EIP complexity assessment

EIP-3298: Remove storage-clear refund and refund cap

Assessed in Hegotá. The score describes the EIP text available at the snapshot, not the EIP as it stands today.

ProspectiveHegotáSnapshot 2026-08-25PFI at snapshotLayers: execution

LLM Completescore 12

Human Available in open PRscore 6 · Checklist revision 2· ethspecs/pm #115

LLM · Checklist revision 22026-08-26 · Original snapshot · 12 Human · Checklist revision 2Available in open PR · 6 CompareHuman vs LLM · same checklist revision

Evaluated on: 2026-08-26 · Spec revision: 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2 · Inclusion status at snapshot: PFI

Scope at the cutoff. Execution-layer assessment of EIP-3298 at the sealed Hegota snapshot: removal of the SSTORE storage-clearing refund and transaction refund cap, while retaining the net-metered same-transaction STORAGE_WRITE reversal.

12MediumMedium

Evaluator: LLMChecklist v2
Confidence: Medium
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No
Plausible range: 12–12 (Medium)
Snapshot: 2026-08-25 · EIP revision ac450a4ab2 (2026-08-25)

Score bands · Checklist revision 2

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the LLM total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Under-specified at assessment cutoff: No

The EIP text available at the assessment cutoff left material behavior unresolved. The affected criteria and the plausible total range record that uncertainty.

The assessor found no material behavior left unresolved by the EIP text at the cutoff.

Criterion breakdown

EIP-3298 Hegotá: LLM criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Cross-EIP interactionsExceptional	4	The change has strong coordinated interactions with 2200, 2780, 3529, 7623, 7778, 7976, 8037, and 8038: their SSTORE definitions, eliminated legacy refunds, settlement cap, calldata floor, block accounting, and state-gas separation jointly establish the remaining refund's safety and expected gas values. Cross-EIP test vectors are required for the storage case table, uncapped settlement, floor binding, and refund-independent block accounting. Exceptional score: Under the uncapped rubric, eight identified interacting EIPs yield base score 3 plus one point for the first complete group of three additional EIPs beyond the initial three.	eip.md · Front matter > requires The EIP declares dependencies on 2780, 3529, 7778, 8037, and 8038. eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules The proposal removes EIP-8038 clearing-refund rules, retains its STORAGE_WRITE reversal, and uses EIP-2200 original/current-value semantics. eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap EIP-8037 settlement loses the EIP-3529 cap, the EIP-7623 calldata floor remains, and EIP-7778/EIP-8037 block accounting remains before refunds. eip.md · Motivation The cap's interactions with the EIP-7623/EIP-7976 floor and EIP-8037's two gas dimensions are an explicit motivation for removal. Confidence: High Uncertainty: EIP-1153 and EIP-7702 are discussed as use-case or historical context, but are not counted as direct coordinated interactions beyond the listed EIPs. Interacting EIPs: EIP-2200, EIP-2780, EIP-3529, EIP-7623, EIP-7778, EIP-7976, EIP-8037, EIP-8038
Edge/boundary conditions	3	Multiple boundary-prone mechanisms interact, and the SSTORE sequence matrix requires an elevated case count across original/current/new values, repeated writes, reverts, the former cap boundary, the calldata floor, and block accounting.	eip.md · Test Cases Eight original/current/new SSTORE sequences are tabulated, followed by required cases for many cleared slots, crossing the former 20% cap, crossing the calldata floor, and block-versus-user gas accounting. eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules Refund-counter additions are journaled by call frame and discarded on revert, while state-gas refills remain separate. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package gives many concrete cases but does not quantify the final cross-product with call-frame success and revert variants.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	A considerable but narrow category of existing SSTORE-refund and transaction gas-settlement tests must be reworked; unrelated execution tests are not broadly affected.	eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules Every STORAGE_CLEAR_REFUND entry is struck from EIP-8038's SSTORE case table, while the other entries stay unchanged. eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap Existing capped-settlement expectations must change to uncapped refund subtraction followed by the calldata floor. supporting/eip-3529.md · Test Cases > With reduced refunds The prior mechanism has a substantial table of storage sequences with clearing-refund and capped-settlement expectations affected by the delta. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The package specifies affected rule families but does not inventory the pre-existing test corpus, so the boundary between scores 1 and 2 is judgmental.
Security risks	2	Removing the cap slightly alters the security assumptions of the refund counter and settlement path. Safety depends on a limited set of existing components—same-transaction SSTORE charge pairing, revert journaling, and refund-independent block accounting—warranting targeted review and fuzzing.	eip.md · Security Considerations Safety without a cap depends on the remaining refund being backed by a same-transaction charge and on refund-counter journaling across reverts; both properties are described as load-bearing. eip.md · Rationale > Why the write reversal stays and the cap goes Each STORAGE_WRITE refund is paired with a prior same-slot charge, while EIP-7778 separately bounds block-size impact. Confidence: Medium Uncertainty: The invariant is clearly argued, but its load-bearing cross-component nature prevents treating the change as risk-free or fully isolated.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	The proposal updates the existing EVM refund-accounting and transaction settlement rules; it does not introduce a new gas-accounting mechanism.	eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules STORAGE_CLEAR_REFUND and the two SSTORE refund rules using it are removed, while the SSTORE charging rules remain unchanged. eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap End-of-transaction gas settlement replaces the capped refund with direct subtraction of the refund counter. Confidence: High Uncertainty: The affected existing mechanisms and their replacement formulas are explicit.

Show 23 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Evidence / uncertainty
Added opcodes	No opcode is added.	eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules The proposal changes refund rules associated with the existing SSTORE opcode. Uncertainty: The only named opcode is pre-existing SSTORE.
Modified opcodes	SSTORE's execution result and non-gas behavior do not change; the rubric excludes gas changes from this anchor.	eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules SSTORE charging rules are untouched; only clearing-refund entries are removed and the existing STORAGE_WRITE reversal remains. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Removing the refund cannot affect execution and changes only net costs. Uncertainty: The EIP expressly confines the change to refund accounting after execution.
Added precompiles	No precompile is introduced.	eip.md · Specification The normative delta contains no precompile definition or address. Uncertainty: Precompiles are outside the specified proposal surface.
Modified precompiles	No pre-existing precompile is modified.	eip.md · Specification The normative delta contains no precompile logic or gas schedule. Uncertainty: Precompile behavior and pricing are not part of the proposal.
Added system contracts	No system contract is introduced.	eip.md · Specification The proposal's two normative changes are to SSTORE refund rules and transaction refund settlement. Uncertainty: System contracts are outside the complete specified delta.
Modified system contracts	No direct or package-identified indirect system-contract modification is introduced.	eip.md · Specification No system-contract code, state, invocation rule, or special transition is included in the normative changes. Uncertainty: The package identifies no system-contract effect to assess.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No state access is moved and no gas charge is repositioned relative to an opcode's state access; only refund accounting and later settlement change.	eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules The EIP states that SSTORE charging rules and EIP-8037 state-gas charges and refills are untouched. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Refunds are applied only in end-of-transaction settlement and cannot affect execution. Uncertainty: No opcode-internal ordering change is specified.
Blob gas accounting changes	No blob-gas rule or mechanism is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Abstract The proposal is limited to the storage-clearing refund, transaction refund cap, and retained STORAGE_WRITE reversal. Uncertainty: Blob gas is outside the enumerated proposal changes.
State gas accounting changes	Neither a state-gas cost, charging site, reservoir rule, budget, nor spill interaction is changed.	eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules The EIP explicitly leaves EIP-8037 state-gas charges and refills untouched and distinguishes refills from the refund counter. eip.md · Test Cases State-gas charges and refills are declared orthogonal and unchanged. Uncertainty: The unchanged state-gas boundary is stated twice.
New EVM gas refund	The EIP removes a refund mechanism and introduces no new refund.	eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules The clearing refund is removed and the sole remaining STORAGE_WRITE refund rule is retained unchanged from EIP-8038. Uncertainty: The text explicitly identifies the single remaining rule as unchanged.
New transaction types	No new transaction type is introduced.	eip.md · Specification The rules apply to SSTORE refunds and settlement of existing transactions; no transaction envelope or type is defined. Uncertainty: Transaction typing is outside the normative delta.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No transaction validity rule or intrinsic gas calculation changes; the proposal modifies post-execution settlement of valid transactions.	eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap The cap is removed in end-of-transaction gas settlement, and the existing calldata floor continues to apply after refunds. eip.md · Backwards Compatibility Refund removal cannot affect execution and changes only net cost. Uncertainty: The existing calldata-floor validity mechanism is not modified by this EIP.
New block / header fields	No block or header field is introduced.	eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap Block-level accounting is unchanged and the existing receipt cumulative_gas_used value retains its post-floor basis. Uncertainty: The proposal changes a computed transaction cost, not the block/header schema.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No transaction, block, receipt, or interface encoding changes.	eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap The transaction change is an arithmetic settlement formula using existing execution outputs and does not alter serialization. Uncertainty: Receipt cumulative gas semantics are retained without an encoding change.
Block syncing changes	No block RLP validation mechanism is introduced or modified.	eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap Block-level accounting is explicitly unchanged; the normative delta is a transaction-settlement formula. Uncertainty: The proposal changes neither block serialization nor validation fields.
New fork activation mechanism	Fork scheduling is required, but activation performs no special state or internal-variable modification under the rubric's definition.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The gas repricing requires a scheduled network upgrade. eip.md · Specification No activation-block state transition or internal-variable mutation is specified. Uncertainty: The text contains no one-time activation procedure.
Engine API changes	No Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism changes.	eip.md · Backwards Compatibility The stated external updates are to gas estimators, wallets, eth_estimateGas, and fee computation. Uncertainty: The proposal's interface impact is limited to estimation and fee logic, not Engine API directives.
Transition-tool interface changes	No transition-tool field or interface mechanism is added or modified.	eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap The change is expressed entirely with existing transaction-output values: gas_left, state_gas_reservoir, and refund_counter. Uncertainty: The complete settlement delta requires no new input or output field.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	The EIP changes expected refund and gas-used values in tests about the affected mechanisms, but adds no new output or assertion that tests unrelated to this EIP must universally check.	eip.md · Test Cases The requested assertions concern refund-focused sequences, uncapped settlement, the existing calldata floor, and existing block accounting. Uncertainty: Existing gas-used expectations may change for refund-bearing cases, but that is test reworking rather than a new independently asserted invariant.
New test-framework primitives	Existing state-test and gas-accounting expectations suffice; no new reusable expectation type, modifier, or framework abstraction is required by the text.	eip.md · Test Cases Tests are specified as ordinary SSTORE value sequences and assertions over charges, refund_counter, net write cost, transaction gas, and block gas. Uncertainty: No test case requires a capability beyond constructing transactions and checking existing outputs.
Performance risks	No new performance-sensitive mechanism is introduced, and the package expressly states that worst-case block resource consumption is unchanged.	eip.md · Security Considerations EIP-7778 already excludes refunds from block accounting, so this EIP does not change worst-case block resource consumption. eip.md · Rationale > Why the clearing refund goes The proposal removes specification and implementation burden. Uncertainty: Economic changes may alter usage, but the sealed evidence identifies no required performance validation.
Cryptography	No cryptographic mechanism or cryptographic functionality changes.	eip.md · Specification The complete normative delta concerns SSTORE refund entries and end-of-transaction gas settlement. Uncertainty: Cryptography is outside the proposal's specified surface.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	The EIP determines the outcome for the constructible refund and settlement cases identified by the package; no localized consensus choice remains open.	eip.md · Specification > SSTORE refund rules The removed rules, sole retained rule, original/current-value meanings, revert journaling, and separation from state-gas refills are explicit. eip.md · Specification > Removal of the refund cap The settlement order and formulas for refund subtraction, calldata floor, receipt gas, and block accounting are explicit. Uncertainty: Draft status alone is not evidence of an unspecified test outcome, and none is visible in the sealed text.

Assessment provenance

Assessed EIP revision: ethereum/EIPs@ac450a4ab2 EIPS/eip-3298.md committed 2026-08-25 · information cutoff 2026-08-25T11:56:58Z
Current master · File history · blob 19be2a3556 · sha256 4ea20f9dd745
Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: gpt-5.6-sol at xhigh reasoning effort · isolation bubblewrap_one_eip_capsule_v1
Source record: Frozen research record research/tasks/08-hegota-prospective-complexity-assessment/outputs/assessments/hegota-pfi-2026-08-26/eip-3298.yaml · sha256 11c29e1e20ff
Supporting documents in the sealed package: supporting/eip-1153.md, supporting/eip-2200.md, supporting/eip-2780.md, supporting/eip-3529.md, supporting/eip-7623.md, supporting/eip-7702.md, supporting/eip-7778.md, supporting/eip-7976.md, supporting/eip-8037.md, supporting/eip-8038.md

Evaluated on: Not recorded

6LowLow

Evaluator: HumanChecklist v2
Confidence: Not recorded
Under-specified at assessment cutoff: Not recorded in the checklist
Checklist published: 2026-08-18
Source: open ethspecs/pm pull request #115

Score bands · Checklist revision 2

Low <12
Medium 12–22
High ≥23

28 criteria scored 0–3 (4 in exceptional cases; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped); nominal maximum 84.

Complexity profile

Each segment is one criterion's contribution to the Human total. Hover or focus a segment for its score and rationale.

Top complexity drivers

Modified system contracts1
EVM Gas rule changes1
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests1
Edge/boundary conditions1

Criterion breakdown

EIP-3298 Hegotá: Human criterion scores and rationale
Criterion	Score	Why this score	Notes
Modified system contracts	1	Note: not a direct modification but executing system contracts that touch the state and before incurred in refunds have to be sanity checked. Potentially using already-existing tests.	—
EVM Gas rule changes	1	Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated by removal, which results in great simplification by removal of code.	—
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	1	Minor subset. Measured rather than estimated: a reference implementation of this EIP against the Amsterdam set fails 63 tests out of ~11.9k collected under `tests/amsterdam/` — under 1%, and concentrated in refund and SSTORE gas assertions. The affected tests need their expected values updated, not restructuring. `tests/amsterdam/eip7778_block_gas_accounting_without_refunds/` is the one suite retired outright, since its premise (refunds exist but do not count toward the block limit) cannot hold once refunds are gone.	—
Edge/boundary conditions	1	The boundary conditions that have to be tested due to refunds are already present in the test set. This change will only have to modify the outcome expectation of such tests.	—
Cross-EIP interactions	1	EIP-7778 minimal, it's implied that the mechanism is removed.	—
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	1	Amsterdam has two independent refund mechanisms and this EIP (2021) predates the second: the EIP-2200 `refund_counter` in execution gas, which this EIP removes, and `credit_state_gas_refund()` in state gas, which credits `StateGasCosts.STORAGE_SET` back when a slot is cleared (`vm/instructions/storage.py`). The state-gas refund should stay: state paid for and released within the same transaction never persisted, so crediting it is not a refund for good hygiene but correct accounting for state that was never created. That leaves only a statement to add to the EIP, so scored 1 — the resolution is clear and needs no client negotiation.	—

Show 22 zero-score criteria

Zero-score criteria (Checklist revision 2)
Criterion	Why this score	Notes
Added opcodes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified opcodes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Added precompiles	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Modified precompiles	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Added system contracts	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Blob gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
State gas accounting changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New EVM gas refund	No new refund mechanism is introduced; this EIP removes the last one. Hence, this row is marked as zero due to reduction of parametrization of refund tests.	—
New transaction types	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New block / header fields	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Block syncing changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New fork activation mechanism	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Engine API changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Transition-tool interface changes	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
New test-framework primitives	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Security risks	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Performance risks	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.
Cryptography	No rationale recorded.	Blank cell read as zero because the published total proves it.

Assessment provenance

Rubric: Checklist revision 2 · ethspecs/pm@3d8c0128c5
Evaluator: STEEL team · ethspecs/pm complexity_assessments
Source record: Open pull request #115: Add EIP-3298 complexity assessment · checklist at 6672c60213 · updated 2026-08-18
blob 760dabfde1 · sha256 75b5454cd77c
Research record: research/tasks/09-hegota-human-assessment-snapshot/outputs/assessments/eip-3298.yaml · sha256 122ee8c31580

Both assessments applied Checklist revision 2 (28 criteria) to EIP-3298 in Hegotá. Δ is LLM minus Human.

Using the latest scored LLM evaluation for this checklist: 2026-08-26 · spec 2026-08-25 · ac450a4ab2. The Human and LLM assessments may use different spec revisions.

LLM12Medium

Human6Low

Δ total+6Tiers differ: Medium vs Low

Criteria22/28agree exactly · 3 differ by 1 · 3 differ by 2+

Complexity profiles side by side

LLM

Human

Largest disagreements: Cross-EIP interactions (+3), Edge/boundary conditions (+2), Security risks (+2), Patterns affecting pre-existing tests (+1), Modified system contracts (−1)

Show differences only (6 criteria)

Per-criterion scores, Human versus LLM, ordered by the size of the difference
Criterion	LLM	Human	Δ	Agreement	Rationale from each source
Cross-EIP interactions	4	1	+3	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM The change has strong coordinated interactions with 2200, 2780, 3529, 7623, 7778, 7976, 8037, and 8038: their SSTORE definitions, eliminated legacy refunds, settlement cap, calldata floor, block accounting, and state-gas separation jointly establish the remaining refund's safety and expected gas values. Cross-EIP test vectors are required for the storage case table, uncapped settlement, floor binding, and refund-independent block accounting. Human EIP-7778 minimal, it's implied that the mechanism is removed.
Security risks	2	0	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Removing the cap slightly alters the security assumptions of the refund counter and settlement path. Safety depends on a limited set of existing components—same-transaction SSTORE charge pairing, revert journaling, and refund-independent block accounting—warranting targeted review and fuzzing. Human No rationale recorded.
Edge/boundary conditions	3	1	+2	Differ by 2+	Show rationale LLM Multiple boundary-prone mechanisms interact, and the SSTORE sequence matrix requires an elevated case count across original/current/new values, repeated writes, reverts, the former cap boundary, the calldata floor, and block accounting. Human The boundary conditions that have to be tested due to refunds are already present in the test set. This change will only have to modify the outcome expectation of such tests.
Modified system contracts	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM No direct or package-identified indirect system-contract modification is introduced. Human Note: not a direct modification but executing system contracts that touch the state and before incurred in refunds have to be sanity checked. Potentially using already-existing tests.
Patterns affecting pre-existing tests	2	1	+1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM A considerable but narrow category of existing SSTORE-refund and transaction gas-settlement tests must be reworked; unrelated execution tests are not broadly affected. Human Minor subset. Measured rather than estimated: a reference implementation of this EIP against the Amsterdam set fails 63 tests out of ~11.9k collected under `tests/amsterdam/` — under 1%, and concentrated in refund and SSTORE gas assertions. The affected tests need their expected values updated, not restructuring. `tests/amsterdam/eip7778_block_gas_accounting_without_refunds/` is the one suite retired outright, since its premise (refunds exist but do not count toward the block limit) cannot hold once refunds are gone.
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus	0	1	−1	Differ by 1	Show rationale LLM The EIP determines the outcome for the constructible refund and settlement cases identified by the package; no localized consensus choice remains open. Human Amsterdam has two independent refund mechanisms and this EIP (2021) predates the second: the EIP-2200 `refund_counter` in execution gas, which this EIP removes, and `credit_state_gas_refund()` in state gas, which credits `StateGasCosts.STORAGE_SET` back when a slot is cleared (`vm/instructions/storage.py`). The state-gas refund should stay: state paid for and released within the same transaction never persisted, so crediting it is not a refund for good hygiene but correct accounting for state that was never created. That leaves only a statement to add to the EIP, so scored 1 — the resolution is clear and needs no client negotiation.
Added opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No opcode is added. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified opcodes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM SSTORE's execution result and non-gas behavior do not change; the rubric excludes gas changes from this anchor. Human No rationale recorded.
Added precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No precompile is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Modified precompiles	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No pre-existing precompile is modified. Human No rationale recorded.
Added system contracts	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No system contract is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
EVM Gas rule changes	1	1	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The proposal updates the existing EVM refund-accounting and transaction settlement rules; it does not introduce a new gas-accounting mechanism. Human Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated by removal, which results in great simplification by removal of code.
State-access ordering within opcode execution	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No state access is moved and no gas charge is repositioned relative to an opcode's state access; only refund accounting and later settlement change. Human No rationale recorded.
Blob gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No blob-gas rule or mechanism is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
State gas accounting changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Neither a state-gas cost, charging site, reservoir rule, budget, nor spill interaction is changed. Human No rationale recorded.
New EVM gas refund	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The EIP removes a refund mechanism and introduces no new refund. Human No new refund mechanism is introduced; this EIP removes the last one. Hence, this row is marked as zero due to reduction of parametrization of refund tests.
New transaction types	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new transaction type is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transaction validity rule or intrinsic gas calculation changes; the proposal modifies post-execution settlement of valid transactions. Human No rationale recorded.
New block / header fields	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No block or header field is introduced. Human No rationale recorded.
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transaction, block, receipt, or interface encoding changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Block syncing changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No block RLP validation mechanism is introduced or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
New fork activation mechanism	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Fork scheduling is required, but activation performs no special state or internal-variable modification under the rubric's definition. Human No rationale recorded.
Engine API changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No Engine API endpoint, field, or communication mechanism changes. Human No rationale recorded.
Transition-tool interface changes	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No transition-tool field or interface mechanism is added or modified. Human No rationale recorded.
New invariant on pre-existing tests	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM The EIP changes expected refund and gas-used values in tests about the affected mechanisms, but adds no new output or assertion that tests unrelated to this EIP must universally check. Human No rationale recorded.
New test-framework primitives	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM Existing state-test and gas-accounting expectations suffice; no new reusable expectation type, modifier, or framework abstraction is required by the text. Human No rationale recorded.
Performance risks	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No new performance-sensitive mechanism is introduced, and the package expressly states that worst-case block resource consumption is unchanged. Human No rationale recorded.
Cryptography	0	0	0	Agree	Show rationale LLM No cryptographic mechanism or cryptographic functionality changes. Human No rationale recorded.

Compare EIP-3298 with other assessments All Hegotá assessments

Criterion legend and glossary

Every stacked bar, comparison matrix, and criterion table on this site uses the same criterion colours, abbreviations, and order. Colour marks the criterion group; the abbreviation and name identify the criterion. Scores are 0–3 per criterion (4 is exceptional; cross-EIP interactions is uncapped).

EVM surface

Opcodes, precompiles, and system contracts that are added or modified.

OP+
Added opcodes
Introduces new opcodes
Score anchors
0
No new opcodes are introduced.
1
A new simple opcode is introduced (no data portion, no complex stack mechanics, and a constant gas cost).
2
Multiple new simple opcodes are introduced, or a single new complex opcode is introduced (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
3
Multiple new opcodes are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (has data portion, or complex stack mechanics, or a dynamic gas cost).
- Cryptography opcodes are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" section for a separate assessment.
Modified opcodes
Modifies pre-existing opcodes
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing opcode modifications are introduced.
3
At least one pre-existing opcode's behavior is modified (not including gas changes) or a pre-existing opcode is deprecated.
PC+
Added precompiles
Introduces new precompiles
Score anchors
0
No new precompiles are introduced.
1
A new simple precompile is introduced (constant input length, constant gas cost).
2
Multiple new simple precompiles are introduced, or a single new complex precompile is introduced (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
3
Multiple new precompiles are introduced, and at least one of them is complex (dynamic input length or dynamic gas cost).
- Cryptography precompiles are not considered complex by default. Refer to the "Cryptography" for a separate assessment.
Modified precompiles
Modifies pre-existing precompiles logic or gas-accounting
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing precompiles are modified.
1
At least one pre-existing precompile has its gas schedule modified.
2
Multiple pre-existing precompiles have their gas schedule modified, or a single pre-existing precompile has its behavior modified.
3
The behavior of multiple pre-existing precompiles, or a single complex pre-existing precompile modified.
Added system contracts
Introduces new system contract, stateful or not
Score anchors
0
No new system contracts are introduced.
1
A new system contract is introduced that is not stateful nor does it trigger a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
2
Multiple new system contracts are introduced or a single new system contract that is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
3
Multiple new system contracts are introduced and at least one of them is either stateful or triggers a new system action (e.g. requests to the consensus layer).
Modified system contracts
Modifies pre-existing system contracts
Score anchors
0
No modifications to pre-existing system contracts are introduced, directly or indirectly.
1
Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has minor indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
2
Does not directly modify any system contract, but its behavior has major indirect effects on one or more system contracts.
3
At least one pre-existing system contract code or state is modified, which would involve irregular state transition or a similarly complex transition methodology.

Gas and accounting

Execution, blob, and state gas rules, refunds, and where charges happen inside opcodes.

EVM Gas rule changes
New EVM gas accounting rules
Score anchors
0
No gas accounting changes.
1
Existing gas accounting mechanism is updated.
2
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
3
A new gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
ORD
State-access ordering within opcode execution · Checklist revision 2 only
Changes *where inside an opcode's execution* state is accessed, or where gas is charged relative to that access. Because a state access is recorded in the block-level access list only if execution had enough gas to reach it, this ordering is consensus-critical: moving it changes the BAL at every gas boundary of every affected opcode.
Score anchors
0
No change to where state is accessed, or to where gas is charged relative to a state access, within any opcode.
1
A single opcode's state-access or gas-charge ordering changes.
2
Multiple opcodes' ordering changes, or a new state-accessing operation is introduced whose position in the order must be settled.
3
The ordering rule changes for a whole class of state-accessing opcodes at once, or what counts as a recordable state access is redefined — requiring existing BAL vectors to be re-derived across opcodes and forks.
- Distinct from "Modified opcodes", which asks whether an opcode's **result** changed. This row asks about the **path to the result**, which is observable even when the result is identical. An EIP can be 0 on that row and 3 on this one.
- Score changes **to** the ordering. Do not score the fact that state accesses are observable — they always are.
- Each boundary must be re-tested against every other dimension that can change the answer (cold/warm, static/non-static, delegated/direct, revert/success), so the case count grows multiplicatively rather than additively. Note this explicitly under Special Considerations.
Blob gas accounting changes
New Blob gas accounting rules which potentially affect pre-existing tests
Score anchors
0
No blob gas accounting changes.
1
Existing blob gas accounting mechanism is updated.
2
A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced but it does not affect existing mechanisms nor does it affect existing tests.
3
A new blob gas accounting mechanism is introduced and affects existing mechanisms which in turn affect existing tests.
SGAS
State gas accounting changes · Checklist revision 2 only
New state gas accounting rules. State gas is the cost of *writing* state, as opposed to accessing or executing it: `StateGasCosts`, `COST_PER_STATE_BYTE`, the block-level state gas budget, and the spill path into execution gas.
Score anchors
0
No state gas accounting changes.
1
An existing state gas cost or `STATE_BYTES_PER_*` rate is adjusted.
2
A new state-gas-charging site is introduced, or the block-level state gas budget or reservoir allocation is modified.
3
A new state gas charging mechanism is introduced, or the spill interaction between state gas and execution gas is modified, affecting existing gas tests.
- Harder to test than blob gas: the spill path means state gas cannot be metered independently of execution gas, and some costs (e.g. `NEW_ACCOUNT`) are state-dependent.
New EVM gas refund
New gas-refund mechanism
Score anchors
0
No new gas-refund mechanisms are introduced.
1
A new simple gas-refund mechanism is introduced that does not affect either existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
2
A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced or a simple mechanism that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.
3
A new complex gas-refund mechanism is introduced that affects existing tests or existing gas-refund mechanisms.

Blocks, transactions, and encoding

Transaction types and validity, block and header fields, encodings, syncing, and activation-time changes.

New transaction types
Introduces a new transaction type
Score anchors
0
No new transaction types are introduced.
3
A new transaction type is introduced.
New or modified transaction validity mechanisms
Creates new or modifies pre-existing transaction types' validation mechanisms
Score anchors
0
No changes are introduced to the validity rules of existing transaction types or to their intrinsic gas cost calculation.
1
Minor adjustments are introduced to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation, but they do not significantly affect existing tests.
2
Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation affect existing tests, but require only limited updates to test cases and no redesign of the testing infrastructure.
3
Changes to validity rules or intrinsic gas cost calculation require extensive rework or redesign of the tests or testing infrastructure.
New block / header fields
Introduces new block or block header fields
Score anchors
0
No new block or header fields are introduced.
3
A new block or header field is introduced.
ENC
Encoding changes (RLP/SSZ)
Introduces encoding changes at the transaction/block/interfaces level
Score anchors
0
No encoding changes are introduced at the transaction, block, or interfaces levels.
3
An encoding change is introduced at transaction, block or interfaces level (e.g. RLP -> SSZ).
- "Interfaces level" includes the Engine API. Score an Engine API encoding change (e.g. JSON -> SSZ) here.
Block syncing changes
Modifies block RLP validation mechanisms that require test client syncing.
Score anchors
0
No new RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
1
A single simple RLP validation mechanism is introduced.
2
Multiple simple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced or a single complex one.
3
Multiple RLP validation mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is deemed complex.
ACT
New fork activation mechanism
Modifies state, internal variables, or similar, at the fork activation block
Score anchors
0
No state modifications, internal variables or similar are modified at the fork activation block.
3
Either a state modification or internal variables are modified at the fork activation block.
- Initialization of new internal variable is not considered a modification.

Client interfaces

Engine API and transition-tool interface changes.

Engine API changes
Introduces new fields to the Engine API directives
Score anchors
0
No new fields or communication mechanisms are introduced to the Engine API.
1
A single new field is introduced in one of the Engine API endpoints.
2
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points, or a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
3
Multiple fields are introduced to one or multiple Engine API end points and a new Engine API end-point is introduced.
Engine API encoding changes · Checklist revision 1 only
Engine API encoding changes (the revision-1 template defines no anchor text for this row).
T8N
Transition-tool interface changes
Modifies or adds new fields to the transition tool interface.
Score anchors
0
No modifications to the transition tool interface are required.
1
A single new field needs to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
2
Multiple new fields or a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
3
Multiple new fields and a new mechanism has to be introduced to the transition tool interface.
- Special consideration must be paid to this section if the EIP introduces a mechanism that requires the state transition tool to be aware whether the block it is processing is the fork-activation block.

Testing impact

Rework, new invariants, and new primitives required in the test framework.

Patterns affecting pre-existing tests
Implements a new validation mechanism or rule that translates in reworking pre-existing tests
Score anchors
0
No pre-existing tests are affected by this change.
1
Minor subset of existing tests are affected by this change.
2
Considerable subset of existing tests are affected by this change but involves only a contrived category of tests.
3
Major subset of existing tests are affected, including diverse category of tests (benchmarks, static, multiple forks, etc.).
INV
New invariant on pre-existing tests · Checklist revision 2 only
Tests that are **not about this EIP** must nonetheless assert something this EIP produces. Their logic does not change; they gain a new thing to check.
Score anchors
0
Pre-existing tests assert nothing new.
1
A narrow, contrived category of pre-existing tests gains a new assertion.
2
A broad category gains a new assertion, applied mechanically.
3
Every test in the fork gains the assertion regardless of what it tests, and pre-fork vectors must be re-derived to satisfy it.
- Paired with the row above, and easy to confuse with it. "Patterns affecting pre-existing tests" asks whether existing tests must be **reworked**; this row asks whether they must **additionally assert something new**. Score both — an EIP can be low on one and high on the other.
New test-framework primitives · Checklist revision 2 only
Requires new abstractions in the test framework itself — expectation types, modifiers, helpers — beyond writing test functions with what already exists.
Score anchors
0
Existing test primitives suffice.
1
Existing primitives need minor extension.
2
New expectation or modifier primitives are required, reusable within this EIP's own test suite.
3
New framework-level primitives are required that become a permanent part of the framework and are used by other EIPs' tests.

Risk and validation

Security, performance, boundary conditions, and cryptography that need validation.

Security risks
Introduces or modifies mechanisms that could compromise the security of the chain, users, validators, or other stakeholders, if not implemented properly.
Score anchors
0
No new mechanisms are introduced that could pose a security risk.
1
The introduced mechanisms are self-contained, can be validated in isolation, and do not alter existing invariants that could pose a security risk for any stakeholders.
2
The introduced mechanisms interact with a limited number of existing components, slightly altering their security assumptions and requiring a targeted security review or fuzzing.
3
The introduced mechanisms interact with multiple existing components, including critical ones, substantially altering their security assumptions and requiring an extensive security review and fuzzing.
Performance risks
Introduces or modifies mechanisms and requires performance validation.
Score anchors
0
No new mechanisms are introduced that require performance validation.
1
The introduced mechanisms can be benchmarked in isolation and do not affect existing performance behavior.
2
The introduced mechanisms cannot be fully benchmarked in isolation, but they only have a limited impact on the existing performance benchmarks.
3
The introduced mechanisms cannot be benchmarked in isolation and have a substantial impact on existing performance benchmarks or have complex interactions with existing mechanisms.
Edge/boundary conditions
Feature contains edge/boundary conditions.
Score anchors
0
No discernible edge cases or boundary conditions are introduced.
1
A single edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanism is introduced.
2
Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced, but none of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
3
Multiple edge-case or boundary-condition prone mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them requires an elevated number of cases to test.
Cryptography
Introduces new cryptography mechanisms or modifies existing functionality that involves cryptography
Score anchors
0
No cryptography mechanisms are introduced.
1
A new cryptography mechanism is introduced but it is a well known mechanism that is known to have vast resources to aid on its testing.
2
Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced that are well-known or a single but novel mechanism is introduced that is either untested or has limited resources.
3
Multiple new cryptography mechanisms are introduced and at least one of them is a novel mechanism.

Coordination

Cross-EIP interactions and behavior that clients must agree on before tests exist.

XEIP
Cross-EIP interactions
Introduces or modifies mechanisms that affect other EIPs in either the same or past forks.
Score anchors
0
Fully self-contained EIP that does not depend on, modify, or conflict with any other EIP.
1
The EIP interacts with one or more other EIPs in a non-critical and limited way but can be tested independently for the most part.
2
The EIP depends on or modifies one or more other EIPs such that coordinated testing and consideration is required, but interactions are limited in scope and not complex.
3
The EIP has strong interdependencies with multiple EIPs, requiring extensive coordinated cross-EIP testing as well as potential re-design of existing test vectors.
- +1 for every 3 additional interacting EIPs beyond the first 3, each of which requires its own coordinated test cases. List the EIPs in the rationale.
- This row is intentionally uncapped, unlike every other anchor: each interacting EIP is another axis of the test matrix, so a ceiling would make a 12-EIP product indistinguishable from a 3-EIP one.
UNSP
Unspecified behavior requiring cross-client consensus · Checklist revision 2 only
The EIP text does not determine the answer for cases a test can construct. Clients must agree on a previously unspecified detail before tests can be baselined. The cost here is coordination and re-baselining, not test writing.
Score anchors
0
The EIP text determines the answer for every case a test could construct.
1
A few details are unspecified but have an obvious intended reading.
2
Details require client agreement before tests can be written, but they are localized.
3
A previously unspecified *and previously unobservable* behavior becomes consensus-critical; expect tests to be re-baselined on each round of EIP amendment.
- Score this from the EIP's state at assessment time: whether it has client implementations, whether it has been through a devnet, and how many open questions remain on its discussion thread.