---
# System prepended metadata

title: Teku Team Feedback on Glamsterdam EIP Selection
tags: [glamsterdam]

---

# Teku Team Feedback on Glamsterdam EIP Selection

This document outlines the Teku team's consolidated feedback on the EIPs considered for the Glamsterdam hard fork.


## Executive Summary (TL;DR)

*   **Prioritize FOCIL:** Our top priority is including FOCIL. We advocate for extending the Glamsterdam timeline to accommodate it, viewing this as a necessary strategic trade-off to avoid larger scoping challenges in future forks.
*   **Unanimous Support for Inclusion:** We strongly and unanimously recommend **EIP-8045** (Exclude slashed validators from proposing) for inclusion.
*   **Lower Priority CFI:** We are okay with considering **EIP-7688** (ProgressiveContainer) and **EIP-8061** (Increase churn limits), but they should be dropped if they threaten the timeline for higher-priority items.
*   **Neutral Stance:** We are indifferent to the inclusion of **EIP-8062** (Add sweep withdrawal fee for 0x01 validators), **EIP-8068** (Neutral effective balance design), and **EIP-8071** (Prevent using consolidations as withdrawals). We will not advocate for or against them.

## Detailed EIP Feedback

### Strongly Recommended for Inclusion

#### EIP-8045: Exclude slashed validators from proposing
There is unanimous agreement on this EIP. We view it as a straightforward, common-sense improvement that is easy to implement.

**Recommendation: We strongly recommend this for inclusion.**


### Major Scoping Discussion

#### EIP-7805: FOCIL (Fork Choice Inclusion Lists)
Our team strongly advocates for including FOCIL in Glamsterdam. This requires a direct conversation about the fork's timeline, as we acknowledge that including both ePBS and FOCIL is incompatible with a short (~6 month) fork cycle.

Our position is that deferring FOCIL is not a solution, but merely postpones a difficult scoping challenge. The problem of fitting a large feature like FOCIL alongside another major roadmap item will reappear. For example, pairing it with 6-seconds slots in a future fork will present the same "too big for a short cycle" dilemma. Given that prototyping is already well-advanced ([interop with 4 CLs and 3 ELs](https://meetfocil.eth.limo/)) and its importance for censorship resistance is paramount, we believe the most pragmatic path forward is to extend the Glamsterdam timeline to accommodate it now.

**Recommendation: Prioritize for Inclusion, even if it requires a longer fork cycle.**

### Consider for Inclusion (CFI)

These EIPs are beneficial but are not critical for Glamsterdam. They should be considered lower priority and are candidates to be dropped if scope needs to be reduced.

#### EIP-7688: Forward compatible consensus data structures (ProgressiveContainer)
We support the goal of this EIP but are unclear on the urgency and implementation effort. It's a "nice-to-have" that shouldn't jeopardize core features.

#### EIP-8061: Increase churn limits
We see this as a beneficial cleanup of technical debt but not a critical feature. We would not object to it being dropped to simplify scope.

**Recommendation for both: Ok to CFI. We will not fight to keep them.**

### Neutral Stance (CFI or DFI)

Our team is largely indifferent to the following EIPs. We will not advocate for or against their inclusion.

*   **EIP-8062 (Sweep withdrawal fee) & EIP-8068 (Neutral effective balance):** We are neutral on these unless they are deemed absolutely critical for the Single Slot Finality (SSF) roadmap.
*   **EIP-8071 (Prevent using consolidations as withdrawals):** We see this as a minor, non-essential UX change that is easy to implement.

**Recommendation for all three: Indifferent (CFI or DFI).**