Highlights from the All Core Developers Execution (ACDE) Call #225

ACDE #225 opened with congratulations on the successful Fusaka hard fork. The meeting focused on two priorities: reviewing the incidents that occurred around the upgrade, and advancing detailed scoping for the upcoming Glamsterdam fork.

A summary document of Fusaka-related incidents was referenced. With both Execution Layer and Consensus Layer client teams present, the session helped align multiple upgrade timelines (Fusaka, Glamsterdam, Heka) that currently overlap and demand parallel attention.

• Fusaka Hard Fork Review
• FOCIL Debate
• Glamsterdam Scoping Framework

Fusaka Hard Fork Review

The primary incident involved Prysm nodes, which saw participation drop to 79% due to unnecessary regeneration of old states. This issue traced back to a heuristic introduced in Capella, where clients reused head state when the target epoch equaled the current epoch.

Fusaka’s refactor broadened the definition of a “valid checkpoint,” unintentionally recreating the Capella-like behavior. As a result, Prysm nodes incurred heavy processing load, missed attestation duties, and briefly impacted network participation.

A temporary mitigation using a feature flag stabilized behavior, while a complete fix and full post-mortem are scheduled for release the following week. Other issues between Nimbus and Nethermind builds were minor.

Once mitigated, network participation returned to healthy levels, reflecting strong cross-team coordination. BPO1 will go live roughly one week after this call. It will increase block counts but requires no action from node operators.

FOCIL Debate

Discussion around FOCIL highlighted recurring frustration with repeated temperature checks across multiple calls. Decision-making is split between ACDE (EL) and ACDC (CL), which slows progress and creates uncertainty.

Participants emphasized that the “headliner process,” introduced for Glamsterdam, should also guide Heka planning, ensuring predictable timelines and fair visibility for contributors. There was broad agreement that FOCIL is important but not suitable for Glamsterdam.

Instead, contributors favored treating FOCIL as a likely candidate for Heka, supported by a public pre-commitment. Several participants noted that EIP-1 and the official EIPs website must be updated to include the headliner process so that newcomers can navigate the workflow without needing to track scattered call notes.

A final decision on FOCIL’s process handling is expected in the next ACDC meeting.

Glamsterdam Scoping Framework

A structured scoping document categorizing more than 40 EIPs guided this session. EIPs were evaluated as CFI (Consider for Inclusion) or DFI (Deferred for Inclusion), allowing rapid decision-making for items with clear consensus.

Proposals with unresolved complexity were postponed for deeper examination. This approach significantly reduced the active EIP list and clarified Glamsterdam’s evolving scope.

Several themes require focused follow-up. Core gas repricing needs to be reorganized into a clearer structure, as the current proposal is too monolithic.

State growth repricing must be examined alongside alternative models submitted by contributors. Contract size expansion remains unsettled, with two incompatible strategies, i.e., a simple size increase versus chunk-based mobilization (both requiring deeper comparison).

Log indexing improvements, including interactions with EIP-7745, must be reconsidered in light of new ETH transfer logs. Post-quantum strategy remains scattered and needs unified direction.

Non-protocol EIPs must be prioritized to determine which ones should be included for signaling purposes. Finally, a fork naming decision remains pending.

The call concluded with clear progress: many EIPs received CFI or DFI decisions, reducing complexity and clarifying Glamsterdam’s direction. Items requiring more discussion were isolated for the next ACDE meeting.

The following changes were confirmed:

• ACDC – December 25 → Canceled
• ACDE – January 1 → Canceled

A potential replacement call may be arranged using an ACDT slot to avoid loss of scoping momentum.

Contributors emphasized the need to update EIP-1 with details of the headliner process. Despite the density of the session, it effectively streamlined scoping and established a solid foundation for decision-making in upcoming calls.

If you find any issues in this blog or notice any missing information, please feel free to reach out at yash@etherworld.co for clarifications or updates.

Related Articles

1. Highlights of Ethereum's All Core Devs Meeting (ACDC) #153
2. Highlights of Ethereum's All Core Devs Meeting (ACDE) #207
3. Highlights of Ethereum's All Core Devs Meeting (ACDC) #152
4. Highlights of Ethereum's All Core Devs Meeting (ACDE) #206
5. Highlights of Ethereum's All Core Devs Meeting (ACDE) #205