Ethereum’s Glamsterdam upgrade reportedly hit a delay on the Hoodi testnet after reviewers flagged risks to some smart contracts from proposed gas-cost changes. Separately, Vitalik Buterin argued that ETH’s value should not be judged mainly by how much the network burns in transaction fees. That is not the same as declaring ETH a proven store of value.
- The reported issue delayed a testnet step, not Ethereum’s live network.
- Some contracts may rely on gas-cost assumptions an upgrade could change.
- More capacity could ease fees and reduce ETH burning, but demand matters.
- Fee burning is one measure of Ethereum’s economics, not its value as a whole.
A testnet delay, not a network shutdown
Glamsterdam is an Ethereum upgrade undergoing testing before any deployment to the live network. CryptoTicker reported that the upgrade’s next step on the Hoodi testnet was delayed after reviewers found risks linked to proposed gas-cost changes and assumptions built into some existing smart contracts.
CryptoTicker did not describe a flaw that had stopped Ethereum or made all smart contracts unsafe. Rather, some contracts might behave differently if the cost and accounting rules for certain operations changed. The outlet reported that the live Ethereum network was unaffected.
Examples in the report included contracts that rely on a 2, 300-gas stipend being too small to perform certain operations. A stipend is a limited amount of gas provided to some calls. If the cost of an operation changes, a contract’s assumptions about what can happen within that allowance may no longer hold.
Other reported assumptions concerned how much gas remains during a call and how gas used by a failed call is accounted for. Put simply, some contracts depend on specific rules about which operations consume gas and how much. Changing those rules could lead to unexpected behavior. That is a reason for careful testing, not proof that every contract affected by a cost change is exploitable.
CryptoTicker attributed the review to security firms including ChainSecurity and Dedaub. It reported that ChainSecurity identified eight assumptions that could fail under proposed changes, but the detailed findings are not reproduced here. Claims about which specific contracts are vulnerable should be treated with caution.
The reports give October 6 as the date Glamsterdam was activated on Sepolia and November 6 as the date the Hoodi step was put on hold, but they do not establish the year. They also say no new Hoodi date had been announced and that work on the subsequent Hegota upgrade continued. Without a verified year and a primary announcement, those dates do not provide a reliable current schedule.
Why changing gas costs can affect contracts
Gas measures the computation and other resources needed to process activity on Ethereum. Smart contracts may be written with particular gas costs in mind. If an upgrade changes those costs, code that worked under the old rules may not behave as its developers expected.
That does not make gas-cost changes inherently unsafe. It does make compatibility testing essential. A testnet delay can frustrate developers, but it is better than finding a serious mismatch after an upgrade reaches the live network.
The reports differ on which proposal numbers are involved. CryptoTicker discusses EIP-8037 and EIP-8038 in connection with gas-cost changes, while other coverage has cited EIP-7928. The available accounts do not establish that these proposals refer to the same changes, so the numbers should not be treated as interchangeable.
ETH burning is only one part of the picture
The testnet concern is separate from Buterin’s argument about how people assess ETH. Under EIP-1559, Ethereum burns the base fee, the per-unit fee charged for including activity in a block. The amount burned varies with network conditions. More activity and congestion can push fees higher, while quieter periods can mean less ETH is burned.
Burning is a feature of Ethereum’s economics, not a fixed source of value. A high burn rate can reflect strong demand, but it can also come with congestion and speculative activity. A lower rate means less supply is being removed through this mechanism. On its own, it does not show that the network has become less useful.
U.Today reported that Buterin said EIP-1559 was “not going anywhere.” The outlet also attributed to him the view that past peaks in EIP-1559-related burning “never were as strong as they seemed, ” because they depended partly on speculative cycles that tend to cool during bear markets. U.Today reported those remarks, but the full context of the original comments is not established here.
High fees and heavy burning may signal intense activity, but they do not automatically prove durable value. Lower burning does not settle the question in the other direction, either.
More capacity could mean lower fees, and less burning
Blockspace is the capacity available in a block for transactions and other activity. Expanding Ethereum’s Layer 1 capacity, meaning the base blockchain, could ease congestion and fee pressure if demand does not grow as quickly as capacity. Since the base fee is burned, lower fees could also mean less ETH is burned.
That could happen, but it is not guaranteed. Demand may rise along with capacity, and the available reports do not quantify how a particular Glamsterdam change would affect fees or burn rates. Cheaper transactions could make Ethereum more usable. Lower burning could also reduce one source of supply contraction. Those are separate effects, not a single verdict on the network.
A store-of-value thesis, not a settled property
U.Today framed Buterin’s comments as support for a broader store-of-value view of ETH. The outlet also attributed to him a set of priorities summarized as “CROPS”: censorship and capture resistance, open source, privacy, and security. The available reporting does not establish that Buterin explicitly declared ETH to be a store of value.
A store of value is an asset expected to preserve purchasing power over time. Calling ETH one is a thesis, not proof that it reliably does so. Its long-term case depends on factors such as demand, utility, security, monetary policy, and competition, not just how much ETH is burned.
The CROPS framing looks beyond price and supply. Censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security are meaningful goals for a blockchain. They still need to be judged by the network’s performance, not just by the labels its supporters use.
Key questions and answers
-
Did the Glamsterdam issue affect Ethereum’s live network?
No. CryptoTicker reported that the live network was unaffected. The concern was about how some contracts might respond to proposed gas-cost changes.
-
Is Ethereum abandoning EIP-1559?
U.Today reported Buterin as saying it is “not going anywhere.” The amount of ETH burned under the mechanism can still vary with network activity.
-
Could more blockspace reduce ETH burning?
Yes, if added capacity eases congestion and lowers fees. The effect is uncertain because demand may grow too.
-
Did Buterin directly declare ETH a store of value?
The available reporting does not confirm that wording. U.Today presented a store-of-value interpretation of his comments, which is different from a verified direct declaration.
Ethereum faces two practical tests: making room for more activity without breaking contracts built around existing rules, and improving usability with greater capacity without treating fee burning as the only measure of success. A testnet delay is a reason to check the details. It is not proof that Ethereum has failed, or that its economic trade-offs have gone away.
