Ethereum Foundation ranks 62 Hegotá proposals in first unified EIP tier list

The Ethereum Foundation's Protocol cluster has published a single, consolidated tier list for the Hegotá network upgrade, grading the 62 EIPs proposed for inclusion and, for the first time, replacing per-team opinion posts with one unified view. The tier list and its methodology went up on the EF's blog on September 7 (blog.ethereum.org).

According to the post, roughly 60 people across research and engineering — nine client and research teams plus several individual domain experts — submitted 16 contribution templates. Twelve of those provided numeric tier grades, several grading only EIPs in their area of expertise, producing 397 grades across 62 proposals: an average of 6.4 grades per EIP, with the most-contested drawing nine. Contributors scored each EIP independently on an S-to-DFI ladder (S=4, A=3, B=2, C=1, D/DFI=0); abstentions don't count against a proposal. The published grade, the EF says, is a "steelman" argued EIP-by-EIP in a 90-minute working session, not a raw average — and per-team grades are not published.

The outcome: 2 EIPs rated S ("must ship"), 15 rated A ("expected to ship"), 8 B-tier and 7 C-tier below the line, and 28 declined for inclusion (DFI), each with a stated structural reason. Two more (EIP-8368 and EIP-8372) were left deliberately unranked pending mainnet data after the prior Glamsterdam fork. The headliners named in the A tier are EIP-7805 (FOCIL) and EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions), each shipping as a bundle with supporting EIPs. Geth, an execution-layer client, will still publish its own standalone list.

Key facts

• 62 EIPs evaluated for Hegotá; 397 total tier grades cast (EF blog, Sept 7).
• 2 must-ship, 15 expected to ship, 8 B-tier, 7 C-tier, 28 declined, 2 unranked (EF blog).
• ~60 Protocol-cluster contributors; 16 templates, 12 with numeric grades (EF blog).
• EIP-8363 (Tapered Issuance Burn) unanimously declined for this fork (EF blog).

The real-world read

This is the EF's own account of its own process, so read the framing accordingly. The "unified view" is real, but the transparency has a limit the post states plainly: per-team grades aren't published, and the headline tier is a curated "steelman" rather than the arithmetic average — so how sharply teams disagreed on contested items isn't visible from outside. The most telling call is EIP-8363, the tapered issuance burn, unanimously declined. The EF is explicit that this "is not a judgement on the merits" — it doesn't consider itself "the right and sole body" to set issuance policy inside a fork-scoping exercise, and wants it carried to a broader ecosystem process. In plain terms: the most economically consequential proposal on the list was set aside on jurisdiction, not technical grounds. Grades are also commitments, not decisions — B-tier items still need a prototype, sign-off, and settled spec, and even S-tier scope can move if delivery slips.

This is news reporting, not financial advice.