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

Recently, the Ethereum community has engaged in intense discussions surrounding the EIP-3074 proposal. This event has exposed some issues within the current Ethereum governance mechanism and also provides us with an opportunity for in-depth reflection and improvement. This article will review and analyze this event and propose some suggestions on how to enhance Ethereum's governance.

Event Review

The EIP-3074 proposal aims to bring the convenience of account abstraction AA to regular Ethereum accounts (EOA) users. This proposal has received approval from core developers after long discussions and is planned to be implemented in the next hard fork, Pectra.

However, the ERC-4337 community strongly opposed this, believing that EIP-3074 could increase centralization risks and is inconsistent with the Ethereum account abstraction roadmap. Subsequently, Vitalik proposed EIP-7702 as an alternative, which aligns better with the EIP-4337 standard and allows for a smooth transition to the EIP-7560( native abstract account ).

Currently, core developers are discussing EIP-7702, which is likely to replace EIP-3074. Although the result is satisfactory, the entire process is far from optimal and has sparked much controversy.

Problem Analysis

1. The approval process is too long: EIP-3074 took several years to be approved.

2. Feedback lag: Core developers only hear opposing voices widely after approval.

3. Warning was ineffective: The ERC-4337 team has expressed concerns multiple times before, but the effect was limited.

4. Repeated decision-making: Currently facing the situation of revoking the approved proposal.

This series of issues exposes problems such as poor communication and low decision-making efficiency in the Ethereum governance mechanism.

Root Cause Analysis

The fundamental reason for the above problem lies in:

1. Misunderstanding of the role of the Ethereum core developer meeting ( ACD ). ACD is not the sole decision-making power for protocol updates; there is also an invisible governance force known as the "roadmap."

2. The key governance force of the "roadmap" lacks formal recognition. Although it has a significant impact on major matters, it is difficult to supervise due to its opacity.

3. There is inconsistency between core developers and the roadmap. Due to the lack of a formal "approved roadmap" process, the recognition of different roadmaps varies, and support needs to be actively sought.

4. Vitalik's special role in governance has not been fully recognized. He actually plays a role similar to that of a CTO, having a huge influence on the roadmap.

Improvement Suggestions

To optimize Ethereum governance and avoid similar issues from happening again, the following suggestions are proposed:

1. Improve EIP transparency: Ensure that the EIPs under consideration are more open to the community to avoid unexpected decisions caused by sudden actions.

2. Strengthen community involvement: Set specific time slots for community members to discuss the impact of EIPs on downstream projects.

3. Promote mutual understanding and communication: Core developers and researchers should strengthen communication and reach a consensus.

4. Clarify Vitalik's Role: Recognize the important role Vitalik plays in setting the vision and coordinating various aspects.

5. Improve the VVRC governance model: values-vision-roadmap-client, ensuring coherence in decision-making from concept to implementation.

Through these measures, we can enhance the transparency, participation, and efficiency of Ethereum governance, laying a more solid foundation for the long-term development of the project.