Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
More
Ethereum Foundation Shifts to Security First: Enforcing 128-bit Cryptography Standards from 2026
[Chain News] There has been a noticeable shift in the development strategy of the Ethereum ecosystem. The foundation recently communicated new priorities to developers—shifting from a past focus solely on speed to placing security as the top priority.
Specifically, the foundation plans to promote a key change before 2026: all zkEVM solutions must meet the 128-bit security strength standard. This is not an arbitrary number; 128 bits is currently recognized as the baseline security level in the mainstream cryptography field.
Why is it suddenly so strict? The reason lies in risk. Over the past year, zkEVM has indeed achieved results in terms of performance, but problems have also been exposed — some of the mathematical assumptions relied upon by certain solutions have not undergone sufficient formal verification. Theoretically, this gives attackers an opening: they may directly tamper with the on-chain state by bypassing these unverified steps. Once this happens, the so-called high performance turns into high risk.
The foundation's response plan is to lay out ahead of time: provide security review and assessment tools, strengthen formal verification, enhance attack resistance, and fill in the gaps in basic cryptography.
Frankly speaking, this transition will slow down the progress of some scaling projects. But the foundation's logic is very clear - rather than rushing to launch and then frequently firefighting, it's better to solidify the foundation early on. From the perspective of institutions and leading applications, credibility and security are the real core attractions. Without this prerequisite, even the fastest performance is meaningless.
---
Starting at 128 bits... Is this for real? Those previous solutions won't just blow up, right?
---
Formal Verification has been talked about for so many years, and now it's being enforced? It's a bit late, buddy.
---
Safety first sounds great, but we still have to wait two more years before 2026. If something goes wrong in between, who will take the blame?
---
On-chain state being tampered with... just that thought is terrifying enough, no wonder they want to tighten the standards.
---
Speed and safety really can’t coexist. It would have been better to make this decision earlier.
---
Going live without verifying mathematical assumptions is really outrageous. It needs to be rectified.
---
It feels like there will be another reshuffling round. What to do with solutions that don’t meet the standards?
---
Here comes a new set of standards, zkEVMs need to perk up.
---
128-bit Cryptography? Sounds impressive, but in reality, it just means no more gimmicks, we need to get serious.
---
Speed and security are like a fish and a bear's paw, is Ethereum scared now?
---
The problem is, how far away is 2026, who will cover the bottom during this period?
---
How long will Formal Verification take, can it really catch up with the 2026 deadline?
---
Come on, it's those unverified mathematical assumptions causing trouble, where were they before?
---
High performance means high risk, no wonder they have to enforce this measure.
---
Saying 128-bit is the bottom line makes previous plans seem a bit precarious.
---
Shifting to security first sounds good, but can it really be done or is it just a slogan?
---
128-bit standard? Sounds impressive, but to be honest, speed means nothing if it blows up, then it's all gone.
---
All going live on 128-bit before 2026... emm, is this timeline too tight? Are we going to have to do 996 again?
---
I said it before, last year's bunch of zkEVM proposals' "verification" was actually just everyone patting each other on the back. It's about time we did Formal Verification.
---
I've heard the phrase "security first" too many times, in the end, it was just a way to pave the road for financing, wake up everyone.
---
How many projects were blown up because of "high performance"? A year or two later, they became textbook examples of what not to do... can we fix this in time?
---
All zkEVMs need to change, how many people will be staying up late for this, haha, I'm here for the show.
Finally, someone dares to take it seriously, the era of speed demons should come to an end.
If you can't even maintain the safety bottom line, what's the use of running fast?
I support 128 bits, just afraid it will be just talk.
Those previous plans were really playing with fire, sooner or later it will blow up.
Get it done before 2026, everyone should wake up.
Good guy, Formal Verification is when real strength is truly tested.
A bunch of wild solutions, they deserve to be sanctioned.
Let's see who still dares to boast about how amazing their ZK is.
All projects must comply with the 128-bit standard before 2026... This is forcing a batch of projects to redo their work.
However, to be fair, spending money to fix vulnerabilities is definitely better than getting hacked and doing a Rug Pull.
This can be seen as a rational return for Ethereum.
Data speaks: historically, every project that was "launched first and fixed later" has ended up with a liquidation rate of no less than 80%
Interesting, here comes another realization of "we finally understand that security is important"; giving people three years to change before 2026 feels like extending the life of a high-risk solution
Not to be confrontational, but anyone who recalls the algorithm vulnerability incident in 2022 should be cautious of this set of rhetoric
I suggest everyone who is considering entering the market first look at the real cost of implementing the 128-bit standard—there is a high probability that a wave of projects will be silently liquidated
Wait, suddenly enforcing this standard, could it be that a solution has already faced a blowup? [滑稽]