Reflections on Ethereum Governance: Insights from the EIP-3074 Incident

Recently, the controversy surrounding EIP-3074 has sparked in-depth thinking within the Ethereum community regarding governance mechanisms. This article will analyze the issues exposed by this event and explore how to improve Ethereum's decision-making process.

Event Review

EIP-3074 aims to provide account abstraction features for regular Ethereum account users and was initially approved by core developers. However, the ERC-4337 community subsequently expressed strong opposition, arguing that the proposal could increase centralization risks and is inconsistent with the Ethereum account abstraction roadmap. Ultimately, Vitalik proposed EIP-7702 as an alternative solution, which aligns better with the EIP-4337 standard.

Problem Analysis

This process exposed the following issues:

1. The approval cycle is too long
2. Feedback delay
3. The warning has not been taken seriously
4. Decision Repetition

Although each step seems reasonable on its own, the overall process clearly needs optimization. Ideally, the ERC-4337 community should have actively participated in discussions early on to avoid dramatic reversals later.

The crux of the matter

The root cause of governance failure lies in the misunderstanding of the role of the Ethereum core developer meeting (ACD). In fact, another informal governance force known as the "roadmap" has greater influence on certain significant matters. The shift from EIP-3074 to EIP-7702 is a typical case of the "roadmap" power overshadowing ACD decisions.

The Role of the Roadmap

The "roadmap" is a high-level principle guiding the development of Ethereum, such as the scaling roadmap centered around Rollup, etc. Core developers actually follow these higher-level guiding principles when making decisions.

The Relationship Between Core Developers and the Roadmap

Due to the lack of a formal "approval roadmap" process, the recognition of different roadmaps may vary. This requires the planners behind the roadmaps to actively promote them to core developers and the community in order to gain support.

Vitalik's Role

Vitalik plays a role in Ethereum governance similar to that of a CTO in a large tech company. He does not participate in every technical decision, but he has a significant influence on the roadmap in key areas. This stems from his ability to grasp the vision of Ethereum.

The Balance Between Decentralization and Centralized Leadership

Although Vitalik's influence may have somewhat reduced political decentralization, this leadership is crucial for maintaining system coordination during Ethereum's rapid development phase.

The Importance of Community

The community gathers around shared values, which are the cornerstone of Vitalik's vision. The community's daily practices give life and legitimacy to the vision, roadmap, and code.

VVRC Governance Model

Ethereum governance can be simplified into the VVRC model:

1. 价值观(Values): The basic principles shared by the community
2. Vision (: Vitalik's development blueprint
3. Roadmaps ): The technical path designed by the research team
4. Client ( Clients ): Software implemented by core developers.

Improvement Suggestions

1. Improve EIP transparency
2. Enhance community participation
3. Promote mutual understanding and continuous communication between core developers and researchers.

Conclusion

EIP-3074/EIP-7702 events reveal the complexity of Ethereum governance. By improving transparency, enhancing participation, and promoting cooperation among all parties, we can optimize the governance process and promote the sustainable and healthy development of Ethereum.