# Sigp Lighthouse team: Pectra views Summary of the intersection of Lighthouse's team members' opinions towards an EIP set for Electra. Lighthouse is a consensus client, so views as strongest on CL EIPs. **TLDR**: Scaling remains the top priority. For Electra, the EIP set should be heavier on the CL side to allow EL's to catch up with verkle. ### Strongly in favor of inclusion _Universal agreement on highest priorization_ - **EIP-7594 (PeerDAS)**: Strong consensus on prioritizing. The team agrees on a [progressive path to danksharding](https://ethresear.ch/t/from-4844-to-danksharding-a-path-to-scaling-ethereum-da/18046), starting with 1D PeerDAS. Some preference to not increase the blob count target before shipping PeerDAS, to maintain the same bandwidth as dencun. ### In favor of inclusion _Scattered opinions or not as strongly motivated. Listed in numerical order_ - **EIP-6110 (deposits)**: Worth doing, but not time sensitive. Tightens the security of the chain + drop technical debt. - **EIP-7002 (EL exits)**: In favour of prioritizing, acknowledging its relevance for permissionless staking pools. Defer complexity assessment to EL teams. - **EIP-7251 (Max EB)**: Should be a high priority. May include all MaxEB features to accelerate consolidation or split into two MaxEB phases to contain complexity. - **EIP-7547 (Inclusion lists)**: Want to see it happen, but unclear about its complexity. The lifecycle of an inclusion list touches a lot of areas of the client - **EIP-7549 (Attestation index)**: Worth doing, not complex can fit in the fork.