
Vitalik Buterin’s cyberpunk, non-ugly Ethereum: definition and goals
vitalik buterin’s stated aim is an Ethereum with system-level properties that are both cyberpunk in principle and not ugly in practice. In operational terms, that means stronger, native guarantees for censorship resistance, zero-knowledge friendliness, simplicity, and clean consensus behavior.
As reported by The Block, core contributors have placed FOCIL (EIP-7805) on the Hegota roadmap and framed four upgrade axes: state tree optimization, lean consensus, ZK‑evm verification, and virtual machine changes. The approach emphasizes bolt-on properties that interoperate with today’s architecture, prioritizing minimalism and auditability while constraining complexity.
Why FOCIL (EIP-7805) and censorship resistance matter
Builders and relays now act as powerful gatekeepers of transaction flow, which raises credible risks that valid public mempool transactions may be delayed or excluded. according to the ethereum foundation, FOCIL (Fork‑Choice Enforced Inclusion Lists) is designed so validators can enforce inclusion via fork‑choice rules, reducing reliance on builder goodwill.
Practically, FOCIL aims to make censorship costly or self‑defeating by letting validators prefer chains that include previously seen, valid transactions. This introduces protocol‑level clarity for users and apps while requiring careful specification to mitigate liveness, relayer, and MEV‑supply‑chain edge cases, and to avoid unintended regulatory interactions.
Immediate impacts for developers, validators, and Ethereum Foundation teams
For application developers, FOCIL should not change contract semantics, but it may improve user experience in periods of selective delay by builders. Developers will still need to manage fees, mempool assumptions, and latency sensitivity in a world where inclusion guarantees tighten but network conditions vary.
For validators and client teams, FOCIL adds fork‑choice logic that references observable, valid mempool activity. Operators should expect incremental CPU, memory, and networking considerations for inclusion list maintenance, along with updated monitoring for edge scenarios.
For protocol and testing teams, Hegota work implies multi‑client specifications, adversarial testnets, and formal review of fork‑choice modifications. Past transitions demonstrate that staged rollouts, shadow forks, and differential fuzzing reduce execution risk, but timelines remain conditional on research and implementation quality.
Language and VM choices: Solidity, Vyper, RISC-V vs WASM
The language and VM discussion centers on simplicity, auditability, and future‑proofing proofs. A gradual, optional path to system‑level language evolution has been floated in public discussions, with backward compatibility and tooling stability as gating constraints.
The debate has been framed succinctly by a leading researcher. “Do we make Solidity good? Do we drop Solidity?” said Georgios Konstantopoulos, CTO at Paradigm. That encapsulates the trade‑off between maturing today’s stack versus adopting a simpler, more verifiable base.
Hegota roadmap and dual-ISA: delivery vs proving for ZK-EVM verification
Hegota’s ZK‑EVM verification track intersects with the dual‑ISA concept: a delivery ISA (dISA) that stores and executes contracts on L1, and a proving ISA (pISA) tuned for efficient zero‑knowledge proofs. Separating delivery from proving can preserve compatibility while enabling faster proving innovation.
Offchain Labs (Arbitrum) on WASM delivery vs RISC-V proving
Offchain Labs (Arbitrum) has argued that WebAssembly is better suited as the delivery format for on‑chain contract execution, while RISC‑V excels as a proving target for ZK systems. This split aims to minimize switching costs for developers and clients without constraining prover performance.
At the time of this writing, Ethereum (ETH) traded near $1,859.53 with very high 16.67% volatility and an RSI around 35.98. Sentiment screens read bearish, providing neutral context for roadmap debates.
FAQ about FOCIL (EIP-7805)
How does FOCIL (EIP-7805) work to enforce transaction inclusion and reduce censorship?
Validators prefer chains that include valid, previously seen public‑mempool transactions, via fork‑choice rules, making censorship economically unattractive and operationally fragile for builders.
Could Ethereum replace Solidity, and what would migration to a new system language or VM look like?
Any change would be optional and gradual, emphasizing backward compatibility, audited tooling, and possibly dual‑ISA designs that separate contract delivery from zero‑knowledge proving.
| DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing. |










