My observation is that the delay to Glamsterdam should not be read simply as “bad news.” It is more like a response to the spillover risk from changes to Gas pricing rules. This assessment hinges on EIP-8037 and EIP-8038 indeed breaking eight invariants that existing contracts rely on, and on the affected scope being impossible to fully enumerate at present.
According to PANews, citing an Ethereum Foundation blog post, Foundation developer Marius van der Wijden urged contract developers and auditors to check whether they rely on these invariants. The Foundation has published a GitHub repository with explanations, examples, and prompts for self-checks; security firm ChainSecurity had previously found that some projects rely on these invariants. Since the two EIPs change how Gas is charged for certain operations and states, affected projects may be vulnerable after the upgrade. ACD has decided to postpone the hard fork and will not carry it out on the Hoodi testnet until the issue is resolved. The Foundation said it has engaged multiple audit firms and is conducting internal audits, but cannot cover every project.
Mechanistically, Gas rules are not abstract parameters; they are part of the contract execution environment. My observation is that when pricing methods change, cost and execution assumptions that developers previously considered stable may no longer hold. The risk is concentrated among long-tail projects that rely on the old invariants, rather than in the ETH mainnet itself. The delay is therefore a way to trade time for broader audit coverage, not direct evidence that the situation has worsened.
Scenario analysis: If audit and self-check coverage is sufficient, the delay is simply a security cost; if coverage is inadequate, scattered vulnerabilities may still emerge after the fork. Key things to track are the Foundation’s audit progress, the new date for the Hoodi testnet, and whether developer self-check feedback produces a verifiable checklist. This article does not constitute investment advice.
$ETH
#ETH #CryptoSecurity
Sources:
PANews (originally published 11-06 18:25 Beijing time)
https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articles/01a1b064-7915-77f0-a82c-c63439b3c0d3
According to PANews, citing an Ethereum Foundation blog post, Foundation developer Marius van der Wijden urged contract developers and auditors to check whether they rely on these invariants. The Foundation has published a GitHub repository with explanations, examples, and prompts for self-checks; security firm ChainSecurity had previously found that some projects rely on these invariants. Since the two EIPs change how Gas is charged for certain operations and states, affected projects may be vulnerable after the upgrade. ACD has decided to postpone the hard fork and will not carry it out on the Hoodi testnet until the issue is resolved. The Foundation said it has engaged multiple audit firms and is conducting internal audits, but cannot cover every project.
Mechanistically, Gas rules are not abstract parameters; they are part of the contract execution environment. My observation is that when pricing methods change, cost and execution assumptions that developers previously considered stable may no longer hold. The risk is concentrated among long-tail projects that rely on the old invariants, rather than in the ETH mainnet itself. The delay is therefore a way to trade time for broader audit coverage, not direct evidence that the situation has worsened.
Scenario analysis: If audit and self-check coverage is sufficient, the delay is simply a security cost; if coverage is inadequate, scattered vulnerabilities may still emerge after the fork. Key things to track are the Foundation’s audit progress, the new date for the Hoodi testnet, and whether developer self-check feedback produces a verifiable checklist. This article does not constitute investment advice.
$ETH
#ETH #CryptoSecurity
Sources:
PANews (originally published 11-06 18:25 Beijing time)
https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articles/01a1b064-7915-77f0-a82c-c63439b3c0d3
