Ethereum’s ACDC #171: Glamsterdam Fork 2025, FOCIL Delay, and the Governance Tug-of-War

Ethereum’s core developers convened on December 11, 2025, for the All Core Developers Consensus (ACDC) Call #171, and what started as a standard update session turned into a raw, unfiltered look at a blockchain wrestling with its own evolution. From the aftermath of the Fusaka rollout to locking in the Glamsterdam fork and a heated standoff over FOCIL, this meeting laid bare the tension between breakneck innovation and the gritty reality of governance. It’s Ethereum in 2025—growing pains and all.

• Fusaka Rollout: Mostly smooth, but Prysm users hit snags fixed by a hotpatch.
• Glamsterdam Fork: Scope finalized with Trustless Payments, despite lingering risks.
• FOCIL Debate: Delayed for governance, targeted for Heka/Bogotá upgrade.

Fusaka Rollout: Success with Strings Attached

The meeting kicked off with a debrief on the Fusaka mainnet rollout, which developers hailed as “smooth overall.” Testing during the BPO1 phase—a kind of pre-launch stress test—showed no catastrophic failures, a win for a network as sprawling as Ethereum. Fusaka itself brought incremental improvements to transaction processing and staking efficiency, setting a stable foundation for future upgrades. Metrics shared during the call noted a 15% uptick in transaction finality speeds compared to pre-Fusaka benchmarks, a small but meaningful step for a blockchain handling billions in value daily.

But it wasn’t all champagne and confetti. Users running Prysm, one of several client software options for operating Ethereum nodes, ran into attestation drops—basically, their nodes failed to confirm transactions on time due to slow disk writes. For the unacquainted, clients like Prysm, Lighthouse, and Teku are the engines that keep Ethereum’s consensus humming; having multiple options prevents a single bug from tanking the entire network. This glitch wasn’t a dealbreaker, but it frustrated node operators, especially smaller ones with less robust hardware. A hotpatch in version 7.0.1 squashed the issue, and a follow-up release, v7.1.0, rolled out extras like backfill support for Fulu and a semi-supernode mode for heavy-duty setups. The Prysm team didn’t mince words on social media, urging users to update pronto.

“Prysm v7.1.0 is now live… If you’re still on v7.0.0, move to v7.0.1 or later and drop the flag –disable-last-epoch-targets.” – Prysm Ethereum Client (@prylabs)

This quick fix reflects Ethereum’s broader push for stability over chaos, but it also underscores a lingering challenge: client diversity is a strength, until one stumbles and exposes ecosystem disparities. Node operators, especially hobbyists, need to stay vigilant—or risk being left behind.

Glamsterdam Fork: Locking in Trustless Payments Amid Risks

With Fusaka patched up, the spotlight turned to the Glamsterdam fork, a major stepping stone in Ethereum’s 2025 roadmap. After weeks of wrangling, the scope was officially locked, greenlighting several Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs)—formal plans for network tweaks. The lineup includes EIP-7688 for SSZ merkleization compatibility (a nerdy way of saying better data organization), EIP-8061 to unclog validator exit queues, and EIP-8080 to smooth out validator withdrawals. These are plumbing upgrades, not sexy, but vital for keeping Ethereum’s pipes from bursting under pressure.

The real headliner, though, is Trustless Payments, tied to the engineered Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS) framework. Think of ePBS as splitting a restaurant’s chef and manager roles—the proposer suggests a block of transactions, while the builder assembles it for maximum efficiency. Trustless Payments builds on this by cutting out middlemen in block production, aiming for a fairer, less exploitable system. Sounds great, right? Not so fast. Concerns persist over staked relays—mechanisms that could centralize power if mishandled—and validator churn, the rate at which validators rotate in and out of active duty. If churn bogs down, the network slows, and small players get squeezed.

One floated fix was letting builders hold stakes without validator duties, easing bottlenecks. But here’s the ugly truth: this smells like a slippery slope to centralization. If builders amass too much sway, we’re back to square one with a handful of fat cats controlling the game—echoing old Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) debates where profit-driven actors warped block ordering. No critical security flaws were found to yank Trustless Payments from Glamsterdam, so it’s staying put. But let’s not kid ourselves—Ethereum’s taking a gamble here, and if it backfires, decentralization could take a hit. Keep your eyes peeled; this isn’t a done deal.

FOCIL Delay: Governance Trumps Urgency

Then there’s FOCIL, or Forward Compatibility Inclusion List, the proposal that got everyone riled up. Backed fiercely by Layer 2 solutions (L2s like Optimism and Arbitrum that scale Ethereum by handling transactions off-chain), intent-protocol designers, and censorship-resistance researchers, FOCIL promises to make it damn near impossible for bad actors to block transactions, even in sneaky attack scenarios. It’s a game-changer for censorship resistance, slashing the economic incentive for suppression by a huge margin—think orders of magnitude in certain models. For L2s and apps reliant on timely transaction guarantees, this isn’t just nice-to-have; it’s existential.

So why the hell isn’t it in Glamsterdam? Simple: governance. Ethereum’s new structured upgrade process, meant to curb the “ship now, fix later” chaos of yesteryear, put the brakes on. FOCIL was marked Deferred for Inclusion (DFI) for Glamsterdam and is now Considered for Inclusion (CFI) in the next upgrade, Heka/Bogotá. A participant nailed the reasoning during the debate:

“Credible commitments to ship a feature must not override the shared rules of decision-making.”

Translation: no shortcuts, even for shiny toys. This isn’t Ethereum playing hard to get—it’s a deliberate pivot to predictability over hype. But let’s flip the coin. Some L2 devs are fuming, arguing this caution risks stalling progress while competitors like Solana or newer chains capitalize on speed. In a world of growing regulatory heat and miner-level censorship attempts (yes, those are real threats in 2025), delaying FOCIL could leave Ethereum’s ecosystem exposed longer than necessary. Governance is the new sheriff in town, but is it holding the line or holding back?

Heka/Bogotá: A Roadmap with Breathing Room

Speaking of Heka/Bogotá, this next upgrade is already taking shape, entering its framing stage with a workflow that’s got developers nodding in approval. Unlike the frantic rollouts of Ethereum’s early days, this approach prioritizes ecosystem-wide scrutiny—every major EIP gets dissected by devs, validators, and community stakeholders before it’s locked in. It’s less “move fast and break things,” more “measure twice, cut once.” Even client teams like Teku signaled upcoming tweaks during the call, aligning with this slower, steadier vibe.

This shift isn’t just procedural; it’s cultural. Post-Merge in 2022, Ethereum’s faced its share of growing pains—rushed features, buggy clients, and community backlash over opaque decisions. Heka/Bogotá’s structured path feels like a direct response, a blockchain finally acting its age. But here’s the rub: can patience keep pace with an industry that thrives on disruption? As Bitcoin sticks to glacial, deliberate changes, Ethereum’s governance pivot mirrors a crypto-wide push for maturity. Whether it pays off remains to be seen.

Community Pulse: Cheers and Frustrations

Beyond the call’s formal minutes, the Ethereum community’s reactions paint a fuller picture. Validators on forums like Reddit praised Fusaka’s stability but griped about Prysm’s hiccups, with one operator noting, “Hotpatches are great, but I shouldn’t need a CS degree to keep my node running.” L2 developers, meanwhile, vented frustration over FOCIL’s delay—tweets flew with sentiments like, “We’re bleeding edge, but governance is playing catch-up. Competitors won’t wait.” On the flip side, censorship-resistance advocates hailed the long-term vision, arguing a few months’ delay beats a half-baked rollout. It’s a mixed bag, and that’s Ethereum in a nutshell—united by ambition, divided by timelines.

The Bigger Picture: Ethereum’s Identity Crisis

Zooming out, ACDC #171 isn’t just a dev call; it’s a window into Ethereum grappling with its soul in 2025. Post-Merge, post-scaling wars, this is a network juggling decentralized finance, prediction markets, and L2 scaling while trying not to trip over its own feet. Trustless Payments and FOCIL aren’t mere features—they’re battlegrounds for decentralization and censorship resistance, core tenets that separate blockchain from just another bank database. Validator churn, staking dynamics, builder-validator splits—these are the nuts and bolts holding the dream together. Mess them up, and Ethereum’s no better than a glorified server farm.

As a Bitcoin maximalist, I’ll admit to smirking at Ethereum’s labyrinth of complexity. Bitcoin’s laser focus on sound money feels purer, cleaner. But even I can’t deny Ethereum’s role in this financial uprising—it tackles niches Bitcoin wisely sidesteps, from smart contracts to scalable rollups. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature of this revolution. Still, let’s not get drunk on ETH Kool-Aid. Every upgrade, every EIP, comes with trade-offs. And while Twitter buzzes with “ETH to $10K by Glamsterdam” nonsense, let’s keep it real—these upgrades aren’t slot machines. Focus on the tech, not the ticker. For more details on the discussions and decisions from this call, check out the full summary of ACDC #171.

Key Takeaways and Burning Questions on Ethereum’s Path

• How did the Fusaka rollout hold up, and what’s the takeaway for node runners?
  It rolled out mostly clean, dubbed “smooth overall,” though Prysm users hit attestation snags fixed by v7.0.1. Node runners, stay sharp—client updates aren’t optional if you want to keep pace.
• Is Trustless Payments a risky move for Glamsterdam?
  Yes, it’s a gamble. While no fatal flaws surfaced, validator churn and centralization risks loom. Ethereum’s betting on ePBS innovation, but a misstep could sting.
• Why push FOCIL to Heka/Bogotá, and what’s the cost of waiting?
  Governance rules won out over urgency, ensuring proper vetting. The delay protects process but risks leaving L2s and censorship defenses vulnerable longer—time’s not always on Ethereum’s side.
• Can Ethereum’s structured upgrades like Heka/Bogotá balance speed and caution?
  The framework prioritizes transparency and scrutiny, a mature shift that could rebuild trust after past chaos. But too much caution might let faster chains steal the spotlight.
• Does splitting builders and validators threaten Ethereum’s decentralized ethos?
  Potentially. Easing churn by tweaking roles sounds efficient, but centralizing block production power could erode fallback safety nets. Ethereum needs to tread lightly here.

Ethereum’s playing a long game with Glamsterdam’s locked scope and FOCIL’s deferral, showing a willingness to hit pause when the stakes demand it—even if it pisses off the “ship it now” crowd. This governance-over-hype stance might just be the backbone a maturing blockchain needs, a sign of lessons hard-learned. Yet, as we root for a freer, decentralized future, the question lingers: will patience cement Ethereum’s dominance, or will hungrier rivals seize the moment? Only the chain—and time—will tell.