Vitalik Buterin’s proposal EIP-7983, to add a gas cap to individual Ethereum transactions, seems like a simple workflow-enhancing security improvement. We get it, the threat of DoS attacks is scary and transaction costs you can count on are nice to have. But is it that easy, or are we ignoring some deadly hidden costs? Are we sacrificing agility for perceived safety?

Innovation Stifled By Rigid Limits?

Let's be blunt. Even at 16.77 million, a hard gas cap ties developers' hands when it comes to what type of development is allowed. The real power of Ethereum’s network comes from its composability – the ability to build sophisticated smart contracts that talk to each other in detailed ways. DeFi, for example, thrives on this complexity. By simply placing an inflexible, hard cap, are we sliding into a place that will hamstring the next generation of DeFi protocols?

Think about it. And then optimizing code to work under the cap must come first, sometimes at the cost of functionality. But smaller projects, without the resources or networks of the incumbent players, will be nearly impossible to compete just as much. Are we unknowingly constructing a competitive advantage for centralization? Japanese firms have a reputation for their commitment to quality and precision. But they might face challenges if they need to settle on less functionality just to fit within the arbitrary gas limit.

Layer-2 Scalability Compromised?

The future success of Ethereum depends on Layer-2 solutions such as rollups. These solutions batch multiple transactions into a single on-chain transaction, often saving over 99% of gas costs. What do we do when these bundled transactions get close to the new gas cap?

Those efficiency gains would be entirely negated, requiring developers to build much more complicated workarounds. This adds layers of complexity that can introduce new vulnerabilities. We’re focused on scalability, but are we creating additional long-term complexity unnecessarily? As a Japanese investor, I worry how this will affect the Japanese crypto industry, which has been actively exploring Layer-2 solutions.

Manipulation Exploiting the Cap?

Security is a cat-and-mouse game. You fix one vulnerability, and another emerges. As the gas cap was intended to safeguard against DoS attacks, might it have unintentionally introduced new attack vectors?

Consider this: malicious actors might find ways to craft transactions that almost reach the gas cap, effectively clogging the network and driving up gas prices for everyone else. It’s a slippery kind of economic denial-of-service, weaponizing the very mechanism that’s meant to protect us. This case feels a lot like the way Japanese firms pivoted to new requirements. It was their agility that allowed them to develop all of this amazing innovation.

Unexpected Connections – The Butterfly Effect

Here's where things get interesting. This secret gas cap proposal is not merely a matter of security, it's a matter of architectural philosophy. Vitalik’s larger vision, which he’s elaborated on multiple times, is to make the base protocol of Ethereum as simple as possible. He argues that complexity leads to longer development times, higher costs, and greater security vulnerabilities.

Hear me out—what if that complexity is actually the source of Ethereum’s magic? What if making the base layer too simple constrains the choices we can make in those upper layers? It’s the equivalent of removing a few hundred pounds from a Formula 1 car in order to get better fuel economy. You may be doing better on fuel, but you can’t beat someone on the track.

Now think about the chilling effect on all the other, more nascent tech, including ZKPs. Buterin has pointed to zkVM compatibility, specifically, as a justification for the gas cap. But ZKPs, while promising, are notoriously gas-intensive. By placing an arbitrary cap, are we instead killing their growth and success before the seedlings ever have the chance to grow to full potential? It is akin to holding back a prodigiously talented child by weighing him down with excessive restrictions.

The shift to “pluralistic identity” is interesting. This sounds great in theory, but it’s just more complexity that could potentially be added to the ecosystem. How does this play together with the gas cap? If so, how does it impact the viability of different identity management solutions?

This gas cap may be a great intention, however, it is important to take a look at the unintended consequences. It’s counterproductive to address one challenge if we exacerbate ten others in the course of doing so. Let's not allow a seemingly simple security patch to become a Trojan Horse that undermines Ethereum's long-term potential.

  • Is this the right approach to securing Ethereum?
  • Are we sacrificing innovation for the sake of perceived stability?
  • What are the long-term consequences of this decision?
  • Are we truly simplifying, or just sweeping complexity under the rug?
  • How will this affect the Japanese blockchain community?

The gas cap might be a well-intentioned effort, but we need to consider the potential unintended consequences. It's not enough to fix one problem if we create ten more in the process. Let's not allow a seemingly simple security patch to become a Trojan Horse that undermines Ethereum's long-term potential.