Ethereum Improvement ProposalEdit

The Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) is the formal mechanism by which changes and standards are proposed, debated, and adopted for the Ethereum ecosystem. At its core, an EIP is a design document that captures a proposal for protocol changes, interface standards, or governance practices, and it functions as a centralized forum for community input in a system that is otherwise highly distributed. The process is intended to be open to developers, researchers, users, and other stakeholders, with the aim of coordinating changes without reintroducing centralized control. In practice, EIPs help organize how new features get specified, implemented, and tested across the diverse set of clients that participate in the network.

This article surveys what EIPs are, how they operate, and why they matter for the economics, security, and usability of the network. It also explains the main categories of EIPs and highlights notable examples that have shaped the evolution of Ethereum. For readers seeking deeper context, related topics include Ethereum, smart contract, and the various ERC-20s and related interfaces that live within the broader EIP framework.

History

The EIP system emerged as a way to formalize how changes to the Ethereum protocol and its ecosystem should be proposed and discussed. Before a change lands in the software that runs nodes and wallets, it is typically captured as an EIP, circulated for feedback, and refined through iterations. This approach aims to balance rapid innovation with the need for careful consideration of security, economics, and compatibility. The process has evolved alongside the network’s growth, and it now serves as a backbone for both core protocol improvements and widely adopted interface standards such as token standards and application programming interfaces.

In parallel with core protocol work, the EIP framework has allowed a broad range of actors—independent developers, research teams, and open-source projects—to contribute proposals that affect users, exchanges, and decentralized applications. The split between protocol-level changes and user-facing standards reflects a practical division: core changes are often tightly coordinated across multiple client implementations, while standards and guidance can be adopted more incrementally by developers building on top of Ethereum.

Process

An EIP typically starts as a draft submitted by an individual or a group. The draft is then discussed publicly, usually on forums and in issue trackers associated with the ecosystem’s development culture. The discussion guides the refinement of the proposal, clarifies its scope, and identifies potential risks and implementation details. Once the proposal reaches a stable form, it is formalized as an EIP document and submitted for broader review. If it concerns protocol rules, it requires careful coordination across multiple client teams; if it is a standards track proposal, it often conveys interfaces, events, or behavioral expectations that developers can implement consistently across wallets, dApps, and other software.

The EIP types reflect different governance and impact levels: - Core EIPs address protocol changes that alter consensus rules or client behavior; these require unanimous attention from major client teams and extensive testing. - ERCs (Ethereum Request for Comments) are standards-track proposals that define interfaces or conventions for building decentralized applications, tokens, and other on-chain components. Examples include token standards that enable interoperability across wallets and exchanges; a well-known instance is the ERC-20. - Informational EIPs provide guidance, best practices, or historical notes without imposing a binding change on the network. - Process and governance EIPs can update the way decisions are made within the community, the formatting of EIPs themselves, or the rules for proposing future changes.

Drafts progress through open discussion, implementation checks within client software, and community testing. Final acceptance often hinges on consensus among core developers, tool builders, exchanges, and users—an implicit agreement that a given change is beneficial, secure, and compatible with the long-term vision for the network. The process is designed to be transparent, with artifacts and discussions accessible to anyone who wants to participate.

Types of EIPs

Core EIPs: Proposals that modify core network rules or how consensus is reached among nodes. These are among the most consequential changes, as they can alter how the network operates and interacts with users and applications. Example changes here include adjustments to gas accounting, consensus parameters, or upgrade mechanisms.
ERCs (Standards Track): Proposals that define interfaces or standards for building on Ethereum. They are not the protocol itself but enable interoperability and composability across wallets, exchanges, and applications. Examples include token standards such as ERC-20 and non-fungible token standards like ERC-721.
Informational EIPs: Non-binding guidance, historical notes, or documentation about best practices. These help explain design decisions or summarize the ecosystem’s evolving understanding without forcing a change in behavior.
Meta and governance EIPs: Proposals that describe how future EIPs should be proposed or how governance processes should operate. They influence the process rather than the software directly.

Notable EIPs and impact

EIP-1559: A major reform of the fee mechanism, introducing a base fee that is burned and a separate tip paid to miners or validators. The design aims to reduce fee volatility and improve predictability for users, while also altering the economic incentives in the network. The proposal has been widely discussed for its economic implications and its impact on long-term Ether issuance and network security. For more on this topic, see EIP-1559.
ERC-20 (Token Standard): The standard that defines a common interface for fungible tokens on Ethereum, enabling broad interoperability across wallets, exchanges, and smart contracts. This standard has driven the explosion of decentralized finance and tokenized assets on the network. See ERC-20.
ERC-721 (Non-Fungible Tokens): A standard enabling unique tokens with distinct properties, widely used for digital collectibles and tokenized assets. See ERC-721.
Other core proposals and standards: The ecosystem has proposed numerous other EIPs that touch on privacy, upgradeability, security, and tooling. Each proposal is evaluated for its technical merit, security implications, and compatibility with the network’s long-term goals.

Controversies and debates

Governance and centralization concerns: Because EIPs require coordination across multiple client teams, prominent developers and organizations can have outsized influence on which changes progress. Critics worry that this concentration of influence could undermine the decentralized spirit of the network if not counterbalanced by broad participation. Proponents argue that coordinated effort is necessary to maintain safety and interoperability, and that the open discussion process remains accessible to a wide range of participants.
Economic and incentive effects: Changes to the fee market or consensus rules can shift incentives for users, miners, and validators. For example, shifts in miner revenue or validator rewards can influence network security assumptions and long-term emission paths. Supporters emphasize the benefits of predictable costs and improved user experience, while critics worry about potential unintended consequences or distributional effects.
Speed vs. caution: The pace of EIP-driven changes must balance innovation with the risk of bugs and network fragmentation. Some critics favor slower, more conservative upgrades to reduce the chance of hard forks that split the community, while others advocate rapid experimentation to stay competitive and deliver benefits sooner. The ongoing debate reflects the broader tension between agility and resilience in a decentralized system.
Widespread adoption of standards: Standards like ERC-20 and ERC-721 have driven interoperability, but they also create lock-in to certain design choices. Debates sometimes focus on whether standards should evolve or be deprecated as the ecosystem matures, and how best to handle deprecations without harming existing users and projects.
Security and upgradability: Proposals that affect smart contract semantics or on-chain behavior carry systemic risk. Critics call for rigorous auditing, formal verification, and staged deployments, while supporters argue that well-designed EIPs with thorough testing can improve security and reliability over time.