In a recent blog post titled “Should Ethereum Enshrine More Features?”, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin delved into the nuanced debate around enshrinement—a term referring to the integration of specific functionalities directly into Ethereum’s Layer 1 (L1) protocol. Rather than treating Ethereum as a static platform, Buterin frames it as a dynamic social system, where protocol design must balance simplicity, security, decentralization, and usability. This article unpacks the concept of enshrinement, explores key features under consideration, and examines the trade-offs shaping Ethereum’s long-term evolution.
Understanding “Enshrinement” in Ethereum
In software engineering, encapsulation typically refers to hiding implementation details behind abstract interfaces. In the context of Ethereum, enshrinement means formally incorporating certain functionalities into the core protocol—making them native rather than relying on external solutions.
Originally, Ethereum followed a minimal enshrinement philosophy: keep the base layer lean and let innovation happen at higher layers like rollups or smart contracts. This approach prioritized simplicity, security, and flexibility. However, as the ecosystem matures, Buterin argues that selective enshrinement may now be necessary to address real-world challenges such as centralization risks, high gas costs, and user experience barriers.
👉 Discover how next-gen blockchain platforms are balancing innovation with stability.
The Case for Minimal Enshrinement
The minimalist approach has served Ethereum well. By keeping L1 simple, developers avoid bloating the protocol with features that might become obsolete or introduce vulnerabilities. It also makes hard forks easier to reason about—each change can be viewed as a single transaction modifying a virtual machine state.
Key advantages of minimal enshrinement include:
- Reduced attack surface: Fewer built-in functions mean fewer potential exploits.
- Greater flexibility: Communities can build diverse solutions without being constrained by protocol-level defaults.
- Lower governance burden: The core protocol remains neutral, avoiding value-laden decisions about which features “deserve” inclusion.
However, this model assumes that off-chain or higher-layer solutions will naturally achieve decentralization and efficiency—which isn’t always the case.
Why Enshrine Account Abstraction (ERC-4337)?
One of the most compelling cases for enshrinement is account abstraction, introduced via ERC-4337. While ERC-4337 operates independently of the consensus layer (no hard fork required), its current implementation relies on external infrastructure like bundlers and paymasters.
Buterin highlights several benefits of bringing parts of ERC-4337 into the protocol:
- Improved security: The entry point contract—a critical component—could be replaced with a native protocol function, reducing risks of exploits.
- Lower gas costs: Native support would reduce storage overhead and execution complexity.
- Enhanced censorship resistance: Protocol-level integration ensures broader access and resilience against service shutdowns.
Moreover, enshrined account abstraction could enable advanced wallet features like social recovery and automated payments—key for mainstream adoption.
“If we can make wallets more secure and easier to use without compromising decentralization, that’s a win,” says Buterin.
👉 Explore how modern wallet innovations are transforming user access to Web3.
Enshrining PBS: Fighting Centralization in MEV
Another prime candidate for enshrinement is Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). Currently, most Ethereum validators use mev-boost, a third-party solution that connects them to specialized block builders who optimize MEV extraction.
While effective, mev-boost introduces centralization risks—relays act as intermediaries controlling data flow and auction mechanisms. If a few relays dominate, they could censor transactions or manipulate prices.
By enshrining PBS directly into the consensus layer, Ethereum can create a trustless builder market, eliminating reliance on centralized relays. This shift would:
- Strengthen decentralization
- Improve censorship resistance
- Reduce dependency on any single provider
This move aligns with Ethereum’s long-term vision of a resilient, permissionless network.
Should ZK-EVM and Liquid Staking Be Enshrined?
ZK-EVM: Scaling with Cryptographic Assurance
Zero-Knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machines (ZK-EVMs) promise faster finality and lower costs through validity proofs. While rollups currently implement ZK-EVMs externally, Buterin suggests that partial enshrinement could help standardize proof verification and improve data efficiency.
A key idea is witness elimination: if certain data has already been processed in previous blocks, there’s no need to re-prove access. This optimization reduces proof size and computation load—especially valuable when scaling to millions of users.
Enshrining ZK-EVM components could also promote client diversity and reduce governance fragmentation across rollup ecosystems.
Liquid Staking: Mitigating Validator Centralization
Liquid staking protocols like Lido allow users to stake ETH and receive tradable tokens (e.g., stETH) in return. While convenient, dominance by a single liquid staking token poses systemic risk—if one entity controls too many validators, it threatens network neutrality.
Enshrining basic liquid staking logic at the protocol level could distribute control more evenly and enforce transparency. For example, the protocol could mandate rotation among multiple staking pools or cap individual influence.
But caution is warranted: overreach could lead to protocol bloat or politicized governance.
Striking a Balanced Approach
Buterin advocates for a flexible middle ground—neither maximalist nor purist. He outlines guiding principles:
When to Enshrine:
- To counter high fixed costs (e.g., anti-MEV tooling)
- To reduce user error (e.g., secure default wallets)
- To prevent centralization in critical subsystems (e.g., PBS)
- When widespread adoption justifies complexity
When to Avoid Enshrinement:
- For niche or experimental features
- If it increases trust assumptions
- If it makes the protocol overly subjective or politicized
- If usage remains low over time
For instance, while private mempools could mitigate frontrunning attacks, Buterin acknowledges that enshrining them is premature without advances in technologies like delayed encryption.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What does “enshrinement” mean in Ethereum?
A: Enshrinement refers to formally integrating a feature into Ethereum’s core protocol (L1), making it natively supported instead of relying on external tools or smart contracts.
Q: Why not build everything on top of Ethereum?
A: While layer-two solutions offer flexibility, they can introduce centralization if dominated by a few providers. Critical infrastructure like PBS or account abstraction may benefit from protocol-level support for security and accessibility.
Q: Does enshrinement make Ethereum more centralized?
A: Not necessarily. If done carefully, enshrinement can reduce centralization by removing reliance on third-party services (e.g., mev-boost relays). However, poor choices could increase governance complexity.
Q: Is ERC-4337 already part of Ethereum’s protocol?
A: No. ERC-4337 is an Ethereum Request for Comment—a standard implemented via smart contracts. It does not require a hard fork but operates outside the consensus layer.
Q: Could enshrining too many features slow down upgrades?
A: Yes. Each enshrined feature adds complexity to the protocol, potentially slowing future improvements and increasing the risk of bugs or governance gridlock.
Q: Will ZK-EVM become mandatory if enshrined?
A: Unlikely. Enshrinement would likely focus on standardizing proof verification, not mandating ZK-rollups. Rollup diversity would still be preserved.
The Evolving Philosophy of Protocol Design
Ethereum was built to be a decentralized world computer—but its design philosophy must evolve with real-world demands. As Buterin notes, “There are no perfect solutions in crypto—only trade-offs.”
The goal isn’t to build the most feature-rich blockchain, but the most resilient, accessible, and decentralized one. Selective enshrinement offers a path forward: enhancing core functionality where it matters most while preserving the modular spirit that fuels innovation.
Ultimately, Ethereum’s strength lies in its ability to adapt—guided not by dogma, but by pragmatic assessment of what best serves its global user base.
👉 Stay ahead of blockchain evolution with cutting-edge insights from top innovators.