In the past two weeks, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin has intensively published several technical articles on X, covering core topics such as scaling roadmap, anti-quantum attacks, account abstraction, execution layer reconstruction, and AI-accelerated development, which has been called the “2026 Ethereum Overhaul Blueprint” by the outside world.
Behind this series of posts is the Strawmap roadmap framework released simultaneously by the Ethereum Foundation, a document that plans to advance Ethereum L1 throughput to the 10000 TPS level by 2029. However, the greater the ambition of the blueprint, the more doubts about its delivery capabilities accompany it. After all, looking at the historical process, Ethereum’s delivery rhythm has always been slower than expected. Is Ethereum really ready to say goodbye to “gradualism” and usher in radical reconstruction this time?
Strawmap Roadmap: Ethereum to Achieve 10000 TPS in 2029
Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake released a roadmap called Strawmap on February 25, aiming to reveal the vision and future upgrade timeline of Ethereum L1. The blueprint sets five major “North Star” goals: extremely fast L1 performance, L1 gigagas throughput, L2 teragas scaling, post-quantum L1 security, and native L1 privacy transfers. The final quantitative goal is to process 10,000 transactions per second on L1 and 10,000,000 transactions per second on L2.
This plan is expected to be promoted through 7 forks, with an upgrade cycle every 6 months, covering various changes in the consensus layer, data layer, and execution layer. In this regard, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin expressed his support and has also intensively published technical articles on X in the past two weeks, disassembling the core dimensions of the roadmap.
Strategic Focus: Focusing on Ethereum L1 Scaling and Execution Layer Reconstruction
Vitalik’s argument shows that, unlike the strategy of focusing on L2 Rollup and neglecting L1 in the past few years, the current vision is to greatly improve L1’s own scaling capabilities in the short term while maintaining the long-term shift.
- Short-term Progress: Glamsterdam Upgrade
In the short-term plan, the upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade will introduce “Block-Level Access Lists (BALs)” to support parallel verification, breaking the efficiency bottleneck of past sequential processing, and simultaneously promote native Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS) to optimize the utilization of 12-second slots by nodes.
- Long-term Progress: ZK-EVM and Blob Evolution
Long-term scaling is supported by two major pillars, namely ZK-EVM and Blob. On the ZK-EVM path, it is expected that a small number of validators will take the lead in adopting ZK-EVM clients by the end of 2026, and the proportion will be expanded and security strengthened from 2027. The ultimate goal is to achieve a “3-of-5 mandatory multi-proof mechanism”, that is, a block must pass the verification of at least three of the five proof systems before it can take effect.
On the Blob development path, PeerDAS (data availability sampling) will continue to iterate, aiming to increase data processing capacity to approximately 8 MB/s. The core of this technology is to allow nodes to complete verification by downloading only a small amount of data fragments, which greatly improves throughput while effectively reducing the hardware threshold for nodes. On the other hand, in order to meet the needs of large-scale adoption in the future, the Ethereum mainnet will shift to directly storing block data into the Blob space, replacing the expensive calldata model that must be permanently stored in the past. This shift is mainly to optimize the data carrying structure and reshape Ethereum’s expansion path from the data layer.
- Execution Layer Reconstruction: Switch to Binary State Tree, Replace EVM
Vitalik pointed out that 80% of Ethereum’s current proof efficiency bottleneck comes from outdated architecture. According to EIP-7864, it is expected that after switching from the current “hexadecimal Keccak MPT state tree” to a “binary state tree”, the branch length can be effectively shortened by 4 times.
This change will bring a significant improvement in data efficiency:
— Data bandwidth: The cost is reduced by about 4 times, which is a qualitative leap for light clients such as Helios;
— Proof speed: If BLAKE3 calculation is used, the speed will be increased by about 3 times; if it is a Poseidon variant, the potential speed increase will be 100 times;
— Access optimization: The design of storage slot “pages” (64–256 slots) allows DApp to save more than 10,000 Gas per transaction when reading and writing adjacent data.
A more ambitious proposal is VM (virtual machine) migration. Currently, ZK provers themselves are mostly written in RISC-V. If EVM can directly run in RISC-V, eliminating the translation loss between the two layers of virtual machines, the provability of the entire system will be greatly improved. The current deployment path is planned in three steps: 1. First, let the new VM take over the existing pre-compiled contracts; 2. Then open up users to deploy new VM contracts; 3. Finally, rewrite the EVM itself as a smart contract running on the new VM. This move can ensure backward compatibility, and the final conversion cost only needs to re-calibrate the Gas fee.
Anti-Quantum Threat Roadmap: Supplementing Ethereum’s 4 Major Technical Vulnerabilities
Regarding the key issue of post-quantum L1 security, Vitalik clearly mentioned in his technical article that Ethereum currently has four quantum vulnerabilities, which are as follows:
- Consensus Layer: BLS Signature
The replacement path of the consensus layer has begun to take shape: Vitalik proposed the “Lean consensus” scheme, introducing a hash-based signature variant, combined with STARKs for aggregation and compression, to achieve anti-quantum attacks. However, Vitalik added that before the comprehensive “Lean consensus” is implemented, a “Lean Available Chain” version will be launched first, which only needs to process 256 to 1,024 signatures per slot, and can operate without STARK aggregation for the time being, which greatly reduces the engineering threshold.
- Data Availability: KZG Commitment and Proof
In terms of data availability, Vitalik proposed replacing the existing “KZG commitment” with “STARKs with anti-quantum characteristics”, but this faces two major trade-offs: First, STARKs lacks the linear characteristics of KZG and cannot support efficient 2D data sampling, so Ethereum chose to take a more conservative 1D DAS (such as PeerDAS) path, giving priority to ensuring network robustness rather than pursuing extreme scaling; secondly, because STARK proofs are large in size, developers need to solve the engineering problem of “proof is larger than data” through complex projects such as recursive proofs. In summary, Vitalik believes that by simplifying technical goals and phased optimization, this anti-quantum path is still practically feasible in engineering, but the amount of engineering required is quite large.
- Externally Owned Account (EOA): ECDSA Signature
On the protection of externally owned accounts (EOA), since the current ECDSA signature is extremely vulnerable in the face of quantum computers, Vitalik tends to contract all accounts through “native account abstraction (native AA)”, allowing users to flexibly replace anti-quantum signature algorithms without having to abandon existing wallet addresses.
- Application Layer: ZK Proofs Relying on KZG or Groth16
Finally, in the application layer, the main challenge is that the Gas cost of anti-quantum STARK proofs is extremely high, about 20 times that of the current SNARKs, which is too expensive for privacy protocols and L2. Vitalik proposed introducing a “Validation Frame” through EIP-8141 to aggregate a large number of complex signatures and proofs off-chain. With the help of recursive proof technology, the original verification data of up to hundreds of MB can be compressed into a very small STARK proof on the chain, which not only saves block space, but also greatly reduces the cost of use, and can even complete verification in real time in the Mempool stage, allowing users to still operate various decentralized applications in a low-cost and efficient manner in the quantum threat era.
AI as an Accelerator: Completing the Ethereum 2030 Roadmap in a Few Weeks
In addition to the upgrade of the technical architecture, Vitalik’s recent tweets emphasized that AI is accelerating the development process of Ethereum. He forwarded an experiment by a developer who “built a prototype of the 2030 Ethereum roadmap in two weeks through vibe-coding” and commented: “Six months ago, this was not even within the realm of possibility, but now it has become a trend.”
Even Vitalik himself personally tested it. He used the gpt-oss:20b model running on his laptop to complete the blog backend code in one hour; if he switched to the more powerful kimi-2.5, he expected that he could even “get it done in one go”. It can be said that the improvement of efficiency by AI is growing non-linearly, and it is changing the delivery speed of the Ethereum roadmap.
In this regard, he advocated giving the dividends brought by AI “half to speed and half to security”, using AI to generate large-scale test cases, formally verify core modules, and generate multiple independent implementations for the same logic for cross-comparison. Vitalik’s judgment is that in the foreseeable future, you cannot exchange a prompt for a highly secure program code, and the process of fighting bugs and implementation inconsistencies still exists, but this process can be improved by 5 times.
Finally, he also proposed a possibility that the Ethereum roadmap will be completed at a faster speed than expected by the outside world, and the safety standards will be higher than expected by the outside world. “Bug-free program code has long been regarded as an idealistic fantasy, but now it may become possible.” This sentence would have been almost impossible to appear in the Ethereum development context five years ago.
Slow Delivery Rhythm and Real Challenges
However, by making so much difficult technical content public to the market, the Ethereum roadmap can never avoid the possibility of these promises being fulfilled on time. From a historical record, Ethereum’s delivery rhythm has always been slower than expected. The Merge was postponed all the way from the “end of the year” expectation in early 2020 to September 2022; the implementation of EIP-4844 (Proto-Danksharding) also took several years. This delay is usually due to factors such as security audits, multi-client coordination, and decentralized governance.
But this time, there is not much time left for Ethereum to be tepid. The step-by-step advancement of competitors, the real challenges of quantum threats, and the productivity revolution triggered by AI are forcing Ethereum to completely abandon “gradualism”; standing at the historical turning point of “not advancing is retreating”, the past gentle small-step iteration may be difficult to support Ethereum’s vision of moving towards a global settlement layer.
Vitalik’s recent call also pointed out that this change is not just a technical reconstruction. He requires the community to completely abandon path dependence in the application layer, stick to the core of anti-censorship, open source, privacy, and security (CROPS), and start from the first principles in application design. Technology can have a roadmap, but the upgrade of thinking does not have a fork timeline, which may be the most difficult step to say goodbye to “gradualism”.
[ChainCatcher]
Ethereum’s 2026 Overhaul: Radical Reconstruction or Overambitious Blueprint?
Ethereum’s recently unveiled “Strawmap” roadmap represents perhaps the most ambitious technical overhaul in the network’s history, signaling a definitive departure from the incrementalism that has characterized its development since 2015. With targets of 10,000 TPS on L1 by 2029 and a fundamental restructuring of the execution layer, this blueprint forces us to reassess Ethereum’s long-term competitive position and value proposition.
Breaking the Incremental Mold: What’s Really Changing?
The most significant departure from Ethereum’s historical approach is the explicit prioritization of L1 scaling alongside L2 solutions. While the ecosystem has focused on Rollups as the primary scaling path for years, the new roadmap envisions substantial L1 throughput improvements. This strategic pivot represents a recognition that relying solely on L2s creates a “centralizing” risk, where base layer bottlenecks ultimately constrain the entire ecosystem’s growth potential.
The proposed execution layer reconstruction is particularly noteworthy. Switching from a hexadecimal Keccak MPT state tree to a binary state tree could theoretically reduce data costs by 4x and improve proof speeds by up to 100x with certain hash functions. This isn’t merely an optimization—it’s a fundamental architectural shift that could dramatically alter the economics of building and using dApps on Ethereum.
More radically, the potential migration away from EVM to a RISC-based virtual machine could represent the most significant change to Ethereum’s developer experience since the Merge. While backward compatibility is planned, such a transition would inevitably create complexity during the multi-year implementation period.
Security in the Quantum Era: Addressing Existential Threats
Vitalik’s explicit acknowledgment of quantum vulnerabilities represents a maturation of Ethereum’s security mindset. The four identified vulnerabilities—BLS signatures, KZG commitments, ECDSA signatures, and ZK proof systems—represent genuine long-term threats that many in the space have downplayed.
The proposed solutions demonstrate pragmatic engineering trade-offs rather than idealistic purity. For instance, rather than immediately replacing KZG with quantum-resistant STARKs (which would break efficient 2D data sampling), Ethereum is taking a phased approach that prioritizes network robustness. This acknowledges that security isn’t binary but involves multiple, sometimes conflicting, priorities.
The native account abstraction approach to quantum-resistant signatures is particularly elegant, allowing users to upgrade their security posture without abandoning existing wallet addresses—a critical consideration for maintaining Ethereum’s network effects during a transition period.
AI: The Great Accelerator or Double-Edged Sword?
Perhaps the most underrated aspect of this roadmap is the explicit integration of AI development tools. Vitalik’s experiment of building a prototype “in two weeks” using AI isn’t merely a technical curiosity—it signals a potential paradigm shift in how complex blockchain protocols can be developed.
If AI can truly accelerate development by 5x as Vitalik suggests, it could dramatically shorten Ethereum’s historically glacial implementation timeline. This has profound implications for competitive positioning in a rapidly evolving landscape. However, the security implications are equally significant: while AI may accelerate development, it cannot eliminate the need for rigorous auditing and testing. The proposal to use AI for generating test cases, formal verification, and creating multiple independent implementations represents a thoughtful approach to leveraging AI without sacrificing security.
Market Implications: Pricing in the Future
For ETH holders, this roadmap creates both significant upside potential and substantial execution risk. Historically, Ethereum’s ambitious promises have consistently faced implementation delays—The Merge was postponed multiple times, and EIP-4844 took years to implement. Markets may therefore approach these announcements with skepticism, particularly given the unprecedented complexity of the proposed changes.
That said, the components of this roadmap aren’t mere vaporware. Many of the technologies proposed (binary trees, ZK-EVM, account abstraction) are already in various stages of research and development. The real question isn’t whether these technologies are possible, but whether they can be safely and effectively integrated within the aggressive timeline proposed.
For investors, the key will be monitoring implementation milestones rather than pricing in the full 2029 vision. The Glamsterdam upgrade with BALs and ePBS represents the first tangible test of this new approach. Successful implementation here could build credibility for the broader roadmap, while failures would raise serious questions about Ethereum’s ability to execute on such ambitious goals.
Competitive Landscape: A Game of Thrones
Ethereum’s technical pivot comes at a critical juncture. Competitors like Solana, Avalanche, and others have gained market share by offering higher throughput and simpler architectures. Ethereum’s response isn’t merely to match these competitors on their own terms but to fundamentally redefine what’s possible at the base layer.
The emphasis on L1 scaling isn’t just about throughput—it’s about reclaiming Ethereum’s position as the foundational settlement layer for the entire crypto ecosystem. If successful, this could reverse the narrative of “L1s vs. L2s” and create a more synergistic relationship between them.
Strategic Considerations for Investors
-
Execution Risk Premium: Given Ethereum’s historical delays, there’s likely an execution risk premium built into current valuations. Successful implementation of early milestones could provide significant upside as markets adjust.
-
Infrastructure Opportunities: The proposed changes create opportunities for infrastructure providers working on ZK-EVM, RISC-V integration, and state tree optimization. These are likely to be among the earliest beneficiaries of the new roadmap.
-
Quantum Preparedness: While still a long-term threat, the explicit focus on quantum security could drive investment in post-quantum cryptographic solutions and related protocols.
-
Developer Activity: Monitor developer engagement with the new roadmap. Sustained growth in developer activity would be a leading indicator of successful implementation.
-
Protocol Economics: Any fundamental changes to the execution layer could impact ETH supply dynamics, staking rewards, and fee mechanisms. These second-order effects are often underestimated during technical transitions.
Conclusion: A Necessary Gamble
Ethereum’s 2026 overhaul represents a necessary gamble on the network’s future. In a rapidly evolving competitive landscape, incremental improvements may no longer suffice to maintain Ethereum’s dominant position. The proposed changes are audacious, complex, and carry significant execution risks. Yet they address fundamental limitations that have constrained Ethereum’s growth potential for years.
For investors, this roadmap creates asymmetric risk-reward dynamics. While full implementation by 2029 remains uncertain, even partial success could dramatically enhance Ethereum’s value proposition. The integration of AI development tools may prove to be the wildcard that enables Ethereum to overcome its historical delivery constraints.
Ultimately, this roadmap represents Ethereum’s attempt to answer a critical question: can a decentralized network maintain its core principles while undergoing radical technical transformation? The answer will likely determine whether Ethereum remains the foundational layer of Web3 or cedes its crown to a more nimble competitor.