitment to transparency and robust decision-making.

Furthermore, the grading process was informed by critical retrospectives on the Glamsterdam upgrade. These reviews highlighted several key lessons: the importance of accurately sizing an EIP by its integration depth, the understanding that complexity compounds quickly within the protocol, the recognition that testing surface is a severely scarce resource, and the common pitfall of proposal champions underestimating the true complexity of their own EIPs. These insights directly shaped the criteria and discussions during the Hegotál evaluation. Half a dozen group calls and a focused 90-minute working session were dedicated to resolving contested items, ensuring that every EIP received thorough consideration. Further details on the process were shared in an August 28 process post, reinforcing the commitment to open communication.

Each tier within the ladder carries specific delivery expectations, committing the cluster to a certain level of support and prioritization:

• S-Tier (Must-Ship): These EIPs are considered absolutely critical for the Hegotál upgrade, representing foundational changes or urgent improvements. The cluster is fully committed to their delivery.
• A-Tier (Expected to Ship): High-priority proposals with strong merits that are expected to be included. They have clear value and are well-defined.
• B-Tier (Conditional Inclusion): These EIPs are promising but require further development, clarification, or resolution of specific dependencies before they can be elevated. The notes explicitly state the requirements for moving up a tier.
• C-Tier (Lower Priority/Under Review): Proposals that have noted concerns or are not considered immediate priorities for Hegotál. They are "below the line" but not outright declined, indicating potential for future forks.
• D/DFI (Declined for Inclusion): These EIPs will not be included in Hegotál. The notes clearly outline the concerns, reasons for deferral, or why they do not meet the fork’s priorities.
• TBD (To Be Determined): Proposals awaiting external data or decisions before their status can be finalized.

The notes accompanying each EIP in the published list meticulously adhere to this pattern: for expected-to-ship items, the merits are highlighted; for "bubble" items, specific requirements for advancement are stated; and for declined proposals, the concerns are clearly articulated, without extraneous commentary. This structured approach provides invaluable feedback to EIP champions and the wider community.

Hegotál’s Core: Key EIPs Charting Ethereum’s Future

The full tier list, offering a single visual overview, is publicly accessible on Forkcast. The breakdown reveals a clear strategic direction for the Hegotál upgrade, with a focus on enhancing core protocol functionality, improving developer experience, and laying groundwork for future advancements.

S-Tier: The Imperatives for Hegotál

Two EIPs emerged as unanimous "must-ship" proposals, critical to the success and strategic direction of Hegotál:

• EIP-7805: FOCIL (Forced On-Chain Inclusion Layer) (CL Headliner)

  • Tier: S (4/7)
  • FOCIL is a foundational Consensus Layer (CL) headliner, universally recognized for its profound impact on Ethereum’s decentralization and censorship resistance. It offers any user a guaranteed pathway to include an eligible transaction on-chain, effectively mitigating reliance on centralized block builders. This democratizing feature garnered unanimous S-tier support, highlighting its critical importance. FOCIL is designed to ship in conjunction with EIP-8369, which further extends its inclusion guarantees to "Frames" by defining the eligibility criteria for transactions and the verification requirements for validators.

• EIP-8141: Frame Transactions (EL Headliner)

  • Tier: S (3.89/9)
  • As the locked-in Execution Layer (EL) headliner, Frame Transactions represent a significant leap forward for native account abstraction. This EIP is crucial for future-proofing Ethereum by providing a robust mechanism for integrating post-quantum (PQ) signature schemes without requiring a new hard fork for each scheme. It also facilitates aggregation, enabling efficient pricing of PQ verification, and offers a clear path to retiring vulnerable k1 keys. Frame Transactions are intrinsically linked with EIP-8250 and EIP-8272, forming a core package for this vital upgrade.

A-Tier: High-Priority Inclusions Shaping the Upgrade

Fifteen EIPs achieved A-tier status, indicating strong merits and an expectation for inclusion in Hegotál. These proposals span both the Consensus and Execution Layers, addressing a range of improvements from cleanup and deprecations to new features and critical security enhancements.

• Consensus Layer A-Tier Highlights:

  • EIP-8369: VOPS Profiles for FOCIL Eligibility (3.5/4): Essential for FOCIL, defining transaction eligibility and validator verification for Frames.
  • EIP-8015: Remove Deposit and eth1data Fields (3.14/7): A cleanup EIP that removes obsolete deposit and eth1data fields, simplifying the protocol with no downstream dependencies.
  • EIP-8365: BLS Withdrawal Credential Retirement (3/8): Initiates the retirement of withdrawal credentials tied to potentially vulnerable cryptography, a proactive security measure without blocking dependencies.
  • EIP-8383: Reduce CL Block Retention Window (3/2): A constant change addressing an incorrect safety-decay constant, improving efficiency.
  • EIP-8334: Bundled Attestation Propagation (2.43/7): Reduces gossip load by bundling attestation propagation, a small surface change with significant network efficiency gains.
  • EIP-8025: Optional Execution Proofs (2.38/8): Integrates stateless-execution changes into canonical execution specs, preventing zkVM work from diverging and streamlining future advancements.

• Execution Layer A-Tier Highlights:

  • EIP-3298: Removal of Refunds (3.17/6): Eliminates a class of metering edge cases, simplifying EVM economics and reducing past complexities.
  • EIP-8250: Keyed Nonces for Frame Transactions (3.12/8): A core Frames component enabling multiple users to share a single sender with separate nonces, enhancing anonymity and preventing transaction blocking.
  • EIP-5920: PAY Opcode (3/6): Introduces a small but highly leveraged EVM feature, allowing value transfer without invoking recipient code, addressing a long-standing issue.
  • EIP-8272: Recent Roots for Frame Transactions (2.86/7): Another Frames core component, enabling private transactions to leverage recent on-chain state verifiable by attesters, integrating with FOCIL’s inclusion guarantees.
  • EIP-8279: Block Access List Byte Floor (2.71/7) & EIP-8131: Unified Transaction Content Floor (2.67/6): These two EIPs form a crucial security pair. EIP-8279 bounds worst-case block construction by flooring adversarial Block Access List (BAL) pricing, while EIP-8131 applies similar bounding to calldata content. They are considered critical security work to prevent denial-of-service attacks.
  • EIP-7906: Transaction Assertions via State Diff Opcode (2.43/7): A Frames extension enabling transactions to verify pre-commit actions, preventing wallet drains and certain types of MEV extraction. It’s already running on a public devnet with Frames.
  • EIP-8298: SETCODEFROM Code Reuse Instruction (2.17/6) & EIP-8151: Account Code Restricted ecRecover (2/6): These two EIPs form a package for k1 key retirement. EIP-8298 allows a 7702-delegated account to evolve into a true smart-contract account, shedding k1 as its master key and reducing deployment costs. EIP-8151 ensures that once real code resides at an address, ecRecover-based authentication is rejected, nullifying the danger of retired keys.
  • EIP-4758: Deactivate SELFDESTRUCT (1.5/6): Despite an average score below A, this EIP was elevated due to an "override" from Engineering teams. It removes the final SELFDESTRUCT path, a persistent testing hazard that complicates every future EIP and simplifies the implementation of Frames.

B-Tier: Promising Proposals with Defined Requirements

Eight EIPs fall into the B-tier, indicating their potential value but also specific conditions that must be met for their inclusion in Hegotál. These proposals require further refinement, specification, or comparative analysis.

• EIP-8146: Block Access List Sidecars (2.13/8): This proposal aims to keep the payload independent of the Block Access List (BAL) for execution. Its move to A-tier is contingent on settling the observation deadline in its specification.
• EIP-8237: Independent CL/EL Sync (2/6): Explores bandwidth savings by allowing independent synchronization, especially relevant post-ePBS where payload bodies download on both layers. Its inclusion depends on a comparison with simpler, non-EIP alternatives that might achieve similar gains.
• EIP-8198: Quick Slots (2/6): While supported by R&D for its potential to accelerate block times, Engineering teams rated it D, citing the cascading retuning required for any slot-time change. For A-tier consideration, four critical requirements were identified: comprehensive specifications covering all protocol changes, a full prototype implementation, an in-depth assessment of ecosystem-wide downstream effects, and sign-off that it does not complicate decoupled consensus.
• EIP-8321: Hash-Chain RANDAO (1.57/7): A sound direction for hardening a consensus component, but deemed prematurely sequenced. It will be revisited once a complete Post-Quantum (PQ) consensus design exists and can either adopt or extend it.
• EIP-8253: Bump Nonce of Zero-Nonce Storage Accounts (2.29/7): While the trie migration can proceed without it, this EIP significantly simplifies every migration step. The remaining question is whether this simplification warrants A-tier inclusion now or remains B-tier until devnet sequencing confirms its integration feasibility.
• EIP-8077: eth/XX: Announce Transactions with Nonce (2/5): Addresses the need for richer announcements in the Frames-era mempool. Its promotion to A-tier hinges on the wire format being finalized and written into the EIP.
• EIP-8374: Persist Warm Access Sets Across Reverts (1.67/6) & EIP-7709: Read BLOCKHASH from Storage and Update Cost (1.67/6): EIP-8374 is coupled with EIP-8358 (Net Gas Metering) and graded together. EIP-7709 offers value for history expiry but has a wide grade span; it could move to A-tier if devnet sequencing progresses smoothly.

C-Tier: Proposals Below the Line

Seven EIPs received C-tier grades, indicating they are "below the line" for Hegotál due to various concerns, often related to sequencing, complexity, or resource allocation.

• EIP-8371: RowDAS: Distributed Blob Reconstruction (2.11/9): A question of priority – addressing current operator pain versus investing in future headroom for data availability.
• EIP-7668: Remove Bloom Filters (1.5/6) & EIP-8116: Replace Cumulative Receipt Fields (1/6): Both are receipt and filter changes, best sequenced with broader history and logs work rather than in Hegotál.
• EIP-8200: EVMification (1.43/7) & EIP-7666: EVM-ify the Identity Precompile (1/7): These are closely related. EVMification requires audited replacement bytecodes to precisely match precompile behavior, and these bytecodes are not yet in the EIP. EIP-7666 exists to support EIP-8200 and was not defended independently.
• EIP-8358: Net Gas Metering for Account Changes (1/6): Coupled with EIP-8374, it remains a tier apart, awaiting further clarity.
• EIP-8355: ML-DSA Verification Precompiles (1/9): This EIP was graded C due to premature standardization, as it enshrines a specific Post-Quantum (PQ) verification scheme ahead of a dedicated cryptographic adjudication process.

DFI (Declined for Inclusion): The Strategic Pruning

Twenty-eight EIPs were declined for inclusion in Hegotál, a significant outcome that underscores the cluster’s commitment to focused development. The reasons for declining these proposals are varied but consistently align with the stated priorities and lessons learned from past upgrades. As the cluster noted, "Success here is determined as much by what we decline as by what we ship."

• Premature/Mis-sequenced: Many EIPs were declined because they were either premature, dependent on larger reworks, or mis-sequenced within the overall roadmap. Examples include EIP-8243 (Batching Attestations, belonging with slot-structure work), EIP-8333 (Align Checkpoint with Epoch Boundary Block, unclear interaction with decoupled consensus), and EIP-8321 (Hash-Chain RANDAO, waiting for complete PQ consensus design).
• Deepening Undesirable Dependencies: EIP-8142 (Block-in-Blobs), unanimously declined, was seen as deepening dependence on KZG structures, diverging from the path to J*.
• Operational Convenience vs. Necessity: Several proposals, such as EIP-8148 (Custom Sweep Threshold for Validators), EIP-8205 (Withdrawal Credentials Preregistration), and EIP-8359 (Beacon Block Reporting Field), were primarily for operational convenience for large staking operations or deemed unnecessary given existing solutions (e.g., graffiti watermarking).
• Policy Decisions Outside Fork Scope: EIP-8375 (ePBS Mandatory Burn of Execution Rewards) and EIP-8363 (Tapered Issuance Burn) were declined because reward and issuance policies are considered part of a broader ecosystem process, not a fork scoping exercise. This is not a judgment on their merits but on the appropriate venue for such policy changes.
• Alternative Approaches Preferred: EIP-7851 (Code-Controlled EOA Delegation) and EIP-7819 (SETDELEGATE Instruction) were alternative account-abstraction mechanics that lost out to the Frames approach, which was seen as fostering more permissionless innovation. Similarly, EIP-8182 (Private ETH and ERC-20 Transfers) was declined as the Frames-based path offers the same privacy goals with less protocol surface, allowing competing schemes.
• Risk/No Urgency: EIP-2488 (Deprecate the CALLCODE Opcode) was declined due to no Hegotál urgency and potential application-layer breakage risk. EIP-7979 (Call and Return Opcodes for the EVM) added too much control-flow surface to a fork already carrying two headliners.
• Repricing/Metering Churn: Several repricing proposals, including EIP-7923 (Linear, Page-Based Memory Costing), EIP-7973 (Warm Account Write Metering), EIP-8115 (Batch Priority Fees at End of Block), and EIP-8219 (Checked Arithmetic Opcodes), were deferred, awaiting mainnet evidence from Glamsterdam’s repricing.
• State/Block Data Changes: EIP-8304 (Trustless Log and Transaction Index) was a format change with a large testing surface, belonging with broader history and logs work. EIP-7807 (SSZ Execution Blocks) was a formatting migration with a wide blast radius and no Hegotál dependency. EIP-7645 (Alias ORIGIN to SENDER) was unanimously declined for breaking assumptions in deployed contracts without security gain.
• Waiting on Mainnet Data (TBD): Two repricing proposals, EIP-8368 (CPSB Recalibration for New Gas Limit) and EIP-8372 (Normalized State Gas Limit), are currently TBD, awaiting post-Glamsterdam mainnet data to inform whether to recalibrate, normalize, or take no action. While EIP-8368 drew majority S/A support, the decision remains pending crucial data.

Broader Implications and the Path Forward

The publication of this unified tier list for Hegotál represents a significant step towards a more coordinated and efficient Ethereum development ecosystem. By clearly delineating priorities, outlining delivery expectations, and transparently stating reasons for deferral or decline, the EF Protocol cluster provides invaluable clarity to client teams, EIP champions, and the broader community. This clarity is expected to:

• Streamline Development: Client teams can now focus their resources on the EIPs most likely to be included, reducing wasted effort on less prioritized proposals.
• Enhance Coordination: A unified roadmap ensures that all development efforts are aligned with the overarching strategic goals of the network.
• Improve Transparency: The detailed notes for each EIP offer unprecedented insight into the decision-making process, fostering trust and understanding within the community.
• Facilitate Future Research: EIPs that are deferred or declined often come with specific requirements for future consideration, guiding researchers and developers on what needs to be addressed for potential inclusion in later forks.
• Empower the Ecosystem: Developers of dApps and tools can anticipate upcoming changes with greater certainty, allowing them to plan their own roadmaps more effectively. Stakers and other network participants also gain a clearer understanding of the protocol’s evolution.

The emphasis on "success by declining" highlights a mature approach to protocol development, recognizing that maintaining a lean and focused scope is crucial for delivering robust and timely upgrades. This prevents feature creep and ensures that critical resources are directed towards the most impactful and well-vetted improvements.

Engaging the Community: Feedback and Dialogue

In a testament to its commitment to open dialogue, the Ethereum Foundation Protocol cluster has proactively invited community feedback on the tier list. They will be hosting a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) on r/ethereum on September 16 at 2pm UTC, specifically anticipating questions and pushback on the published tiers. This direct engagement mechanism allows EIP champions, supporters of non-A-tier proposals, and the wider community to voice their perspectives, challenge decisions, and contribute to the ongoing refinement of Ethereum’s future. Questions can be submitted ahead of time via a dedicated form, ensuring a structured and comprehensive discussion. This initiative reinforces the collaborative spirit at the heart of Ethereum’s development, where community input is not just welcomed but actively sought.

In Closing

Of the 62 proposals rigorously evaluated for Hegotál, the EF Protocol cluster has definitively identified 2 as "must-ship" headliners, committed to delivering 15 high-priority EIPs, and strategically declined 28 with clearly articulated reasons. The remaining 15 proposals include 8 B-tier items with specified requirements for inclusion, 7 C-tier proposals that fall below the immediate line, and 2 TBD proposals awaiting crucial mainnet data. This meticulous and transparent process underscores the cluster’s dedication to a disciplined approach, recognizing that the strength and stability of Ethereum are as much defined by what is carefully excluded as by what is boldly implemented. For a deeper understanding of the guiding principles behind these decisions, stakeholders are strongly encouraged to consult the companion post, EF Protocol: Current and Emerging Priorities, which lays out the comprehensive vision and commitments driving Ethereum’s ongoing evolution. The Hegotál tier list is not just a document; it is a living blueprint for the next chapter of the Ethereum network.

Editor’s note: This article was updated on Sep. 8, 2026, to revise the tier list notes for EIP-7716, adding additional clarification on where further research and discussion is needed. EIP-7716 (Anti-Correlation Attestation Penalties), initially graded DFI (0.83/6), was deferred for further research and community discussion regarding its impact on staker landscape, centralization effects, and edge cases like multi-client setups, deeming it not a high priority for a light-scope fork.