Ethereum’s Glamsterdam Roadmap: What Developers Need to Know Before Hegotá

The Glamsterdam changes most likely to break tooling

Gas assumptions are changing

Glamsterdam includes a coordinated gas-repricing package aimed at a roughly 200-million-gas floor. That makes software built around a hardcoded maximum gas limit vulnerable, including wallets, indexers and gas-estimation tools.

The change is broader than simply adjusting one constant. EIP-8037 introduces a separate state-gas dimension for operations that create new state. Under the decomposed schedule, a transfer to an existing account can retain a 21,000 execution-gas cost, while a transfer to a nonexistent account also incurs runtime state gas.

As a result, developers should avoid two assumptions:

• Every plain ETH transfer costs exactly 21,000 gas.
• Ethereum transactions can be represented with one universal gas dimension.

Wallets and services should instead use protocol-aware estimation and test both existing-account and new-account transfers on Platåberget. The Ethereum Foundation has specifically warned that tools relying on hardcoded gas caps may break.

ePBS changes block-building flows

Enshrined proposer-builder separation, or ePBS, is among Glamsterdam’s major protocol changes through EIP-7732. It changes how block construction and validation responsibilities are represented in the protocol, so validator, builder, relay and node infrastructure should test more than basic transaction submission.

Block-level access lists add new execution information

Block-level access lists, specified in EIP-7928, are also part of the upgrade. They give clients and infrastructure additional information about the state access expected across a block, creating compatibility work for execution tooling and systems that inspect or model block contents.

Contract and initcode limits will increase

Glamsterdam also proposes larger size limits:

• Maximum deployed contract size: 24 KiB to 64 KiB.
• Maximum initcode size: 48 KiB to 128 KiB.

Contract deployment tooling, bytecode validation, developer frameworks and indexing systems should test these boundaries rather than assume today’s limits are permanent.

What developers should test on Platåberget

The practical checklist is more important than the upgrade branding. Teams maintaining Ethereum-facing software should:

• Remove hardcoded maximum gas-limit assumptions.
• Test ETH transfers to both existing and nonexistent accounts.
• Support separate execution-gas and state-gas accounting where required.
• Review gas estimators, fee displays and transaction simulation logic.
• Test ePBS-related node, builder and validator workflows.
• Check block parsers and indexers against block-level access lists.
• Test contract and initcode handling at the proposed larger limits.
• Repeat the test cycle as Glamsterdam advances to the non-finality devnet, Sepolia and Hoodi.

Platåberget is therefore not just a preview network. Its main value is exposing downstream breakage while there is still time to update production software.

Hegotá: 66 proposals, but only one scheduled feature

Hegotá is the planned 2027 upgrade, but its scope is not finalized. Developers are reviewing 66 proposals, and the current selection process includes a proposed-for-inclusion list expected around August 27 and client preference rankings due by September 10. Those dates are decision milestones, not a promise that all 66 proposals will ship.

The distinction between proposal status matters:

• Scheduled: formally slated for inclusion.
• Considered: under active review but not confirmed.
• Candidate: part of the broader discussion and still competing for implementation and testing capacity.

At present, FOCIL, or Fork-Choice Enforced Inclusion Lists under EIP-7805, is Hegotá’s only formally scheduled feature. It is designed to strengthen censorship resistance by allowing designated transaction lists to be enforced through fork choice, limiting the ability of block builders to exclude eligible transactions.

The leading Hegotá candidates

Frame Transactions

Frame Transactions, or EIP-8141, remain under consideration rather than confirmed for Hegotá. The proposal defines a transaction format in which validity, gas payment and execution can be handled through a sequence of frames and contract calls. That could provide a protocol-native route toward account abstraction and more flexible transaction payment flows.

Ethereum researchers have also discussed Frame Transactions alongside related proposals as a way to support more native privacy functionality, but that broader package is not yet an approved Hegotá feature set.

Quick Slots

Ethlabs has advocated Quick Slots, EIP-8198, as part of a tightly scoped Hegotá focused on faster block production and finality. Shorter slot times remain a proposal, not a confirmed upgrade parameter.

Continued Layer 1 scaling

Ethlabs’ recommendations also include continued Layer 1 capacity work, alongside censorship resistance, faster confirmation and native account abstraction. These recommendations are priorities for discussion, not equivalent to formal inclusion decisions.

Gas-limit increases, eight-second slots, post-quantum cryptography and other validator, privacy and execution-layer proposals remain under consideration rather than confirmed Hegotá scope.

The bottom line for Ethereum teams

Glamsterdam is the near-term engineering deadline. Platåberget gives teams a public environment to find failures caused by gas repricing, state-gas accounting, ePBS, access lists and expanded size limits before the upgrade reaches Sepolia, Hoodi and mainnet.

Hegotá is different: it is still a prioritization exercise. FOCIL is the only feature currently locked in, while Frame Transactions, Quick Slots, scaling work and other proposals must survive the remaining selection, implementation and testing process. Developers should therefore treat Glamsterdam as an active compatibility project and Hegotá as an evolving design roadmap—not as a finalized list of 2027 features.