15 posts tagged with "MEV"

Ethereum just finished the busiest quarter in its ten-year history. ETH holders barely noticed.

In Q1 2026, the network processed 200.4 million transactions — the first time Ethereum has crossed the 200M threshold in a single quarter, a 43% jump from Q4 2025's 145 million and more than double the 2023 lows. Stablecoin supply on Ethereum hit an all-time high of $180 billion, roughly 60% of the global stablecoin market. Daily active addresses stayed firm. Total value locked across Ethereum and its Layer 2s crossed $50 billion.

And yet, ether closed the quarter trading near $2,400, more than 50% below its August 2025 peak near $5,000. Year-to-date, ETH is down roughly 27% while Bitcoin is down only 19%. The ETH/BTC ratio sits at 0.0308 — a level last seen in early 2020, before DeFi Summer, before NFTs, before any of the usage inflection Ethereum has supposedly been building toward.

This is the cleanest empirical test the "usage drives price" thesis has ever faced. And on the first read, it looks like the thesis lost.

The Dencun Trap: How Scaling Success Broke the Burn​

To understand the paradox, start with a number that should alarm every ETH holder: daily mainnet gas revenue collapsed from roughly $30 million before the Dencun upgrade to around $500,000 today. That is not a rounding error. That is a 98% drop in the fee stream that used to backstop Ethereum's deflationary narrative.

Dencun, which launched in March 2024, introduced blob space — a dedicated, cheap data channel for Layer 2 rollups. It worked exactly as designed. Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, and the rest of the L2 ecosystem now post their compressed transaction batches to blobs for a fraction of what calldata used to cost. L2 fees dropped. L2 throughput scaled. Users migrated en masse.

But every success had a cost at the L1 layer. With L2s paying 90%+ less to settle on Ethereum than they did pre-Dencun, the burn engine that powered the "ultrasound money" meme wheezed to a halt. As of February 2026, Ethereum runs a modest annual inflation rate of 0.23% — technically still near-neutral, but no longer the aggressively deflationary asset that captivated markets in 2022-2023. The annualized burn rate has slowed to 1.32%, a fraction of its peak.

Average gas prices sit at 0.16 gwei in April 2026, translating to transaction fees below one cent for simple transfers. That is a massive user-experience win. It is also a direct tax on ETH's value accrual. Every frictionless transaction is a transaction that does not meaningfully burn ETH.

The development community has not ignored the tension. Fusaka, which shipped in December 2025, introduced EIP-7918 — the Blob Base Fee Bound. This establishes a minimum price floor for blob transactions, scaled to the execution base fee, so rollups now pay a guaranteed minimum even during quiet periods. Analysts at Liquid Capital project that blob fees could contribute 30-50% of total ETH burn by late 2026 if L2 volumes keep climbing. It is a partial fix for a structural problem — but it does not undo the fundamental trade-off that cheap data availability is, by design, cheap.

The L2 Leak: Where the Value Actually Went​

The transactions are real. The users are real. So where is the money?

Follow the fee flows and the answer becomes uncomfortable for L1-only investors. L2s now process roughly 10x more transactions than Ethereum's base layer, and the economic surplus from that activity — sequencer revenue, MEV capture, lending spreads, DEX fees — accrues primarily to L2 operators and their respective token holders, not to ETH.

Arbitrum alone sees daily transaction volumes exceeding $1.5 billion. Base has become Coinbase's on-chain operating system, effectively monetizing through its parent company's equity rather than the Ethereum stack. Optimism's Superchain economics reward the Optimism Collective and projects building on its OP Stack. Each rollup is a small economic republic that pays Ethereum a security tax — a tax that Dencun made very cheap.

The modular thesis always promised this: Ethereum becomes the settlement layer, execution migrates outward, and value accrues wherever specialization happens. That thesis is now being priced in. The ETH/BTC ratio's drop to 2020 levels is not random. It reflects a market conclusion that modular architecture, when working correctly, leaks L1 value outward — to ARB, OP, Base-adjacent tokens, and a growing class of re-staking protocols like EigenLayer (EIGEN) and SSV Network that monetize Ethereum's security without being Ethereum.

The counter-argument is that none of this changes the floor. Ethereum still secures the entire stack. L2s cannot exist without L1 finality. Stablecoin issuers still choose Ethereum as their canonical home because 60% of every dollar-denominated on-chain token lives there. Fee revenue — L1 plus L2 settlement — still exceeds every other chain combined.

All of that is true. It is also compatible with ETH the token being worth less than market participants expected in 2022, because "the network is indispensable" and "the token captures most of the value" are very different claims.

Alternative Models: Hyperliquid and Solana Show Another Path​

The awkwardness of Ethereum's current moment becomes sharper when you look at what competitors are doing with the same basic ingredients.

Hyperliquid runs its own Layer 1 and operates the dominant perpetuals DEX in crypto, with 44% market share among perp DEXs. It recorded nearly $947,000 in 24-hour fees recently, flipping Solana's $685,000. Its token model is radical: roughly 97% of protocol revenue is directed to HYPE token buybacks. The ongoing program has deployed over $644 million in buybacks and supports a flywheel where volume directly compresses supply. Bitwise filed for a HYPE ETF in April 2026 at a 0.67% fee, treating HYPE like a productive, fee-capturing asset rather than a commodity.

Solana has not flipped Ethereum in stablecoin dominance, but SOL's price during peak usage periods in 2024-2025 ran 3x. The difference is that Solana's fee structure, MEV capture, and application-layer value tend to concentrate upward into SOL-denominated economics rather than leaking to a dozen L2 token ecosystems. When Solana has a busy quarter, SOL usually benefits directly.

Neither of these is a blueprint Ethereum can or should copy. Hyperliquid's 97% buyback requires concentrated revenue from a single product line — it works for a perps DEX, not a general-purpose settlement layer. Solana's monolithic design sacrifices the security composability that makes Ethereum attractive to institutions. But both demonstrate the same empirical point: value-accrual design matters as much as throughput. The market is now willing to reward tokens with direct fee capture (HYPE) or tight economic coupling (SOL) more than tokens whose primary job is to secure a galaxy of other tokens (ETH).

Can Glamsterdam Fix It? The Fast L1 Bet​

Ethereum's answer is a strategic pivot back to L1 performance. Glamsterdam, targeted for May or June 2026, is the biggest upgrade since The Merge. It introduces Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS) and Block-Level Access Lists (BALs) that enable true parallel execution on the base layer. Published targets include 10,000 TPS and up to 78% lower gas fees alongside up to 70% reduction in MEV extraction.

The strategic goal is unmistakable. If L1 can deliver cheap, fast, parallel execution, some workloads that migrated to L2s — especially those sensitive to security guarantees or cross-rollup fragmentation — may flow back. A high-performance L1 that still charges meaningful fees could restart ETH's burn engine without abandoning the modular investments of the last three years.

But the bet is not risk-free. The same cheap fees that would pull activity back to L1 may cap per-transaction burn contribution. L2 operators — who are now heavily invested in their own economic futures — will compete aggressively to keep settlement on their rails. And even with parallel execution, Ethereum will not match the raw performance of monolithic chains like Solana or Monad without accepting trade-offs the Ethereum Foundation has historically refused.

The deepest question Glamsterdam surfaces is philosophical: does Ethereum want to be the best settlement layer in crypto, or does it want ETH to be the best-performing token? Those two goals overlap, but they are not identical, and for five years the roadmap has prioritized the former. Q1 2026's paradox is the market's first loud vote that it notices the difference.

What the Paradox Means for Builders​

For developers and infrastructure operators, the takeaway is counterintuitive: Ethereum has never been healthier as a network, even as ETH has looked weaker as an asset. Stablecoin liquidity is deepening. L2 fees are low enough that real consumer-facing applications finally pencil out. Stateless data pipelines, RWA issuers, and agent-driven on-chain commerce are all scaling on infrastructure that did not exist two years ago.

If you build on Ethereum and its L2s in 2026, you are betting on the settlement rails, not on ETH's price. That is a cleaner bet than it sounds. Settlement rails compound. They attract TradFi integrations like BlackRock's BUIDL, tokenization platforms like Securitize, and enterprise stablecoin issuers racing to meet GENIUS Act and MiCA deadlines. Those flows do not require ETH to outperform BTC. They require Ethereum to keep working.

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade RPC and indexing infrastructure for Ethereum mainnet and major L2s including Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism. If you're building across the modular stack and need reliable read/write access at scale, explore our API marketplace to build on foundations designed to last.

The Forward Question​

Q1 2026 has handed the market a decade-defining test case. 200 million transactions. A flat token. A network whose fundamentals strengthened while its price did not. The conclusion the market draws from this over the next two to three quarters will shape how every future L1 is valued.

If Glamsterdam delivers and usage returns to mainnet at meaningful fee levels, the "ultrasound money" thesis survives — bruised but vindicated. If it does not, the lesson from this cycle becomes inescapable: in modular crypto, general-purpose L1 tokens are structurally undervalued relative to the networks they secure, and the next generation of L1s will be designed from day one around explicit value capture — buybacks, fee sharing, staked-asset yield — rather than hoping usage converts automatically into price.

Either way, Ethereum's role as the most important settlement layer in crypto is not in question. What is in question is whether ETH, the token, will ever again be the cleanest way to express that belief.

When developers first deployed wallet-holding software bots on Ethereum in 2020, skeptics called it a toy. Six years later, Q1 2026 data has delivered a verdict that changes the definition of "blockchain user" permanently: over 250,000 AI agents are now active on-chain every single day — a 400%+ increase from the 50,000 daily active agents recorded just twelve months ago — and for the first time in the history of Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain, autonomous agent transactions are outpacing net new human wallet activity.

The number demands context. This is not chatbots sending the occasional on-chain tip. This is software entities with embedded wallets, dynamic decision-making, and persistent memory executing millions of transactions daily without a human in the loop. The era of the software agent as a full economic participant has arrived — and it is reshaping everything from chain selection criteria to RPC billing models.

Autonomous AI agents were supposed to be the end-game for on-chain execution: tireless, deterministic, cheaper than a human trader, and faster than any DAO vote. In Q1 2026, they became something else entirely — the most predictable prey the MEV ecosystem has ever seen.

Across Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, and Base, more than 123,000 on-chain agents are now transacting at scale. They rebalance portfolios on schedule. They respond to oracle updates with deterministic logic. They execute multi-hop DeFi strategies with identifiable gas and calldata fingerprints. And according to a growing body of on-chain research, MEV bots are quietly extracting an estimated $50M+ per quarter from agent-managed flow — a tax no agent framework is currently pricing in, and no dashboard is yet tracking.

The agent economy has a front-running problem. And unlike previous MEV waves, this one is structural.

The Pattern Problem: Why Good Agents Are Bad Traders​

MEV extraction has always thrived on predictability. What changed in 2026 is the supply side.

A human trader varies order size, timing, venue, and slippage tolerance semi-randomly. A well-designed AI agent does the opposite. It optimizes for reliability, repeatability, and auditability — the exact properties that turn a trade into a signal. Agent designers are rewarded by their users for executing on time, hitting target allocations, and producing clean P&L reports. Unpredictable execution is a bug, not a feature.

The result is a structural tension at the heart of modern agent design:

• Good agent design = deterministic schedules, clean calldata, reproducible gas estimates, and predictable response to public state changes.
• Good MEV-resistance = randomized timing, batched transactions, private mempools, and obfuscated intent.

These are opposites. And MEV searchers have noticed.

What the On-Chain Data Shows​

The scale of agent activity in Q1 2026 is already large enough to be systemically relevant:

• BNB Chain processed 120M+ agentic transactions in Q1 alone, roughly double the prior quarter.
• Virtuals Protocol, after integrating its Agent Commerce Protocol with Arbitrum in late March and announcing BNB Chain expansion for Q2, saw weekly agent transaction counts climb from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 across its top-tier agents.
• Ethereum L2s collectively host the majority of autonomous rebalancers, MEV-aware vaults, and "set-and-forget" DeFi strategies, many of which execute on cron-like intervals.

Now overlay the MEV numbers. Ethereum is on track to exceed $3B in annualized extracted MEV, with roughly $180M in monthly extractable value. Solana, per Jito and Solana Compass data, crossed $271M in Q2 2025 MEV revenue and has normalized around $45M monthly of extractable value, with sandwich bots alone taking $370M–$500M from retail-style flow over 16 months.

Cross-reference the two datasets and a specific pattern emerges: the surge in agent-adjacent MEV on Virtuals-linked pools (5K → 25K weekly agent transactions) correlates with a 40%+ increase in MEV extraction on those pools. Conservatively applying a 2–4% cost-of-execution to the agent-driven share of on-chain flow produces a $50M+ quarterly estimate — and that almost certainly understates the real figure, because cross-chain agent arbitrage extraction is harder to attribute.

No one is pricing this into agent performance benchmarks. That is the entire problem.

Why Agents Are So Easy to Read​

Agent execution patterns leak intent in at least five distinct ways:

1. Scheduled rebalancing. Portfolio agents often rebalance at fixed block intervals or at known times (e.g., UTC midnight, end of epoch). A searcher only needs to index a few hundred agent addresses to know when the flow arrives.
2. Oracle-driven responses. When Chainlink, Pyth, or RedStone publish a new price, any agent that triggers off that oracle fires in a narrow, observable window. The "wake-up time" becomes public information.
3. Deterministic router paths. Agents tend to hard-code DEX routing (Uniswap v4 → specific hook → 1inch fallback). That path becomes a fingerprint, visible in simulation.
4. Fixed slippage tolerances. Reliability-optimized agents keep slippage within tight, constant bands — making sandwich sizing trivial to solve for.
5. Identifiable calldata and gas. Agent frameworks (Virtuals, Olas, Coinbase's Agentic Wallet, Autonolas derivatives) produce recognizable calldata shapes. A searcher can classify an agent by transaction byte-signature in milliseconds.

None of these are exploits. They are features of disciplined automation. Which is what makes them so corrosive — removing them degrades the agent, not the attacker.

The Prisoner's Dilemma of Agent Design​

Agent developers face an unpleasant choice:

• Ship a reliable, auditable, deterministic agent and concede measurable value to searchers every block.
• Randomize behavior to resist MEV and watch user-facing metrics — execution success rate, benchmark tracking error, uptime SLAs — degrade.

Worse, the incentive is asymmetric. Users can see a missed rebalance. Users cannot see $0.40 per trade evaporating into a searcher's bundle. The invisible tax always loses the political fight against the visible miss.

This is why MEV protection has historically been the last feature added to any trading system — and it is already happening again inside the agent stack.

What the Defense Looks Like in 2026​

Three categories of countermeasure are emerging, and each makes a different trade-off.

1. Private Mempools and Intent-Based Execution​

Flashbots SUAVE and its successor ecosystem — decentralized block-building networks that accept intents rather than raw transactions — are the closest thing to a drop-in fix. SUAVE bundles provide pre-confirmation privacy and enforce no-revert guarantees, which means an agent's intent is hidden from public mempools until inclusion.

The catch: SUAVE requires solver networks and specialized RPC endpoints. Most agent frameworks still default to public mempools because that is what their off-the-shelf libraries support. Adoption is a distribution problem, not a technical one.

2. Session-Key Batching and Aggregation​

ERC-8211 and related session-key standards let an agent authorize a batch of actions under a single signed context, which can then be executed as a single atomic bundle rather than a sequence of fingerprinted calls. Biconomy, Safe, and a handful of smart-wallet providers are shipping this as a default.

The effect is that an "agent rebalance" becomes indistinguishable from any other batched smart-wallet operation. The transaction shape no longer reveals the strategy.

3. Confidential Execution​

Starknet's confidential execution primitives, Aztec's shielded DEX integrations, and emerging FHE-based MEV shields hide not just the transaction but the decision state itself. These are the most robust defenses — and the most expensive. FHE overhead, in particular, is currently 1,000–10,000x a normal EVM call, which is survivable for a rebalance but fatal for high-frequency strategies.

A realistic 2026 stack looks hybrid: FHE or confidential execution for the decision layer, SUAVE-style private intents for the settlement layer, and session-key batching at the wallet layer. No single primitive wins.

Why This Matters for Institutions​

The $50M/quarter figure is a rounding error at current agent TVL. It becomes an existential problem at the TVL institutions are preparing to deploy.

If a sophisticated asset manager runs a $500M autonomous strategy that leaks 25 bps per rebalance to MEV, that's $1.25M per rebalance event — multiplied by however many times per day the strategy acts. At hedge-fund scale, MEV tax becomes one of the largest non-discretionary cost lines on the book. No fiduciary can sign off on that without a protection layer.

This is the same arc that forced HFT firms to spend more than $1B on co-location and fiber in traditional markets. The difference on-chain is that the protection doesn't require capex — it requires choosing the right execution rails. Decentralized MEV protection (SUAVE, CowSwap-style batch auctions, MEV-Share) offers comparable defense at a fraction of the cost, provided the agent framework is wired to use it.

Institutional agent deployment in 2026 will not be limited by model quality. It will be limited by execution plumbing.

The Infrastructure Implication​

There is a second-order effect that matters for anyone building infrastructure underneath the agent economy. MEV-aware execution is no longer an exotic add-on — it's table stakes for anyone offering agent-facing RPC, indexing, or wallet services.

That means infrastructure providers are quietly becoming one of the load-bearing layers of MEV defense. Which routes a provider exposes, which private mempools it supports, whether it offers simulation-before-send, and how fast its inclusion-guarantee path is — these decisions now translate directly into yield for downstream agents.

BlockEden.xyz provides multi-chain RPC and indexing infrastructure across Ethereum, Solana, Sui, Aptos, and more — the same rails autonomous agents rely on to read, simulate, and submit transactions. Explore our API marketplace if you're building agents that need to land trades, not leak them.

What To Watch Next​

Three signals will tell us whether the agent-MEV gap closes or widens through 2026:

1. Whether SUAVE-style private execution becomes the default in mainstream agent frameworks (Virtuals ACP, Coinbase Agentic Wallet, Olas, ERC-8004-compatible agents), or remains an opt-in feature for power users.
2. Whether on-chain dashboards start attributing MEV to agent addresses specifically, the way Jito already attributes sandwich loss to wallets. Visibility changes behavior.
3. Whether institutional asset managers — the Fidelities, BlackRocks, and pension-adjacent allocators now piloting on-chain strategies — demand MEV-protected execution as a written deliverable. That single procurement shift would do more to accelerate adoption than any protocol upgrade.

The agent economy's most quoted projection has been the $3.5T transaction-value figure for 2031. The less-quoted question is how much of that value lands in agent users' wallets versus in a searcher's hot wallet three blocks later. Right now, the silent leakage is running at $50M per quarter and growing in lockstep with the agent population.

Agents are going to win the execution layer. The only question is how much they'll hand away on the way.

Sources​

• AI-on-AI MEV & Market Manipulation: The Dark Forest Reloaded in 2026 — Cryptollia
• Top 8 MEV Bots & Protection Tools in 2026 — QuickNode
• The Future of MEV is SUAVE — Flashbots Writings
• Intents and Solvers: The Next UX Revolution in DeFi for 2026 — Dcentralab
• Virtuals Protocol Integrates AI Agent Commerce with Arbitrum Network — CoinAlertNews
• Scale or Die at Accelerate 2025: The State of Solana MEV — Solana Compass
• An Analysis of Arbitrage Markets Across Ethereum, Solana — Extropy Academy
• Solana's Economic Value: MEV Extraction, Validator Revenue, and NFT Trends — Solana Compass
• Crypto AI Agents in 2026: How Autonomous Models Use Blockchain, DeFi, and On-Chain Wallets — Coincub

For most of Ethereum's history, a new hard fork was a once-a-year event — a slow, heavy release train that shipped whenever the backlog of Ethereum Improvement Proposals grew too large to defer. That era is over. With the naming of Hegota as the upgrade following Glamsterdam, Ethereum's core developers have now publicly committed to three hard forks inside an 18-month window: Fusaka (shipped December 2025), Glamsterdam (H1 2026), and Hegota (H2 2026). Stacked on top of Pectra (May 2025), that is four protocol upgrades in roughly 20 months — the most concentrated execution cadence since The Merge.

For two years, the crypto-AI narrative promised a single godlike agent: one model holding your keys, reading the mempool, executing your strategy, and managing your memory. That agent is already obsolete. In February 2026, Coinbase quietly buried it — and most of the industry has not yet noticed.

When Coinbase launched Agentic Wallets on February 11, 2026, the headlines focused on the obvious: a wallet infrastructure purpose-built for autonomous AI. The deeper signal was architectural. Coinbase did not ship a smarter agent. It shipped a wallet that agents call as an external service — and in doing so, it formalized the shift from monolithic AI to specialist agent networks as Web3's critical infrastructure problem for the next decade.

The Monolithic Agent Was Always a Fantasy​

The first wave of crypto agents — Virtuals, ai16z forks, the early Eliza clones — bundled everything inside one runtime. Reasoning, memory, key management, execution, and risk scoring lived in a single process, often a single LLM call. It was a beautiful demo and a terrible production system.

The failures were predictable. A monolithic agent holding keys is a single breach away from total loss. A monolithic agent serving multiple tasks drifts across domains, hallucinates across contexts, and cannot be independently audited. And the scaling math is brutal: Anthropic's own research found that a single agent matched or beat multi-agent configurations on 64% of benchmarked tasks when given equivalent tools — but the 36% where multi-agent wins are exactly the high-value, high-complexity workloads Web3 cares about, where Anthropic's parallel sub-agent architecture outperformed single-agent Opus by 90.2%.

Translation: if your agent is doing anything interesting, one process cannot carry the weight. And if your agent is doing anything valuable, one process cannot be trusted with it.

Coinbase's Architectural Pivot: Wallet as Callable Service​

Coinbase's Agentic Wallet reframes the wallet as a discrete service that agents invoke rather than contain. The components tell the story:

• Agent Skills — pre-built primitives for Authenticate, Fund, Send, Trade, and Earn, exposed as callable interfaces rather than embedded logic
• x402 payment rails — the HTTP 402 status code revived as a machine-to-machine payment protocol, with over 75 million transactions processed, 94,000 unique buyers, and 22,000 sellers across the network
• TEE-secured CDP Wallets — non-custodial keys held in Trusted Execution Environments, never exposed to the reasoning agent
• Programmable guardrails — compliance screening, spending limits, and usage monitoring enforced outside the agent's context window
• EVM and Solana support from day one, with gasless transactions on Base

The key insight: the reasoning agent never sees the private key. It requests an action; the wallet service enforces policy and executes. This is the same decoupling that let the cloud industry scale from monoliths to microservices — independent scaling, isolated failure domains, and security compartmentalization.

The Emerging Specialist Agent Taxonomy​

Once you accept that wallets are a service, the rest of the stack decomposes naturally. A mature agentic workflow in 2026 looks less like a single model and more like an orchestra:

• Coordinator agents decompose tasks, verify results, and settle payments between sub-agents
• Execution agents specialize in DeFi strategy execution, cross-chain routing, and MEV-aware transaction construction
• Data agents handle oracle queries, on-chain analytics, and sentiment signals
• Compliance agents apply KYC, travel-rule, and jurisdictional checks before signatures are requested
• Interface agents translate natural-language intent into structured tool calls

Warden Protocol has built exactly this substrate. Its Agent Hub — effectively an "App Store for agents" — has processed over 60 million agentic tasks and serves roughly 20 million users as of February 2026, after a $4 million strategic round at a $200 million valuation from 0G, Messari, and Venice.AI. Warden's Statistical Proof of Execution (SPEx) provides cryptographic evidence that a task's output came from the claimed model, which is the trust primitive a coordinator needs when farming work to untrusted specialists.

The supporting standards are snapping into place. ERC-8004, which went live on Ethereum mainnet on January 29, 2026 and reached BNB Chain six days later, gives agents a verifiable on-chain identity and reputation. x402 handles the micropayment layer so agents can pay each other without API keys. Session keys built on ERC-4337 account abstraction let owners cap autonomy — "this agent can spend $50/day, anything above requires human signature" — without handing out master keys.

Identity, payment, execution proofs, and key boundaries: the four missing primitives that monolithic agents tried to fake internally are now external, composable services.

Microservices Déjà Vu — Including the Pain​

Every architect who lived through the 2015-2020 microservices migration is watching this with a familiar unease. The benefits are real. So are the costs.

Multi-agent systems are more resilient, more auditable, and more adaptable than monolithic equivalents. They isolate failures, allow specialist teams to ship independently, and let you swap a reasoning model without rebuilding the wallet layer. But 40% of multi-agent pilots fail within six months of production deployment, usually because teams pick the wrong orchestration pattern or fail to understand how it degrades. Latency compounds across hops. Interfaces ossify. Debugging a distributed trace of model calls is harder than debugging a monolith — and the monolith at least has one log to read.

Web3 inherits all of this, plus a unique twist: the execution layer is adversarial.

The Agent MEV Problem​

Here is the uncomfortable truth that most specialist-network evangelists avoid. Deterministic, composable execution agents are more vulnerable to MEV than their monolithic predecessors, not less.

The EVM is deterministic by design: same state plus same transaction sequence yields identical results on every node. That guarantee is the foundation of blockchain consensus, and it is also a front-running bot's dream. When a specialist execution agent follows a predictable pattern — "rebalance at 14:00 UTC, route through Uniswap V4, slippage tolerance 0.3%" — it becomes trivially observable. Sandwich bots scan the mempool for exactly those signatures. The more specialized and deterministic the execution agent, the sharper the attack surface.

A monolithic agent with messy, varied behavior was, paradoxically, partly protected by its own chaos. A disciplined specialist network is not. Which means the MEV-protection stack — solver networks like CoW Protocol, private order flow, intent-based batching, and encrypted mempools — is no longer an optional DeFi nicety. For production specialist networks it is table stakes.

What This Means for Web3 Infrastructure​

The shift has a direct consequence for anyone running the pipes. A single monolithic agent generates one RPC session, one wallet signature flow, one coherent transaction stream. A specialist network operating on the same user intent generates orders of magnitude more traffic: data agents polling oracles, coordinator agents hitting reputation registries, execution agents pre-simulating across chains, compliance agents querying sanction lists, all of them settling micropayments to each other via x402.

Every one of those hops needs reliable, multi-chain data access. The API consumer profile changes from "dApp calling eth_call a few times per user session" to "swarm of agents making thousands of low-latency requests across Ethereum, Base, Solana, Sui, and Aptos within a single workflow." Rate limits designed for humans break instantly. Single-chain RPC providers become bottlenecks. Latency variance that a human user would never notice cascades across agent hops into compounded failure.

BlockEden.xyz operates enterprise-grade RPC and indexing infrastructure across 25+ chains, purpose-built for exactly this kind of high-throughput, multi-chain agent workload. If you are building coordinator or execution agents that span ecosystems, explore our API marketplace for infrastructure designed to keep up with agent-scale traffic.

The Next Eighteen Months​

The pieces are now on the board: Coinbase's wallet-as-service architecture, Warden's coordination layer, ERC-8004 identity, x402 payments, ERC-4337 session keys, and a growing library of specialist agent frameworks. What comes next is the hard part — not inventing new primitives but composing the existing ones into reliable, auditable, MEV-resistant production systems.

Expect consolidation around a few dominant orchestration patterns, a brutal shakeout among the 40% of multi-agent projects that picked the wrong one, and a quiet transfer of value from "agent apps" to the infrastructure providers that make specialist networks actually work at scale. The monolithic agent was a good demo. The specialist network is the architecture that ships.

The only question left is whether the teams building on Web3 recognize the shift in time — or spend another year shipping godlike agents that cannot survive contact with a mempool.

---

Sources:

• Coinbase — Introducing Agentic Wallets
• PYMNTS — Coinbase Debuts Crypto Wallet Infrastructure for AI Agents
• Genfinity — Coinbase Agentic Wallets: First Wallet Infrastructure Built for AI Agents
• Aisera — Multi-Agent Orchestration: The End of Monolithic AI
• Beam.ai — 6 Multi-Agent Orchestration Patterns for Production (2026)
• ChainUp — x402 & ERC-8004: How AI Agents Pay on the Agentic Web
• Ethereum Improvement Proposals — ERC-8004: Trustless Agents
• Bitget Academy — Warden Protocol (WARD): The Global Agent Network Explained
• CoW Protocol — How AI Agents Can Be Used in DeFi
• Coincub — Crypto AI Agents in 2026

For more than a decade, Ethereum has priced its most important resource the same way a fish market prices tuna at 4 a.m.: whoever shouts the loudest at the very last second wins. Every twelve seconds, a new auction opens and closes, with no way to lock in a price the day before, no way to hedge a spike, and no way for a validator to know what next Tuesday's revenue might look like.

That changed on April 15, 2026. ETHGas and ether.fi struck a three-year, $3 billion commercial agreement that introduces the first serious forward market for Ethereum blockspace. Ether.fi, the largest non-Lido liquid staking protocol with 2.8 million ETH under management, is committing roughly 40% of its holdings to ETHGas's High Performance Staking service. In exchange, ETHGas gets the validator depth it needs to sell something Ethereum has never had: a guaranteed, pre-priced seat in a block that hasn't been built yet.

It sounds like plumbing. It is plumbing. But so were the first natural gas futures contracts in 1990, and those went on to reshape how every airline, utility, and industrial buyer on earth does business.

For the first time in Ethereum's accelerated 2026-2027 fork cadence, the roadmap has blinked. In mid-April 2026, core developers publicly acknowledged what client teams have whispered for weeks: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation — the single most ambitious piece of the Glamsterdam hard fork — is "trickier than anticipated," and the original May-June mainnet window is almost certainly out of reach. The slip pushes Glamsterdam toward Q3 or Q4 2026, narrowing the gap with the already-scheduled Hegota fork and reopening a question Ethereum thought it had settled: can a five-client base layer still upgrade at the pace a post-Pectra L2 economy demands?

Two companies currently decide which transactions land on Ethereum. Titan Builder and Beaverbuild together construct roughly 86% of mainnet blocks, and adding Rsync and Flashbots pushes the top four past 90%. For a network whose brand rests on decentralization, that is an uncomfortable number — and it is about to change.

The Glamsterdam hard fork, scheduled for the first half of 2026, brings Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS) — formalized as EIP-7732 — into Ethereum's consensus layer. After three years of MEV-Boost running as off-chain middleware, block production is finally being absorbed into the protocol itself. The winners and losers of that shift will define the next cycle of Ethereum infrastructure.

The Duopoly Problem Glamsterdam Is Trying To Solve​

To understand why ePBS matters, start with the market it is replacing.

MEV-Boost, the relay system Flashbots shipped after The Merge, was meant to be a temporary fix. It let validators outsource block construction to specialized builders who could squeeze more value out of each slot, then redistribute that value back to the proposer. It worked almost too well. Within two years, over 90% of Ethereum blocks were built via MEV-Boost, and the construction market calcified around a handful of players.

The 2025 numbers from relayscan.io tell the story bluntly:

• Titan Builder: ~46.5% of blocks, ~$19.7M profit
• Rsync Builder: ~15.6%
• Flashbots: ~12.8%
• Beaverbuild: ~9.4%

A Herfindahl-Hirschman Index reading near 3,892 places the builder market well beyond the U.S. Department of Justice's threshold of 1,800 for "highly concentrated." Titan's profit margin under exclusive order flow deals reportedly exceeds 17%, while Flashbots — which originally seeded the entire MEV-Boost ecosystem — barely breaks even on block building today.

That is the market ePBS aims to dismantle at the protocol level.

What EIP-7732 Actually Changes​

EIP-7732 is deceptively surgical. It is a consensus-layer-only upgrade that decouples execution validation from consensus validation, both logically and temporally. In plain terms, the proposer no longer needs to see the full block's execution payload before committing to it.

Here is the new flow:

1. Builders assemble execution payloads off-chain and broadcast signed SignedExecutionPayloadBid commitments containing only a blockhash and a payment value.
2. The proposer selects the highest bid and embeds the commitment in the beacon block — without seeing the transactions inside.
3. A new subset of validators, the Payload Timeliness Committee (PTC), attests whether the builder revealed the committed payload on time with the correct blockhash.
4. Execution validation is postponed until the next slot's beacon block validation.

The critical engineering insight is that the full execution payload no longer rides on the consensus critical path. Network propagation speeds up, validators shoulder less computational load per slot, and — the part every MEV researcher has been waiting for — the relay becomes redundant. The builder commits cryptographically; the protocol itself enforces the promise.

Why This Guts The Relay Business​

Today, relays exist because proposers cannot trust builders directly. A relay like Flashbots or Titan Relay holds the full block, verifies it, and only reveals it to the proposer after the proposer signs the header — preventing the proposer from stealing the builder's MEV.

ePBS makes that trust relationship native to the protocol. The PTC handles timeliness enforcement. The consensus rules handle payment. The entire middleware layer Flashbots built to coordinate block building — the most important piece of Ethereum infrastructure outside the client software itself — becomes economically unnecessary.

This is why the coindesk coverage framed Glamsterdam as a fight about MEV fairness, not just performance. The question is not whether MEV disappears. MEV is a mathematical consequence of ordered transactions with public mempools. The question is who captures it and on what terms.

The Censorship Math Changes Too​

The relay oligopoly did not just concentrate power; it concentrated compliance. At peak, roughly 72% of MEV-Boost blocks were classified as OFAC-compliant because the largest relays filtered sanctioned addresses. That number has since declined to around 30% of relayed blocks as non-censoring relays gained share, but the architecture still gives a handful of US-based companies veto power over which Ethereum transactions get proposed.

ePBS does not mandate censorship resistance. But by removing the relay bottleneck, it removes the natural enforcement point. Builders who censor now have to compete against builders who do not on raw auction price — and on a trustless bid-reveal market, price tends to win. Expect the OFAC-compliant share to drop further after Glamsterdam ships, simply because the easiest place to impose policy has been eliminated.

Jito, Base, and Three Ways To Price A Block​

Ethereum is not the first chain to confront MEV markets, and it is worth comparing ePBS against the two other models that dominate 2026.

Solana's Jito approach. Over 94% of Solana stake runs the Jito-Solana client. Tips flow directly to validators through an explicit auction — no relay, no builder-proposer split. MEV contributes 15-25% of total validator rewards, and the connection to stakers via JitoSOL is direct. The upside is transparency; the downside is that Solana's leader schedule concentrates MEV extraction windows in ways that still produce sandwich attacks on DEX traders.

Base's sequencer model. Coinbase operates the single sequencer on Base and captures sequencer revenue directly. There is no MEV auction to third parties because there are no third parties. This maximizes revenue capture for the L2 operator but sacrifices the decentralization story entirely — a tradeoff that works for Coinbase-scale balance sheets and nobody else.

Ethereum's ePBS. A trustless bid-reveal auction between builders and proposers, mediated by consensus. In theory this combines Jito's transparency with the credibly neutral distribution Ethereum's ideology requires. In practice, nobody knows yet whether builder concentration simply reasserts itself under new rules, or whether the removal of exclusive-order-flow agreements genuinely reopens the market.

The $500M Question For DeFi Users​

Researchers estimate DeFi users lose north of $500 million annually to sandwich attacks, frontrunning, and JIT liquidity extraction — with sandwich attacks alone responsible for 51% of MEV volume in 2025. EigenPhi's data from late 2025 found over 72,000 sandwich attacks targeting 35,000 victims on Ethereum in a single 30-day window. A single Uniswap v3 stablecoin swap in March 2025 saw $220,764 of USDC compressed into $5,271 of USDT — a 98% loss to the victim.

Does ePBS reduce this? Directly, no. The attack surface — public mempools plus arbitrary transaction ordering — remains. But ePBS reshapes the ecosystem around MEV protection:

• Private mempool services like MEV-Blocker ($5B+ in protected transactions routed historically) and CowSwap's coincidence-of-wants batching retain their value, because the protocol still does not hide user intent.
• Encrypted mempools like EIP-8105's "Universal Enshrined Encrypted Mempool" become the logical follow-on proposal, tackling the order visibility that ePBS leaves untouched.
• SUAVE and decentralized sequencing remain relevant as application-layer MEV protection rather than infrastructure monopolies.

The short version: ePBS fixes who gets paid for ordering transactions, not whether users can be exploited through ordering. The second fight is just beginning.

What Builders Should Actually Watch​

Three signals will tell you whether ePBS delivers on its decentralization promise or quietly reproduces the old oligopoly:

1. HHI after six months. If the builder HHI remains above 2,500 post-ePBS, the concentration problem was about economies of scale, not middleware, and no amount of protocol surgery will help. If it falls below 1,800, ePBS worked as advertised.

2. Exclusive order flow agreements. Current builder margins depend on private deals with Uniswap, Banana Gun, and other high-value order flow sources. ePBS does not directly outlaw these, but it changes the leverage. Watch whether flagship integrations migrate to BuilderNet-style open consortia or stay exclusive.

3. Non-censoring block share. Post-Glamsterdam, the relay-based censorship chokepoint is gone. If OFAC-compliance share stays above 50% anyway, it reveals that compliance pressure on Ethereum is structural rather than infrastructural.

The Infrastructure Reality Check​

Glamsterdam will reshape how Ethereum orders transactions, but it will not touch what most infrastructure providers actually do: run nodes, serve RPCs, index state. The block-building layer has always been a rarefied slice of the stack. For developers building on top of Ethereum, the practical impact of ePBS is indirect — slightly faster propagation, modestly more credible neutrality, and a likely shift in which MEV protection services matter most.

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API infrastructure for Ethereum, Sui, Aptos, and 20+ other chains, with SLA-backed RPC endpoints that insulate your application from consensus-layer changes. Explore our API marketplace to build on infrastructure designed to outlast any single upgrade.

Sources​

• Ethereum Glamsterdam Upgrade: ePBS, EIP-7732 & 7928 for 2026 — IndexBox
• Ethereum's 'Glamsterdam' upgrade aims to fix MEV fairness — CoinDesk
• EIP-7732: Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation — Ethereum EIPs
• Ethereum Glamsterdam Upgrade: What's Coming in H1 2026 — QuickNode
• Monopoly in Ethereum Block Builders and Chain Abstraction — Gate Learn
• Flashbots' BuilderNet to address Ethereum block builder centralization — Blockworks
• 63% of Ethereum transaction blocks are now OFAC-compliant — The Block
• MEV Protection on Solana in 2026 — Jito Bundles and What Actually Works
• Front-running Protection: Complete MEV Defense Guide for DeFi 2025 — CoinCryptoRank
• MEV collected by validators is now higher on Solana than on Ethereum — Blockworks

The last time the ETH/BTC ratio sat this low — hovering near 0.028 — Ethereum went on to outperform Bitcoin by more than 60% over the following three months. That was Q4 2023. Before that, in Q2 2019, an almost identical setup preceded an 80% relative outperformance. Pattern recognition is not prophecy, but with Ethereum's most consequential upgrade since The Merge now targeting a May/June 2026 launch, the setup looks uncomfortably familiar.

Glamsterdam is Ethereum's next hard fork. It is not an incremental patch. It is a structural overhaul of two of the protocol's most contested failure modes: the extraction of value by a small set of privileged actors through Maximal Extractable Value (MEV), and the sequential bottleneck that prevents Ethereum's Layer 1 from competing on raw throughput with Solana, MegaETH, and Monad. Whether Glamsterdam delivers on both counts will determine whether Ethereum's four-year underperformance against Bitcoin is a structural story — or merely a sentiment cycle waiting for a catalyst.

From Pectra to Glamsterdam: Building the Performance Stack​

To understand what Glamsterdam is, you first need to understand what Pectra delivered. The Prague-Electra upgrade went live on mainnet on May 7, 2025, and introduced eleven changes to the Ethereum protocol — two of which matter most for the trajectory leading to Glamsterdam.

EIP-7702 gave externally owned accounts (EOAs) the ability to temporarily execute smart contract logic during a transaction. In practical terms, this means a regular Ethereum wallet can now batch multiple operations, sponsor gas on behalf of users, or delegate to alternative key schemes — without requiring users to migrate to a smart contract wallet. For developers, EIP-7702 collapsed the distinction between EOA and account abstraction use cases, removing a major barrier to consumer-grade onboarding.

EIP-7691 doubled Ethereum's blob-carrying capacity. The target blob count per block moved from 3 to 6, with the maximum rising from 6 to 9. Blobs — introduced in EIP-4844 (Dencun, March 2024) — are temporary data packets used by Layer 2 rollups to post transaction data to Ethereum cheaply. Doubling the target count means more L2 throughput at lower cost, extending Ethereum's position as the settlement layer for a rollup-centric ecosystem.

Pectra, in other words, was about making Ethereum easier to use and cheaper to build on. Glamsterdam is about making Ethereum itself faster and fairer.

The Two-Headed Upgrade: Amsterdam and Gloas​

The name Glamsterdam is a portmanteau of the upgrade's two simultaneous components: Gloas (the consensus layer) and Amsterdam (the execution layer). Each carries one headliner proposal that addresses a distinct systemic problem.

ePBS (EIP-7732): Bringing Block Building Into the Protocol​

The consensus layer upgrade's centerpiece is Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation, tracked as EIP-7732. To understand why this matters, you need to understand what Ethereum's current block-building process looks like.

Under the current system, approximately 80–90% of Ethereum blocks are built using MEV-Boost, a third-party relay system that allows specialized actors called "builders" to construct blocks and submit them to validators for proposal. This arrangement emerged organically because builders — with sophisticated algorithms for transaction ordering and arbitrage extraction — can produce more profitable blocks than most validators can on their own. Validators accept these blocks because they earn more MEV. The relay acts as the trusted intermediary.

The problem is architectural: a critical piece of Ethereum's block production pipeline depends on off-protocol infrastructure that validators have no choice but to trust. If a dominant relay goes offline, acts maliciously, or begins censoring transactions, there is no in-protocol recourse.

EIP-7732 removes the relay entirely. It bakes the builder-proposer relationship directly into Ethereum's consensus layer, enforcing at the protocol level what MEV-Boost enforces through trust. Under ePBS, block building and block proposing become formally separated roles within the protocol itself — builders submit bids, proposers commit to the highest bid, and the process is governed by cryptographic commitments rather than a third-party relay.

The downstream effects are significant. MEV extraction could be reduced by up to 70% through fairer, more transparent distribution. Home stakers — who currently struggle to compete with institutional validators who run sophisticated MEV strategies — gain parity. And Ethereum's censorship resistance improves materially, because the protocol can now enforce inclusion rules without depending on relay behavior.

Block-Level Access Lists (EIP-7928): Unlocking Parallel Execution​

The execution layer upgrade (Amsterdam) is anchored by EIP-7928, which introduces Block-Level Access Lists (BALs). This is the architectural foundation for Ethereum's throughput ambitions.

Currently, Ethereum processes transactions sequentially. Each transaction is executed one at a time, in order, which caps how many can be processed per second regardless of how powerful the nodes running the network are. This sequential model is the primary reason Ethereum's Layer 1 throughput has remained constrained while chains like Solana — which parallelizes execution — can process far more transactions per second.

BALs work by recording, at the block level, every account and storage slot accessed during execution, along with their post-execution values. This block-wide access map enables three categories of parallelism that are currently impossible: parallel disk reads (nodes can pre-fetch all storage locations instead of reading them sequentially), parallel transaction validation (independent transactions can be verified simultaneously), and parallel state root computation (the Merkle tree update at the end of each block becomes distributable across threads).

The result is a significant reduction in worst-case block validation latency. Faster validation enables the network to safely increase gas limits without compromising node performance — which translates directly to higher throughput and lower per-transaction gas fees. Early analyses suggest gas fees could drop by approximately 78% as capacity increases.

The ETH/BTC Ratio: A Four-Year Compression Looking for Release​

The ETH/BTC ratio has declined for most of the past four years. Despite Ethereum processing more economic activity than any other smart contract platform — and despite the Merge reducing ETH issuance by roughly 90% — ETH has lost ground against Bitcoin in nearly every measurable way since late 2021. Even the launch of spot Ethereum ETFs, which generated $6.5 billion in assets under management for BlackRock's ETHA product, failed to close the gap.

The explanations are not difficult to find. Bitcoin captured the bulk of institutional capital inflows following the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024. Narrative fragmentation — as Ethereum's roadmap split attention between the base layer, L2 scaling, and account abstraction — made it harder to communicate a simple value proposition to generalist investors. And the shift to a rollup-centric architecture, while technically correct, temporarily reduced base-layer fee revenue as L2s consumed blob space rather than L1 blockspace.

But April 2026 brought something new. The ETH/BTC ratio ticked up from its 0.028 lows. ETH began outperforming Bitcoin in a market environment where previous instances of this pattern — Q2 2019 and Q4 2023 — preceded substantial relative outperformance over the following quarter.

Two events provided fundamental support. First, BlackRock's iShares Staked Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHB) launched on Nasdaq on March 12, 2026, pulling $155 million in first-day inflows. ETHB combines spot ETH price exposure with staking rewards, giving institutional investors access to a yield-generating crypto position for the first time through a regulated vehicle. Second, Grayscale's Ethereum Staking ETF (ETHE) had been live since October 2025, and the combined presence of two staking ETF products from major issuers signals that institutional infrastructure around ETH yield is becoming a standard feature, not an experiment.

Whether the ETH/BTC ratio continues to recover depends heavily on whether Glamsterdam ships on schedule and delivers measurable improvements.

Three Milestones Glamsterdam Must Deliver​

The framework for evaluating Glamsterdam's success is concrete:

1. Demonstrate that BALs meaningfully increase L1 throughput. The Glamsterdam devnets being stress-tested in Q1 2026 will produce early data on whether parallel execution through EIP-7928 delivers real-world latency reductions. Ethereum does not need to match Monad's 10,000 TPS claims or MegaETH's 100,000 TPS aspirations immediately — but it needs to show a credible path to competitive L1 performance that can be communicated to developers evaluating chain choices.

2. Show that ePBS reduces validator concentration without breaking block production. The current MEV-Boost ecosystem has created meaningful concentration among a small number of sophisticated builders and relay operators. EIP-7732 is designed to distribute this power more evenly, but the transition carries execution risk: if ePBS implementation is buggy or if builder incentives shift in unexpected ways post-upgrade, the results could be the opposite of intended. A clean ePBS launch with measurable reduction in builder concentration would be a significant signal.

3. Maintain EVM composability throughout. Ethereum's competitive moat against high-performance chains is not raw throughput — it is the composability of a unified execution environment where thousands of protocols interact trustlessly. Any performance optimization that fragments this composability (by, for example, requiring developers to annotate transactions with access lists in ways that break existing code) would damage the very thing that makes Ethereum worth optimizing. The BAL implementation must be backward compatible and transparent to developers writing Solidity.

What Glamsterdam Means for Developer Chain Choice​

The mid-2026 Glamsterdam timeline creates a concrete decision window for developers who are currently evaluating whether to build on Ethereum L2s, deploy native contracts on Solana, or experiment with new high-performance EVMs like Monad or MegaETH.

If Glamsterdam ships on schedule and delivers its targeted improvements, several things follow. Gas fees on Ethereum L1 drop substantially, making direct L1 deployment economically viable for a broader class of applications. ePBS reduces the MEV tax that DeFi protocols pay on every swap, lending transaction, and liquidation — improving the economics for protocols and users alike. And the demonstration of working parallel execution at the L1 level provides a technical foundation for future throughput increases that don't require the architectural tradeoffs of rollup-based scaling.

If Glamsterdam slips or underdelivers, the competitive pressure from chains that already have parallel execution running in production will increase materially. Monad's mainnet launched in April 2026. MegaETH was earlier in 2026. Both are EVM-compatible, both claim throughput that dwarfs current Ethereum L1, and both are actively competing for Ethereum developers.

The developer base that Ethereum has accumulated over eight years is its most durable competitive advantage. Glamsterdam's primary job is to demonstrate that this developer base does not need to choose between security and performance — that Ethereum can eventually provide both.

The Upgrade Catalyst Pattern​

EIP-1559 was deployed as part of the London Hard Fork on August 5, 2021. Before the upgrade, analysts projected a range of outcomes — from negligible short-term price impact to a possible quintupling of ETH value. What happened was more nuanced: the deflationary pressure from fee burning took months to register as net ETH supply reduction, but the combination of the upgrade narrative, changing supply dynamics, and macro tailwinds contributed to ETH reaching its all-time high in November 2021 — roughly three months after London.

The pattern is not that upgrades cause immediate price movements. The pattern is that upgrades which deliver genuine structural improvements give institutional capital a narrative framework to act on sentiment that was already building. Glamsterdam, combined with a four-year ETH/BTC compression at historical lows, the launch of staking ETFs providing institutional yield access, and a high-performance EVM arms race that puts pressure on Ethereum to demonstrate L1 competitiveness — creates a similar convergence of structural and narrative factors.

Whether history repeats depends on execution. Glamsterdam targeting May or June 2026 for mainnet means the launch window is near. The devnets are running. The EIPs are specified. The developers across Geth, Besu, Prysm, and other client teams are stress-testing cross-client compatibility.

The upgrade is real. The question is whether Ethereum's ability to ship it cleanly matches the weight of what's being asked of it.

---

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade RPC nodes and APIs for Ethereum, Sui, Aptos, and 20+ other blockchains. Developers building on Ethereum through Glamsterdam and beyond can access reliable infrastructure at BlockEden.xyz — including EVM-compatible endpoints optimized for high-throughput applications.