Ethereum Delays Glamsterdam Upgrade Over Gas Security
Ethereum developers have indefinitely postponed the Glamsterdam upgrade’s Hoodi testnet activation, which had been scheduled for 26 October. At the 22 October ACDE #248 meeting, they decided to investigate security concerns related to EIP-8037 and EIP-8038 before setting a new date. The plan to raise Hoodi’s gas limit to 200 million is also on hold.
ChainSecurity warned that the proposed gas-rule changes could weaken protections against insufficient-gas griefing, in which an attacker may cause an operation to fail and a contract to record that failure permanently. The firm identified 13 potentially affected live contracts and is coordinating responsible disclosure. The Ethereum Foundation is assessing the issue’s scope.
The Glamsterdam upgrade delay leaves the mainnet schedule uncertain. Developers had considered 1, 8 or 9 December, conditional on successful Hoodi testing, but have announced no replacement date. The pause does not change current Ethereum network operations or directly affect ETH supply. Traders may monitor security findings and revised testnet plans; the immediate market impact is likely to centre on upgrade-timeline uncertainty rather than a direct change in ETH fundamentals.
Neutral
The delay is not an immediate change to Ethereum’s live network, and the reports identify no direct effect on ETH supply or usage. That makes a sustained price impact difficult to infer from the announcement alone. In the short term, some traders may treat the open-ended delay as a negative signal for Ethereum’s upgrade schedule, potentially weighing on sentiment. However, the pause is intended to investigate a smart-contract security risk before the changes reach mainnet. Resolving the issue could reduce potential technical risk and support confidence over the longer term. ETH’s price response will therefore likely depend more on broader market conditions and subsequent developer updates—especially the security findings and a revised testing or mainnet timeline—than on the postponement itself.