Home Blog Page 1240

Checkpoint #8: Jan 2026 | Ethereum Foundation Blog

info@uweb3.io
-
0
Checkpoint #8: Jan 2026 | Ethereum Foundation Blog

Ethereum’s All Core Developer calls are a lot to keep up with, so this “Checkpoint” series aims for high-level updates roughly every 4-8 weeks, depending on what’s happening in core development. See the previous update here.

If you enjoy reading core development updates, you may also be keen to learn that Forkcast now publishes call summaries, chats and transcripts for each All Core Dev (ACD) call and some breakout calls, usually available within a couple hours of the call.

tl;dr:

The Fusaka upgrade shipped alongside the ability to adjust blob parameters independently from fork cycles. The next upgrade, Glamsterdam, is fully scoped and progress is underway while the major feature(s) of the following upgrade, Hegotá, are now being proposed, with a proposal deadline of February 4th.

Fusaka

Since the last Checkpoint, the Fusaka upgrade went live, bringing scaling in the form of Data Availability Sampling to Ethereum.

Both the @ethereum and Vitalik took to Twitter to explain PeerDAS, why scaling securely matters, and how these improvements fit in the grander scheme of things.

BPO forks

Blob Parameter Only forks are now a reality – Ethereum now can and has already increased the blob count without having to wait through an entire fork cycle, scaling as needed for L2 usage. The first two BPO forks were stress-tested successfully and baked into Fusaka, with the first going live a few days after Fusaka and the second in the beginning of January. Ethereum now targets 14 blobs per block and allows a maximum of 21 – a 2.3x increase for L2 data space compared to pre-Fusaka!

Developers spoke about what was needed to be ready for a third BPO fork but agreed that it’s not a priority until blob usage ticks up to use the existing increases.

Glamsterdam

Progress on Glamsterdam’s two headliners, enshrined Proposer Builder Separation (ePBS) and Block-level Access Lists (BALs) is moving along but ePBS is a much more complex change than BALs so while the latter already has devnets, it’ll be a bit longer before we see a devnet for ePBS.

Timeline

As with every fork, headliners will need to be brought to a stable place on devnets before beginning to add in variables in the form of more EIPs. As developers have finally whittled the list of proposed non-headlining features down from 50 to a more manageable set of 17 necessary and high-impact features, they’ll be adding these features to devnets in small sets until the fork is ready. If some prove to be problematic or could result in too much delay of the overall fork, they may choose to remove them from the “Considered” set. The full list of Considered features is:

  • EIP-2780: Reduce intrinsic transaction gas
  • EIP-7688: Forward compatible consensus data structures
  • EIP-7708: ETH transfers emit a log
  • EIP-7778: Block Gas Accounting without Refunds
  • EIP-7843: SLOTNUM opcode
  • EIP-7904: General Repricing
  • EIP-7954: Increase Maximum Contract Size
  • EIP-7976: Increase Calldata Floor Cost
  • EIP-7981: Increase Access List Cost
  • EIP-7997: Deterministic Factory Predeploy
  • EIP-8024: Backward compatible SWAPN, DUPN, EXCHANGE
  • EIP-8037: State Creation Gas Cost Increase
  • EIP-8038: State-access gas cost increase
  • EIP-8045: Exclude slashed validators from proposing
  • EIP-8061: Increase exit and consolidation churn
  • EIP-8070: Sparse Blobpool
  • EIP-8080: Let exits use the consolidation queue

Expect a better timeline once we’ve had a stable first ePBS devnet, and then even more clarity once every EIP has been tested in a devnet.

Hegota

A quick note on the name change: the original H-star name, Heka, was replaced with Heze after a community developer noted that “Heka” is not in the International Astronomers Union catalog, which all previous chosen star names have been. The fork name is Heze + Bogotá: Hegotá.

FOCIL

Fork-choice Inclusion Lists (FOCIL), a censorship resistance mechanism, was moved out of Glamsterdam to cut down on fork scope. Given its strong support among core devs and the general Ethereum community alike, it was moved to Considered status for Hegotá and will be evaluated alongside any other headliner proposals – as of this post, there is only one competing proposal.

See an overview of FOCIL and its readiness for Hegotá here.

Timeline

Anyone can propose a headlining feature for Hegotá before the February 4th deadline using the template on the Ethereum Magicians forum.

The proposals will then be presented on ACD calls by the proposer and community feedback will be solicited. The goal is to decide on Hegota’s headlining features by February 26th. Following that decision, minor (non-headlining) features can be proposed – a deadline for these proposals will be given, so be sure to keep up with Checkpoint. Like the headliner proposals, anyone can propose a non-headliner – they just should be willing to see it through.

Jan 8th – Feb 4th: Headliner proposals [ NOW ]

Feb 5th – Feb 26th: Headliner discussion & finalization

30 days following headliner decision, deadline TBD: Non-headliner EIP proposals

Process

If you’ve ever wondered how a person gets a feature they want into Ethereum, there’s a 2026 guide to shepherding a feature into a fork here. A proposed feature for Ethereum, called an Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP), is first specified using the very first EIP as a guide: EIP-1, then proposed during a designated window, and championed through the process by a technical point-of-contact.

Getting through the 50 proposed non-headliner features for Glamsterdam was an absolute beast and everybody felt it. This fork having so many proposals may be a result of increased high-context participants or a result of the process being a little clearer – devs now know when and how to propose their features. Because client and testing teams are the ones actually doing the work to implement these changes, they have to familiarize themselves with proposals and make recommendations on the most urgent and high-impact changes – going through 50 specs to make informed recommendations is a lot of homework!

I do expect more Hegotá headliner proposals to compete with FOCIL and encrypted mempools. FOCIL is a cross-layer EIP, meaning it touches both the consensus and execution layers and in particular the engine API, which all makes it somewhat complicated to pair with another complex feature change. There’s been some conversation around 6-second slots but it’s unclear whether it will be proposed for Hegotá or wait for I-star. Whichever major feature is your preference, I do suggest actively showing your support for it during the February discussion period.

Relevant ACD calls:

[ November 14th – January 19th ]

ACDT: 66, 65, 64, 63, 62

ACDC: 172, 171, 170

ACDE: 228, 227, 226, 225

Mastercard Eyes Zerohash Investment After Talks Fall Through

info@uweb3.io
-
0
Mastercard Eyes Zerohash Investment After Talks Fall Through

Mastercard is reportedly considering a strategic investment in blockchain infrastructure firm Zerohash after the company rejected an outright acquisition, sources familiar with the matter told CoinDesk reporters.

Late last year, Mastercard was reportedly in advanced talks to buy the infrastructure company for up to $2 billion. The company offers custody, settlement, and fiat on- and off-ramps, enabling fintechs and brokerages to offer digital assets without building the underlying infrastructure. Ultimately, Zerohash chose to remain independent.

“We are not entertaining an acquisition by Mastercard. We respect the Mastercard team and look forward to scaling commercial partnerships,” a Zerohash spokesperson said, according to CoinDesk. “Remaining independent best positions Zerohash to continue innovating for our customers.”

While the acquisition is off the table, discussions about a strategic investment are ongoing. 

Such a stake would allow Mastercard to gain exposure to Zerohash’s technology and client base without taking full control, aligning with a broader push by traditional finance into digital assets. Mastercard declined to comment.

Zerohash’s influence in the crypto space

The move comes as crypto merger and acquisition activity ramps up. Industry insiders note that investors now favor established infrastructure companies over speculative tokens. 

Recent deals include CoinGecko exploring a $500 million sale and other fintech firms offering custody, staking, or instant market access.

Morgan Stanley also has a partnership with Zerohash giving the bank direct access to crypto market infrastructure, including liquidity, custody, and settlement services. 

By investing in the company, which recently achieved a $1 billion valuation, Morgan Stanley also secured a strategic foothold in the backend of digital asset markets. 

Mastercard has also been linked to potential acquisitions in the crypto sector, including BVNK, a London-based stablecoin payments platform. 

For Zerohash, retaining independence while potentially securing a strategic investment from a global payments giant could provide capital and credibility while preserving some independence. 

Last April, Mastercard announced a major partnership with Kraken to enable Bitcoin and crypto payments at scale across the UK and Europe. 

The collaboration allows Kraken users to spend digital assets at over 150 million Mastercard-accepting merchants via physical and digital debit cards. Kraken’s recent feature, Kraken Pay, has already seen over 200,000 users activate their “Kraktag” for fast, borderless payments in crypto and fiat. 

Representatives from either company have yet to publicly comment on this reported news.

Prediction Markets Must Use KYC To Curb Insider Trades: Messari

info@uweb3.io
-
0
Prediction Markets Must Use KYC To Curb Insider Trades: Messari

Concerns over insider trading on prediction markets have intensified after a series of high-profile bets on geopolitical events, prompting fresh questions over whether it’s even feasible to curb such practices in the growing industry sector.

Preventing insider trading is realistically possible only on prediction markets applying Know Your Customer (KYC) measures, according to Austin Weiler, a research analyst at the blockchain intelligence firm Messari.

“For KYC’d platforms, the most effective mechanism is to restrict access upfront for users to specific markets,” Weiler told Cointelegraph, adding that state actors could be restricted from political or geopolitical markets.

“This does not fully eliminate abuse, since insiders can still share information with third parties, but it adds an important obstacle and raises enforcement standards,” he noted.

The problem with non-KYC prediction markets

For non-KYC, or fully onchain prediction markets, enforcement is extremely challenging and, in some cases, “nearly impossible,” Weiler said.

When wallets are not linked to real-world identities, there is no reliable way to identify traders or determine whether they have access to material non-public information (MPNI), he said.

Trading volumes in prediction markets hit almost $6 billion by mid-January 2026. Source: Dune

“Prediction markets can attempt to monitor unusual trading behavior, cap trade sizes, or slow trading during sensitive geopolitical periods. However, these measures are easily bypassed,” Weiler said, adding:

“Bans targeting government officials are only realistically enforceable in KYC-based systems. While all onchain activity is transparent, transparency alone does not solve the attribution problem. Without identity verification, it is extremely difficult to link an onchain wallet to a specific official, state actor, or insider with confidence.”

Kalshi, Polymarket, Opinion: Who requires KYC and how?

At the time of writing, KYC requirements vary widely across established prediction platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, while decentralized alternatives do not appear to require identity checks, or cannot technically support them.

Kalshi enforces KYC requirements as part of its regulated model under the authority of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission. On its sign-up page, Kalshi states that it requires basic personal information from users and may request further verification using an identification document.

Government, KYC, Trading, Polymarket, Kalshi, Prediction Markets
Sign-up process on Kalshi. Source: Kalshi

Polymarket applies KYC to its US-based users, while non-US versions of the platform operate without mandatory identity checks, with access reportedly available via VPN, according to social media reports. The platform does not publicly confirm this in its user guide.

Opinion, a decentralized prediction market backed by YZi Labs, a company linked to the former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, provides no public information on KYC requirements.

Cointelegraph approached Kalshi, Polymarket and Opinion for comment regarding KYC requirements but had not received any response at the time of publication.

Related: Tennessee sends cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Polymarket, Crypto.com

The news comes amid intense scrutiny of major prediction market platforms following high-profile bets tied to geopolitical events in Venezuela, including reports of an anonymous trader turning $30,000 into more than $400,000 just hours before US forces captured former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Some US lawmakers, including Representative Ritchie Torres, have backed legislation including the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026, aimed at barring government officials from trading on prediction markets when they hold material nonpublic information.