Highlights from Ethereum’s ACDC Call #163: Fusaka’s Struggles and Glamsterdam’s Bold Future

Ethereum’s core developers convened on August 21, 2025, for the All Core Developers Consensus (ACDC) Call #163, tackling the gritty reality of the network’s ongoing upgrades. From the bumpy road of Fusaka devnet testing to the ambitious early plans for the Glamsterdam hard fork, this meeting laid bare both the promise and the pitfalls of Ethereum’s quest for scalability and decentralization.

• Fusaka Devnet Updates: Devnet-3 limps along with 80% participation, Devnet-4 crashes out due to bugs, and Devnet-5 looms as a near-mainnet stress test.
• Glamsterdam Hard Fork: Ethereum’s next big leap takes shape with EIPs targeting fairness and speed.
• Transparency Push: Public trackers and protocol tweaks aim to keep development open and balanced.

Why This Matters: Ethereum’s High Stakes

Ethereum isn’t just tweaking code—it’s fighting to maintain dominance in a fiercely competitive blockchain space. As the backbone of decentralized finance (DeFi) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), its upgrades like Fusaka and Glamsterdam are make-or-break for millions of users and billions in value. Fusaka aims to slash costs for Layer 2 solutions—secondary networks like Optimism that handle transactions off the main chain—while Glamsterdam promises deeper fixes to fairness and speed. But with rivals like Solana boasting lightning-fast transactions and Binance Smart Chain offering dirt-cheap fees, Ethereum’s iterative approach faces relentless pressure. Can it deliver without tripping over its own complexity? For retail investors, developers, and validators alike, these updates aren’t abstract tech talk—they’re about affordability, access, and staying ahead in the crypto race.

Fusaka Devnet Drama: Bugs, Glitches, and Hard Lessons

The Fusaka upgrade, Ethereum’s current focus, is all about beefing up data availability and validator performance—key to making the network cheaper and more robust for everyone from DeFi traders to NFT creators. To test these changes, developers roll out devnets, which are essentially sandbox environments mimicking real-world conditions. Devnet-3 is live as of August 21, 2025, with an 80% validator participation rate. It achieves finality—meaning transactions are locked in permanently—when all validators are online. But don’t pop the champagne yet. Client syncing issues, where nodes (computers running Ethereum software) struggle to update with the latest blockchain data, are plaguing progress. Teams like ethPandaOps are digging into why some nodes can’t catch up, a problem that could fracture network consensus if not fixed, as detailed in recent Fusaka Devnet-3 updates. For the uninitiated, consensus is the agreement among nodes on the state of the blockchain—lose that, and you’ve got chaos.

Devnet-4? Total flop. Developers launched it briefly but yanked it offline after a swarm of bugs made it unusable. It’s a brutal reminder that scaling a decentralized network with Ethereum’s complexity is like trying to rebuild a plane mid-flight. Each failure, though, teaches critical lessons for Fusaka’s mainnet release, tentatively pegged for October 2025, with deeper insights into these testing challenges. Meanwhile, Devnet-5 is slated for shortly after the ACDC call, aiming for a larger scale with near-mainnet configurations. This isn’t just a test—it’s a proving ground. Ethereum needs to show it can handle real-world stress, especially with competitors nipping at its heels. Beyond the tech hiccups, Fusaka’s broader goal is to enhance data availability through mechanisms like PeerDAS (part of EIP-7594), ensuring validators can manage larger data chunks without choking. This directly impacts Layer 2 costs, potentially making transactions cheaper for end users. But if bugs persist, delays could frustrate the community and give rivals an edge.

Let’s not dodge the ugly truth: there’s risk galore here. Persistent devnet glitches could push back Fusaka’s mainnet rollout, and not all clients—different software versions like Geth or Lighthouse—are keeping pace. Research shows Teku supports validator custody with backfill (a way to recover missing data), while Nimbus and Lodestar lag behind. This client diversity gap threatens Ethereum’s decentralization ethos; if too many validators lean on one client, a single bug could cripple the network. Small validators, often running on shoestring budgets, might also struggle with Fusaka’s data demands, raising centralization fears. It’s a messy teenage growth spurt for Ethereum, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. For a broader look at these Fusaka upgrade details, the challenges are well-documented.

Protocol Parameters: Walking the Tightrope

Diving into the nerdy guts of the call, developers wrestled with key parameters that dictate how Ethereum behaves under load. One hot topic was MAX_BLOB_COMMITMENTS_PER_BLOCK, set at a cautious 4096 as outlined in consensus-specs PR #4508. Blobs, introduced in the Dencun upgrade of March 2024, are data packets used by Layer 2s to cut transaction costs on Ethereum’s main chain. This parameter limits how many blob commitments—promises by validators to store that data—can fit into a single block. Think of it as capping how many boxes you can load onto a truck: too many, and smaller validators with limited hardware get crushed; too few, and Layer 2s can’t scale. Landing at 4096 is a pragmatic middle ground, but it’s not set in stone. Another discussion centered on ForkVersion in Blob-Parameter-Only (BPO) design. A theoretical attack vector—basically, a way bad actors could exploit the system—was raised but dismissed as negligible, with updates to the relevant EIP forthcoming to seal any doubts.

These decisions aren’t just tech trivia. They shape who can participate in Ethereum’s ecosystem and at what cost. Get them wrong, and you either kneecap innovation or alienate the little guys. It’s a high-wire act, and while Ethereum’s devs seem to have a steady hand for now, the community will be watching closely to ensure these presets don’t favor whales over minnows. For those curious about broader scalability challenges, there’s plenty of discussion on the topic.

Glamsterdam: Ethereum’s Next Bold Leap

While Fusaka hammers out the fundamentals, developers are already looking ahead to Glamsterdam, the next major hard fork after Fusaka’s mainnet debut. If Fusaka is about stabilizing the ship, Glamsterdam is about turbocharging it with deeper tweaks to how Ethereum executes transactions and reaches consensus. Breakout calls are scheduled to dissect specific Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), starting with EIP-7928, or Block-Level Access Lists (BAL). This proposal makes state access—how smart contracts interact with blockchain data—more transparent, laying groundwork for parallel processing. In plain speak, it’s about letting Ethereum handle more tasks at once, like upgrading from a single-lane road to a multi-lane highway. The trade-off? It adds about 50 KB of data per block for auditability, a small price for future speed gains. For a detailed breakdown of these proposals, check out this Glamsterdam EIP analysis.

Then there’s EIP-7732, known as Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS), a potential game-changer for fairness. Right now, Maximal Extractable Value (MEV)—profit scooped by reordering transactions, often screwing over regular users—is a centralization risk, with big players dominating the game. ePBS builds rules directly into Ethereum’s protocol to split who proposes blocks from who builds them, creating a fairer market. Imagine it as breaking up a shady monopoly so small traders get a shot. For the average DeFi user swapping tokens, this could mean fewer sneaky fees slipped in by MEV bots. A Meta EIP on Repricing, co-drafted by contributors like ansgar.eth and Maria Inês Silva, also surfaced, aiming to unify gas cost adjustments. Gas is the fee for running transactions or smart contracts, and repricing opcodes (basic code instructions) ensures costs match actual resource use—think adjusting tolls to match road wear. Proposals for Glamsterdam must be submitted before Fusaka hits mainnet, setting a tight deadline for devs to lock in their vision. More on these hard fork proposals can shed light on the specifics.

But let’s play devil’s advocate: will Glamsterdam overcomplicate things? Ethereum’s already a beast to navigate for casual users, and piling on intricate fixes might alienate newcomers. Plus, gas repricing could hike costs for smaller transactions, pushing retail investors toward cheaper chains. While the intent is noble, execution will be everything. Glamsterdam’s ambition is clear, but it’s walking a fine line between innovation and over-engineering. Community perspectives on this upcoming hard fork highlight varied opinions.

Transparency and Decentralization: A Step Forward

One bright spot from the call was a renewed focus on transparency, a sore point for Ethereum since its 2022 shift to Proof of Stake heightened scrutiny on validator dynamics. A public tracker for client merges in Fusaka devnets, shared by contributor Barnabas Busa, is a welcome move. It lets developers and enthusiasts alike monitor which software versions are syncing up, aiding debugging and coordination. Clients—think different brands of Ethereum software like Geth for execution or Lighthouse for consensus—are the bedrock of decentralization. If everyone runs the same client, a single glitch could tank the network. This tracker is a quiet middle finger to the opacity you see in more centralized chains, reinforcing Ethereum’s community-driven ethos.

Transparency isn’t just a buzzword here—it’s survival. Post-Merge, validator centralization fears (think big staking pools like Lido) have loomed large. Public tools like these trackers show Ethereum’s commitment to keeping development open, even if it means airing dirty laundry like devnet flops. It’s a stark contrast to rivals who often hide their sausage-making process, and frankly, it’s about damn time Ethereum doubled down on this front. For a full recap of the discussions driving these efforts, the ACDC Call #163 highlights are worth a look.

Mechanisms in Motion: Proposer Head and Boost

On the technical front, updates to block production mechanisms like proposer head and proposer boost are under peer review, with contributions from Lido’s team sniffing out tricky edge cases. Proposer head decides who gets to suggest the next block in the blockchain puzzle, while proposer boost tweaks incentives to keep the chain rolling even if there’s network lag—like ensuring a conveyor belt doesn’t snag when someone’s late. Alex Stokes confirmed these refinements are ongoing alongside Glamsterdam planning, showcasing Ethereum’s knack for juggling immediate fixes with long-term vision. But unresolved edge cases could bite later, especially if latency issues clash with real-world usage. It’s a reminder that even slick ideas need battle-testing before they’re mainnet-ready.

Competitive Heat and Looming Risks

Ethereum isn’t innovating in a vacuum. Solana clocks transaction speeds of up to 65,000 per second in bursts, while Ethereum’s base layer still chugs at around 15-30. Binance Smart Chain offers fees as low as a few cents, compared to Ethereum’s often double-digit gas costs pre-Layer 2. Fusaka’s data availability tweaks and Glamsterdam’s ePBS aren’t just upgrades—they’re survival tools. PeerDAS in Fusaka aims to offload data burdens, while ePBS tackles MEV centralization, a problem Solana sidesteps with sheer speed. But can Ethereum’s methodical pace match these rivals without sacrificing its decentralization edge?

From a Bitcoin maximalist lens, Ethereum’s endless tinkering looks like a Rube Goldberg machine—complex and prone to breakdown. Bitcoin’s beauty lies in its simplicity as a store of value, unshaken by upgrade dramas. Yet, Ethereum’s experimentation fills niches Bitcoin shouldn’t touch, like DeFi and smart contracts. It’s a necessary mess, but a mess nonetheless. Risks abound: devnet bugs could derail Fusaka’s October 2025 target, client diversity gaps threaten resilience, and Glamsterdam’s repricing might price out smaller users. Add to that the shadow of scams—fake “Ethereum upgrade” tokens and phishing schemes are already circling. Don’t fall for it; stick to official channels like the Ethereum Foundation for updates.

Community and Economic Ripple Effects

These upgrades aren’t just code—they’re economic reshapers. Small validators, often running on modest hardware, might struggle with Fusaka’s data demands, potentially consolidating power to bigger players. Glamsterdam’s gas repricing could recalibrate costs, but if mishandled, it risks making Ethereum less accessible for casual users swapping tiny amounts. Retail investors already balk at high fees; another misstep could drive them to cheaper pastures. On the flip side, cheaper Layer 2 transactions post-Fusaka could spur adoption, and ePBS might level the MEV playing field, protecting regular traders from predatory bots. It’s a double-edged sword, and Ethereum’s community—from solo stakers to DeFi degens—will feel the cuts or the gains firsthand.

Key Takeaways and Burning Questions on Ethereum’s Roadmap

• What’s the current state of Fusaka devnet testing?
  Devnet-3 runs with 80% participation but faces syncing woes, Devnet-4 was scrapped due to glitches, and Devnet-5 is set for a near-mainnet test soon after August 21, 2025.
• Why does MAX_BLOB_COMMITMENTS_PER_BLOCK matter for Ethereum?
  Capped at 4096, it balances data capacity for Layer 2 solutions with validator workload, ensuring smaller players aren’t sidelined.
• What is Ethereum’s Glamsterdam upgrade aiming to achieve?
  As the next hard fork post-Fusaka, it targets speed with Block-Level Access Lists (EIP-7928) and fairness via Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (EIP-7732).
• How is Ethereum addressing transparency in development?
  Public trackers for client merges in Fusaka devnets are live, enabling open debugging and coordination across the community.
• What risks could derail Ethereum’s upgrade timeline?
  Devnet bugs might delay Fusaka’s October 2025 mainnet launch, while client diversity issues and mechanism edge cases add uncertainty.
• How does Ethereum stack up against competitors like Solana?
  Solana’s speed (up to 65,000 TPS) and Binance Smart Chain’s low fees outpace Ethereum’s base layer, making Fusaka and Glamsterdam critical to stay competitive.
• What’s the impact on small validators and retail users?
  Fusaka’s data demands might squeeze small validators, and Glamsterdam’s repricing could raise costs for minor transactions, though cheaper Layer 2 fees offer hope.

Ethereum’s path forward is a chaotic masterpiece—messy, ambitious, and hell-bent on redefining finance. Fusaka’s devnet struggles expose the raw difficulty of scaling a decentralized titan, while Glamsterdam’s bold proposals hint at a future where speed and fairness might finally align. Yet, with competitors circling and risks mounting, one has to wonder: is Ethereum innovating fast enough, or overcomplicating at the expense of simplicity? As these upgrades unfold, the crypto world watches, knowing that standing still isn’t an option in this brutal race for relevance.