The Ethereum Foundation (EF) Protocol cluster has officially unveiled its comprehensive tier list for the upcoming Hegotäel network upgrade, marking a significant shift in how Ethereum’s core development roadmap is communicated. For the first time, the cluster—comprising approximately 60 researchers and engineers across nine specialized teams—has synthesized their internal evaluations into a single, unified perspective. While individual execution layer clients like Geth will maintain their own independent assessments, the release of this collective "steelman" document provides unprecedented transparency into the technical priorities currently shaping the future of the Ethereum blockchain.
The evaluation process, which spanned several months, analyzed 62 individual Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs). The resulting documentation serves as a critical bridge between the theoretical research phase and the concrete engineering requirements necessary for the next major network hard fork.
The Evolution of Protocol Governance
Historically, the process of selecting EIPs for a network upgrade has been fragmented, often resulting in "per-team" silos that made it difficult for the broader community to track why specific features were prioritized over others. The shift toward a unified view follows the lessons learned during the Glamsterdam upgrade. Previous retrospectives highlighted that the complexity of integrations is often underestimated by proposal champions, and that the "testing surface"—the amount of code that requires rigorous verification—is the scarcest resource in the development lifecycle.
The current protocol cluster approach aims to mitigate these risks by forcing a standardized, rigorous evaluation. Each of the nine teams, alongside several independent domain experts, utilized a common contribution template to score EIPs. In total, 16 template sets were submitted, generating 397 individual grades across the 62 proposals. The average number of grades per EIP was 6.4, with the most contentious proposals receiving up to 9 distinct reviews.
Methodology and Scoring Mechanics
To ensure objectivity, the scoring followed a strict numerical hierarchy: S-tier (4 points), A-tier (3 points), B-tier (2 points), C-tier (1 point), and D/DFI (0 points). An important distinction in this year’s process was the handling of abstentions; unlike previous years, where non-participation might be interpreted as a negative, this cycle ensured that only cast grades affected the average, preventing apathy from skewing the results against legitimate proposals.
The "steelman" methodology involved taking these raw scores and subjecting them to a series of intensive working sessions. During these meetings, contested proposals were debated item-by-item, allowing for adjustments in either direction based on technical feasibility and the overarching "Protocol Priorities" framework. This process was designed to align with the core philosophy established in the September 7, 2026, publication, EF Protocol: Current and Emerging Priorities, which serves as the "north star" for the cluster’s current roadmap.
Key Highlights from the Consensus and Execution Layers
The Hegotäel upgrade introduces a bifurcated focus: strengthening the Consensus Layer (CL) while pushing forward account abstraction and security features on the Execution Layer (EL).
Consensus Layer: The FOCIL Initiative
The standout proposal for the consensus layer is EIP-7805, known as FOCIL (Fork Choice Inclusion List). Rated as an S-tier priority, FOCIL is designed to provide individual users with a direct path to include eligible transactions in a block, effectively reducing reliance on centralized block builders. The cluster has expressed a unanimous consensus that this feature is a "must-ship" and should be bundled alongside EIP-8369, which defines the eligibility criteria for these transactions.
Conversely, proposals that were deemed premature or too disruptive were relegated to the "DFI" (Declined for Inclusion) status. For instance, EIP-7716, which sought to implement anti-correlation attestation penalties, was marked as DFI. While the cluster acknowledged that the proposal has merit, it was sidelined due to concerns regarding the current staker landscape and the lack of research on edge cases where multi-client setups might fail simultaneously. The cluster concluded that maintaining a "light" consensus scope for this specific fork is a higher priority than introducing complex, unproven penalty mechanisms.
Execution Layer: The Rise of Frames
On the execution side, EIP-8141, or "Frame Transactions," has emerged as the definitive headliner. By enabling native account abstraction, this EIP provides a critical path toward post-quantum (PQ) signature schemes and allows for more efficient key management. The cluster has effectively packaged this with EIP-8250 and EIP-8272, creating a cohesive strategy for modernizing how users interact with the EVM.
Other notable EL inclusions include EIP-3298, which focuses on the removal of outdated refund mechanisms, and EIP-5920, which introduces the PAY opcode. These changes are viewed as "low-surface, high-leverage" improvements that clean up the technical debt accumulated over previous years of development.
The "DFI" Category and Strategic Deferrals
A critical component of this report is the transparent explanation of why certain proposals were declined. The cluster has adopted a rule: for any proposal below the line, they must provide specific, technical reasons for the rejection.
For example, EIP-8142 (Block-in-Blobs) was met with unanimous opposition. The cluster determined that it deepened an unwanted dependency on KZG (Kate-Zaverucha-Goldberg) structures, which runs contrary to the long-term goal of transitioning toward more flexible, quantum-resistant data availability models. Similarly, proposals like EIP-8375 (ePBS Mandatory Burn) were declined not necessarily because they were "bad" ideas, but because they touched upon economic policy—specifically issuance and reward structures—which the cluster believes should be handled via a broader, ecosystem-wide consensus process rather than a specific network upgrade window.
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
The release of this tier list signals a more mature phase in Ethereum’s development lifecycle. By explicitly categorizing proposals, the EF is signaling to the wider developer community where the engineering effort is being concentrated. It creates a clear "if-then" logic for proponents of lower-tiered EIPs; for example, a B-tier proposal like EIP-8198 (Quick Slots) now has a clear list of four requirements—including a full specification and a prototype—that must be met before it can be considered for a higher tier in future cycles.
This approach significantly reduces the ambiguity that often plagues open-source protocol development. It provides clarity for independent client teams (such as those building for Geth, Nethermind, or Besu) regarding which features will likely be included, allowing them to allocate resources more efficiently.
Community Engagement and Next Steps
Recognizing that such a drastic shift in communication may generate questions or pushback, the EF has announced a formal engagement strategy. A Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) is scheduled for September 16, 2026, on the r/ethereum subreddit. This session is specifically designed to allow proponents of deferred or declined EIPs to challenge the cluster’s logic.
The inclusion of a "TBD" category for proposals like EIP-8368 and EIP-8372, which depend on post-Glamsterdam mainnet data, further emphasizes the cluster’s commitment to evidence-based development. The team is waiting for empirical evidence from the current network state before committing to changes that could impact the gas limit or state transition costs.
Ultimately, the Hegotäel tier list is a testament to the fact that for a protocol as complex as Ethereum, success is defined as much by the features that are excluded as by those that are implemented. By creating this unified, transparent, and rigorous framework, the Ethereum Foundation is setting a new standard for how decentralized global infrastructure should be upgraded and maintained. The focus remains on stability, security, and the long-term viability of the network, ensuring that while the blockchain evolves, its core principles of decentralization and permissionless access remain the primary objectives.
