Ethereum’s roadmap for 2026 revolves around two axes: expanding cumulative data capacity via blobs while increasing base layer execution through gas limit changes.
These gas limit changes depend on validators moving from re-executing blocks to checking ZK proofs of execution.
The first piece is already anchored by Fusaka, shipping on December 3, 2025.
Fusaka
Fusaka is implementing PeerDAS modifications plus blob-only settings (BPO) that can increase blob throughput in measured steps, according to ethereum.org.
The second path is less mechanized because it relies on EIP projects, client implementation and validation operations which must respect decentralization constraints, including bandwidth, block propagation and proof of market structure.
PeerDAS is positioned as the clearest “capacity ramp” lever, as it is designed to scale the availability of cumulative data without forcing each node to download each blob.
According to ethereum.org, blob targets do not immediately jump upon activation, then can double every few weeks up to a maximum target of 48 as developers monitor the network’s health.
The Optimism team defined the high-end case as “at least 48 blob targets per block,” coupled with a cumulative-side throughput movement of around 220 to around 3,500 UOPS under this target, according to optimism.io.
Even within this framework, the practical question for 2026 is whether demand will come in the form of blob usage rather than increased L1 execution.
Another open question is whether p2p stability and node bandwidth remain within operator tolerances as BPO deployment increases.
On the execution side, Ethereum is already testing higher throughput through coordination rather than a hard fork.
GasLimit.pics reported a final gas limit of 60,000,000, with a 24-hour average of around 59,990,755 at the indicated time.
This level is important because it provides a reference point for what validators have agreed to in practice.
It also exposes the “social scaling” cap before latency, validation overhead, and Mempool and MEV pipeline strain become burdensome.
A simple way to translate gas limits into throughput ranges is gas per second, using Ethereum’s 12 second slot (gas per second is equal to gas limit divided by 12).
The numbers below keep the calculations explicit and separate base layer EVM transactions from rollup throughput requests.
| Scenario | Gas limit | Gas/sec (≈ gas/12) | Tx/sec at 21,000 gas | Tx/sec at 120,000 gas |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current level of coordination | 60,000,000 | 5,000,000 | ≈238 | ≈42 |
| Gas limit case 2× | 120,000,000 | 10,000,000 | ≈476 | ≈83 |
| Premium enclosure (requires validation change) | 200,000,000 | 16,666,667 | ≈793 | ≈139 |
Glamsterdam
The planned 2026 brand upgrade packages several execution-focused ideas into “Glamsterdam,” an abbreviated list that was discussed around time-honored proponent-builder separation (ePBS, EIP-7732), block-level access lists (BAL, EIP-7928), and general repricing (EIP-7904).
Each remains in draft form, according to the EIP pages for EIP-7732, EIP-7928 and EIP-7904.
Repricing targets gaps in gas schedules that have persisted for years.
According to EIP-7904, correcting misjudged calculations can increase usable throughput while recognizing the risk of DoS and the reality of contracts that hardcode gas assumptions.
The BALs are designed as plumbing for parallelism.
The EIP cites parallel disk reads, parallel transaction commit, parallel state root computation, and “execution-free state updates,” while estimating the average compressed BAL size of approximately 70 to 72 KB as overhead, according to EIP-7928.
In practice, these gains only materialize if customers embrace competition to overcome real bottlenecks.
It also depends on whether the additional data and verification steps avoid becoming their own latency tax.
ePBS is at the center of discussions about MEV and throughput because it aims to decouple execution validation from consensus validation over time, according to EIP-7732.
It is also in this time gap that new failure modes can appear.
An academic paper on the “free options problem” for ePBS estimates options exercise at about 0.82% of blocks on average in an 8-second option window, rising to about 6% on days of high volatility under its modeled conditions, according to arXiv.
Ethereum in 2026
For planning ahead to 2026, this research draws attention to liveliness under stress, not just steady-state fee outcomes.
The most structural bet behind the “very high” gas limits is the adoption of the ZK-proof validator.
The Ethereum Foundation’s “Realtime Proving” roadmap outlines a staged journey where a small set of validators first run ZK clients in production.
Then, only once a large majority of stakes are comfortable, can gas limits rise to levels where proof verification replaces re-execution for practical validation on reasonable hardware, according to the foundation’s July 10, 2025 post on blog.ethereum.org.
The same article outlines constraints that are important for feasibility rather than storytelling, including targeting 128-bit security (with 100 bits temporarily accepted), keeping the proof size below 300 KB, and avoiding the need for recursive wrappers with trusted configurations, according to blog.ethereum.org.
The implication for scaling is related to evidence markets: providing real-time evidence must be cheap and credible without focusing on a narrow set of evidence that recreates today’s relay-style dependencies in another layer of the stack.
After Glamsterdam, “Hegota” positions itself as a later-named 2026 niche that is still more about process than scope.
The Ethereum Foundation released a headlining schedule with a proposal window from January 8 to February 4, followed by discussion and finalization from February 5 to February 26, and then a window for non-headliners, according to blog.ethereum.org.
A Hegotá meta-EIP exists as a draft (EIP-8081) and lists items as considered rather than locked, including FOCIL (EIP-7805) as currently considered, per EIP-8081.
The short-term benefit of this schedule is that it creates dated decision points that investors and builders can follow without deriving commitments from code names.
The first is that Hegota’s headlining proposals close on February 4th.
