Solana attracted approximately $348 million in net real-world asset flows over the latest 30-day period, placing it ahead of other tracked blockchain distribution networks.

The increase lifted the value of distributed RWAs on Solana to about $4.23 billion.The RWA Foundation published the figure on Sept. 5 using data from analytics platform RWA.xyz. “Solana is leading the pack,” the organization said in its official post, adding that the network recorded the largest net increase during the period.

The figures cover distributed real-world assets. These are tokenized financial products that investors can subscribe to, hold or transfer through blockchain wallets and approved custodians. They do not represent the total value of every asset referenced by a tokenization platform.

Singapore-based Bitcoin mining company BitFuFu has increased its Bitcoin treasury to 1,373 BTC, highlighting a renewed focus on holding the digital asset even as the miner continues to navigate weaker mining economics and pressure on revenue.

The latest accumulation marks a notable shift from periods when the company sold part of its Bitcoin reserves to finance operations and expand mining capacity. BitFuFu’s recent financial performance has underscored the challenges facing miners as Bitcoin prices, network difficulty, and demand for cloud-mining services affect profitability.

Key Takeaways

• BitFuFu’s Bitcoin treasury has reached 1,373 BTC.
• The company previously used Bitcoin sales to support operations and procure additional mining capacity.
• Second-quarter revenue fell 62.9% year over year to $42.8 million.
• BitFuFu has been rebuilding its managed hashrate after significantly reducing capacity earlier in the year.

Bitcoin Treasury Takes Greater Importance

BitFuFu’s treasury strategy has evolved alongside its mining operations. In May 2025, the company held 1,709 BTC after selling 178 BTC during Bitcoin’s then-record price levels.

CEO Leo Lu said the sales were part of a broader effort to manage liquidity while maintaining the company’s long-term exposure to Bitcoin.

“With a more constructive Bitcoin market environment and a significantly expanded operating base, we are well positioned to capture improving market opportunities in the months ahead.”

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Advertisement

Chilean crypto exchange Orionx began permanently closing its operations on Sept. 3 after a forensic audit identified a custody shortfall exceeding $7 million.

The company suspended customer withdrawals and said it could not guarantee that every client would recover 100% of their assets.

The exchange said the audit found transactions that moved assets under its custody to wallets it did not control. Orionx has filed a criminal complaint with Chilean prosecutors and launched a restitution process intended to return as much as possible to customers.

The allegations have not been proven in court. The two former executives named in the complaint have denied wrongdoing and said the cause of the shortfall remains unresolved.

Orionx audit found four affected crypto assets

Orionx announced the closure through its website and official account. It described the decision as definitive and warned customers about potential impersonation attempts during the closure.

The exchange said it would never request private keys, two-factor authentication codes or transfers by telephone, WhatsApp, email or social media. The warning is relevant because customers waiting to recover funds can become targets for phishing and fraudulent recovery services.

According to information Orionx provided to clients, the shortfall affects Bitcoin, Ether, XRP and Polygon balances. These assets appeared as available in Orionx’s internal records but could not be fully verified at addresses controlled by the company.

A comparison of company records and blockchain data found that the recorded customer balances exceeded the assets held in Orionx’s custody wallets. The audit therefore identified a balance-sheet and custody mismatch rather than a reported compromise of the four blockchain networks.

However, Orionx has not published the affected wallet addresses, complete transaction hashes or a breakdown of the shortfall by asset. Independent blockchain researchers consequently cannot yet verify the company’s full calculation.

The exchange also has not provided an exact number of affected customers. Its disclosure does not establish how much of the $7 million may be recovered from external wallets, exchanges or individuals named in the legal proceedings.

Criminal complaint names two Orionx cofounders

Orionx submitted a criminal complaint on Sept. 2 against former general manager Roberto Zibert and former technology manager Joaquín Díaz. Both helped establish the exchange and allegedly had privileged access to its cryptocurrency custody systems.

The complaint accuses them of alleged unfair administration and asks prosecutors to investigate any other offenses supported by the evidence. Local business newspaper Diario Financiero reported that a forensic examination linked the custody mismatch to wallets outside Orionx’s control.

Details reported by La Tercera place the questioned transactions between 2018 and 2021. Other local reporting says the largest group of transfers may have occurred during 2021 and 2022. That timing remains an allegation drawn from the complaint, not a judicial finding.

The filing reportedly claims that an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million through 14 transfers. It also identifies another wallet that allegedly received 187 ETH, more than 4.1 million USDT and 200,000 USDC from Orionx-related addresses.

Those figures require examination by prosecutors and the court. A transfer into an address does not, by itself, establish who controlled the wallet at the time or whether a crime occurred.

Zibert and Díaz have “categorically rejected” the accusations. In a joint response reported by Chilevisión, they said they never acted against customer interests.

Their statement added that the cause of the custody deficit had not been established. Neither former executive has been convicted, and the complaint begins an investigative process rather than proving Orionx’s claims.

Chilean regulator cannot order customer repayments

Chile’s Financial Market Commission clarified on Sept. 4 that Orionx was neither registered nor authorized under the country’s Fintech Law. The regulator said it did not supervise Orionx’s activities and does not control its closure.

The official statement also disclosed that the commission rejected Orionx’s registration and authorization application on June 19. Until that rejection, the exchange had operated under a transitional arrangement available to companies awaiting licensing decisions.

After the application was rejected, Orionx could only conclude existing operations. It could not enter into new regulated transactions under the transitional regime and had to explain the wind-down process to customers.

The commission also said Orionx had not demonstrated that it held the guarantees required from authorized financial service providers. This does not prove the alleged custody misconduct, but it affects the legal protections available during the closure.

Although Orionx told customers that it had notified the relevant authority about its closure plan, the commission stressed that it neither approved nor supervises that plan. It also lacks authority to direct Orionx to return customer assets.

The regulator advised customers to contact the company directly and preserve account statements, transaction records and communications. Customers can pursue claims through Chilean courts or provide evidence to prosecutors if they believe a crime occurred.

Tether invested in Orionx 15 months before closure

Tether led Orionx’s Series A financing in June 2025 as part of a strategy to expand stablecoin infrastructure across Latin America. Neither company publicly disclosed the investment’s value or Tether’s ownership percentage.

At the time, the companies said the financing would support remittances, payment collection and corporate treasury services in Chile, Peru, Mexico and Colombia. The investment was presented as a way to expand digital financial access across the region.

Crypto.news reported that the deal gave Tether exposure to a Chilean exchange offering services across four Latin American markets. The announcement described how the funding would support Orionx’s regional payments and stablecoin expansion.

Tether’s original announcement is no longer available at its former website address, although an archived copy remains accessible. Its removal does not establish when or why Tether took the page offline.

Tether has not publicly said whether it retained its investment when Orionx announced the closure. It has also not disclosed whether it held board rights, received financial reports or participated in custody oversight.

The stablecoin issuer continued investing in regulated and licensed companies elsewhere. Its later Latin American expansion included a minority investment in Bit2Me, part of a broader pattern of Tether-backed regional financial infrastructure deals.

Customers face an uncertain restitution process

Orionx said its first closure phase is underway, but it has not published a repayment calendar. Withdrawals remain suspended to prevent some customers from recovering assets ahead of others while account balances are reviewed.

The exchange said its priority is to return “the greatest possible amount” of customer assets. That wording confirms that full repayment is uncertain. It should not be interpreted as a commitment to make every customer whole.

The next verifiable developments will come from Orionx’s customer notices, Chilean prosecutorial actions and any court decisions affecting the disputed wallets. Publication of transaction hashes would also allow independent researchers to evaluate the alleged asset movements.

Customers will need individual balance confirmations before Orionx can determine their share of available assets. Recovery could also depend on whether prosecutors locate funds at other exchanges or obtain orders freezing wallets linked to the disputed transfers.

Bitwise’s Hyperliquid exchange-traded fund resumed accumulating HYPE on Sept. 4 after four days without a tracked purchase.

Wallets linked to the fund acquired approximately $10.5 million of the token, according to blockchain intelligence platform Arkham.

The allocation was BHYP’s largest tracked purchase since a $23.2 million transaction on Aug. 27, Arkham reported on Sept. 6. The platform estimates that Bitwise-linked addresses have accumulated about $166.3 million in HYPE since the product launched.

Arkham described BHYP as the “largest HYPE ETF.” That ranking relies on addresses identified by its analysts and the market value of tokens attributed to each product. Bitwise has not issued a matching announcement confirming the $166.3 million figure.

Bitwise HYPE ETF resumed buying after four inactive days

The $10.5 million transaction ended the longest recent gap in BHYP-linked accumulation reported by Arkham. However, the movement should not automatically be interpreted as one investor purchasing $10.5 million of fund shares.

Exchange-traded crypto products create and redeem shares through authorized participants. The trust may receive cash or tokens as part of that process, depending on its operating structure. Its HYPE acquisitions can therefore reflect net share creations, liquidity management or settlement activity involving several investors.

Blockchain data can identify transfers between labeled addresses. It cannot always reveal the commercial purpose of every transfer. Address ownership may also change, while internal custody movements can resemble purchases unless analysts identify the sending address and transaction route.

Arkham’s figures should consequently be treated as third-party estimates rather than audited fund-flow data. The reported four-day pause refers to activity involving wallets recognized by Arkham. It does not prove that the fund received no investor orders during that period.

Official filings confirm BHYP holds HYPE directly

Bitwise announced BHYP in May as a U.S.-listed product designed to hold HYPE rather than derivatives tracking its price. The fund began trading on NYSE Arca on May 15 after commencing operations one day earlier.

Its SEC registration documents state that the trust primarily seeks to reflect the value of its HYPE holdings, minus operating expenses and liabilities. Bitwise markets the vehicle as an ETF, while its regulatory documents describe it as a Delaware statutory trust issuing exchange-traded shares.

The structure gives brokerage customers regulated exposure to HYPE without requiring them to maintain a crypto wallet or interact directly with Hyperliquid. Investors still face the token’s price risk, fund expenses, potential tracking differences and risks associated with crypto custody.

BHYP’s quarterly report names Anchorage Digital Bank as the trust’s HYPE custodian. The filing also confirms that part of the fund’s holdings can be staked to generate rewards.

Bitwise’s fund website lists a target of staking 70% of the trust’s assets. The BHYP product page reported a 2.25% gross staking reward rate and a 1.18% net rate in early September. Those rates can change and do not represent guaranteed returns.

The $166 million ranking depends on wallet attribution

Arkham’s description of BHYP as the largest HYPE ETF is broadly consistent with the fund’s strong early demand. Still, the $166.3 million estimate should not be presented as official assets under management unless Bitwise publishes an equivalent figure.

Tracked token value can differ from a fund’s net assets. An ETF’s reported net asset value incorporates liabilities, cash, accrued fees and other accounting items. The dollar value of an identified wallet also moves continuously with HYPE’s market price.

Comparisons between HYPE products require consistent timestamps and valuation methods. Bitwise competes with products from 21Shares and Grayscale, among others. Grayscale prepared a fund carrying the HYPG ticker and a proposed 0.29% fee, according to coverage of the expanding HYPE ETF market.

BHYP attracted substantial demand soon after launching. Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley reported approximately $19 million in daily inflows during May, when the fund recorded its strongest session at that time. That inflow helped BHYP take an early lead among HYPE products, as crypto.news reported.

HYPE-linked products collectively surpassed $100 million in reported inflows during their first ten trading sessions. The early total showed that regulated funds were becoming a measurable source of token demand, according to related coverage of institutional HYPE purchases.

ETF purchases are separate from Hyperliquid’s buybacks

BHYP’s purchases form only one part of HYPE’s demand structure. Hyperliquid also operates a protocol mechanism that uses revenue from trading fees to acquire HYPE through its Assistance Fund.

Those purchases are not ETF inflows. They originate from activity on Hyperliquid’s trading platform and continue according to the protocol’s fee-allocation rules. Combining them with BHYP’s activity would overstate demand from investment products.

Hyperliquid had used more than $1.16 billion in fee revenue for HYPE purchases by late May, according to reporting on its automated buyback mechanism. The mechanism links HYPE demand to platform revenue, while ETF buying depends on investor creations and redemptions.

Bitwise has created another, smaller connection between its business and the token. The manager pledged to use 10% of BHYP’s management fees to purchase and hold HYPE on its corporate balance sheet. Those purchases belong to Bitwise rather than the ETF trust, making them distinct from the assets backing BHYP shares. The management-fee commitment therefore should not be counted as fund holdings.

What the next disclosures can confirm

Bitwise’s official holdings, net asset value and shares outstanding offer the clearest way to test Arkham’s estimate. Changes in those figures can show whether the reported wallet accumulation corresponded with new ETF share creation.

Later SEC reports will provide audited or reviewed accounting information, although quarterly filings arrive after the transactions they cover. Daily fund disclosures may provide more current figures, but they can use valuation times that differ from Arkham’s live blockchain calculations.

Investors should also watch for revisions to Arkham’s address labels. A custody transfer, staking movement or newly identified address could change the platform’s estimate without representing fresh investor demand.

No evidence presented by Arkham establishes that the $10.5 million purchase caused a particular movement in HYPE’s price. Token prices respond simultaneously to broader crypto conditions, derivatives positioning, protocol buybacks and trading activity. Any claim assigning a specific price move to BHYP alone would remain speculative.

Orionx, a Chilean cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after discovering a custodial shortfall that Orionx says is tied to assets leaving wallets the exchange did not manage. The company said it has started a permanent closure process and is temporarily suspending withdrawals while it works to return funds to clients.

In a statement posted on X, Orionx said a forensic audit found that more than $7 million in custodial assets recorded in the exchange’s systems had moved to wallets not controlled by Orionx. “Our sole priority now is to return as much of our clients’ assets as possible,” the exchange said.

Key takeaways

• Orionx began permanent closure after a forensic review identified a custody mismatch involving over $7 million.
• Withdrawals are temporarily suspended as the exchange moves to return client assets.
• The company did not disclose when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint referenced activity between 2018 and 2021.
• Orionx accused former co-founders of alleged access to custody systems and denied wrongdoing by the accused parties.
• Tether led Orionx’s Series A in June 2025, underscoring how quickly the fallout can arrive even after major investment.

A custody mismatch triggers a shutdown

Orionx’s announcement did not provide specifics on the timing of the discrepancy or how the issue was first uncovered. However, the exchange said it initiated a permanent closure process following forensic findings that compared Orionx’s internal records with onchain data linked to its custody addresses.

The external audit, according to reporting cited in a criminal complaint, concluded that balances maintained in Orionx’s systems exceeded the assets actually held at the custody addresses for several cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). Orionx said these funds had been moved to wallets it did not manage.

For customers, the practical impact is immediate: withdrawals are currently paused while Orionx attempts to reconcile records and return what it can. The lack of disclosed timing in the company’s public post also leaves outside observers with an incomplete picture of when customers may have been most exposed to the custody gap.

What Orionx says it found, and what remains unclear

According to Orionx and related reporting, the exchange’s review started in the context of compliance efforts tied to Chile’s Fintech Law. Orionx reportedly carried out an internal operational review in 2025 and brought in financial professionals, as described by La Tercera, citing the company’s criminal complaint.

La Tercera reported that on Aug. 27 Orionx’s chief operating officer, Thomas Mac Millan, identified what the complaint describes as a “significant mismatch” between what Orionx’s systems recorded and what was actually held in custody. After that internal review, Orionx commissioned a forensic audit that compared operational records against data verifiable onchain.

The criminal complaint, as reported, alleges that assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts on other crypto platforms. Despite that window being referenced in the complaint, Orionx’s public closure announcement did not confirm when the discrepancy occurred or whether all of the alleged transfers align with the full value of the shortfall ultimately identified.

Criminal complaint against former co-founders

Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz, both described as co-founders who allegedly had access to the custody systems. The company’s allegations center on transfers tied to wallets not controlled by Orionx.

La Tercera reported that the complaint alleges an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. It also reported that another wallet allegedly received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.

Zibert and Díaz denied the accusations. According to La Cuarta, they said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of the asset shortfall remains unclear. The denial adds a key uncertainty for clients and observers: even if custody mismatches are documented, disputes over responsibility and intent can complicate timelines for recovery and any eventual legal resolution.

Tether’s 2025 backing and the speed of disruption

Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform offering crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.

In June 2025, Tether led Orionx’s Series A funding round, described in a Tether announcement that is now available only via an archived link. The exchange’s Series A was positioned by Tether as part of an effort to expand digital-asset adoption in Latin America.

As of publication, Cointelegraph reported that it contacted both Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response.

The episode highlights a broader reality for investors and users: even where a major stablecoin issuer participates in funding, due diligence on operational custody processes must remain a continuous effort rather than a one-time milestone. Orionx’s shutdown, coming only about a year after the Series A, also raises questions about how custody controls evolve after an investment round and what auditing mechanisms—internal or external—are in place during periods of growth.

For clients, the next steps will likely hinge on how Orionx conducts reconciliations and whether it can identify recoverable assets tied to custody mismatches. Readers should watch for updates on the scope of the recovered funds, the timing of the alleged transfers, and how the criminal case progresses—especially given the accused parties’ claim that the root cause of the shortfall is not established.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin outlined a longer-term transaction model on Sept. 6 that could allow the network to process some validation work in parallel.

His proposal separates the effects produced by transactions from the conditions that must be satisfied before those effects can occur.

Buterin described the two components as “actions” and “dependencies” in a detailed post. Actions change Ethereum’s state, such as transferring ETH or calling a contract. Dependencies cover the information required to establish that a transaction is valid.

A digital signature is one example of a dependency. Other examples include Merkle proofs showing that an unspent output exists, zero-knowledge proofs and state conditions that must remain true when a transaction enters a block.

Buterin argued that making this distinction explicit could help Ethereum scale without abandoning its flexible execution environment. However, the proposal remains part of continuing protocol research. Ethereum developers have not approved the full design for deployment.

Ethereum could process transaction dependencies in parallel

Ethereum transactions currently combine authorization, fee payment and execution within a common processing flow. Nodes check whether a transaction is properly signed, whether the sender can pay for it and whether its instructions execute successfully.

Some of these checks do not depend on the transaction’s final state changes. Buterin said such dependencies could be processed separately and, in many cases, simultaneously.

For example, a validator may need to confirm a signature before accepting a transaction. That verification does not necessarily need to wait for unrelated signatures attached to other transactions. If multiple independent checks are known in advance, clients can distribute the work across available processing resources.

State-dependent checks require greater care. A condition tied to an account balance or storage slot may become invalid if an earlier transaction changes the same state. Buterin said mempools could reason about these conditions more effectively when transactions declare which parts of the state they access.

The approach would reward predictable transactions. Operations that specify their dependencies clearly could receive lower gas costs because clients could verify them more efficiently. Transactions requiring dynamic calls and unpredictable state access would remain possible but could cost more.

Buterin estimated that more than 90% of Ethereum activity by volume does not require the network’s full level of dynamic flexibility. That figure is his assessment rather than a published network measurement within the post. The broader argument is that common transfers and routine contract interactions could use more restrictive formats without limiting specialized applications.

The proposed model would preserve Ethereum’s flexible account system for transactions that need it. More predictable activity could use statically analyzable structures resembling parts of Bitcoin’s transaction model.

Bitcoin uses an unspent transaction output model in which a transaction identifies the outputs it intends to spend. Ethereum normally uses accounts with balances, nonces and programmable contract storage. Buterin is not proposing that Ethereum replace its account model with Bitcoin’s architecture. He described a spectrum combining ideas from both systems.

EIP-8141 provides a general transaction framework

EIP-8141 is a draft Ethereum Improvement Proposal for a new transaction type known as a Frame Transaction. It divides a transaction into contract-call frames that can validate authority, approve gas payment and perform user operations.

The official proposal says transaction validity and fee payment would no longer depend solely on a standard signature attached to the outer transaction. Account code could instead define the necessary authorization and payment rules.

Frame Transactions could support sponsored fees, payments in tokens other than ETH, key rotation and transaction batching. They could also allow externally owned accounts to receive account-abstraction features without relying on the same contract deployment across every compatible network.

Under the proposed structure, verification frames would determine whether the sender authorized the transaction. Separate frames could establish who pays the fees and then execute the requested operations.

This structure aligns with Buterin’s division between dependencies and actions. Verification frames handle conditions that must be satisfied. Sender frames handle the operations that alter state.

The format could also improve interoperability between Ethereum Virtual Machine networks. Different chains could support the same minimal transaction structure while applying their own verification tools, precompiles or account features.

Buterin described the potential format as a basic list of calls with flags identifying their function. A call could be marked as a pure dependency, a state-dependent verification or an action. The transaction would also contain standard information such as its origin and nonce.

EIP-8141 remains classified as a draft Core proposal. Its current specification includes detailed rules for mempool admission, frame execution, receipts, signatures, gas accounting and transaction propagation. Those details can change during review.

Ethereum developers have also debated technical concerns. These include denial-of-service risks, transaction replacement rules, tooling changes, pending-transaction limits and restrictions placed on verification frames.

One discussion noted that the proposed public mempool would normally keep only one pending Frame Transaction for each sender. Developers have questioned how that rule would affect accounts that regularly submit several transactions within one block.

Other participants have examined whether the format introduces additional complexity for wallets, block builders and Ethereum’s remote procedure call interfaces. These questions must be resolved before client teams can implement a stable specification.

Recursive STARKs could remove repeated verification

Buterin’s longer-term model goes beyond EIP-8141. He suggested that dependencies requiring no state access could be checked once at the mempool layer instead of being repeated by every validator.

A pure dependency might include a cryptographic signature or proof whose validity does not change with Ethereum’s state. After checking it, the network could replace multiple pieces of verification work with a recursive STARK confirming that all checks were completed correctly.

A STARK is a cryptographic proof that allows one party to demonstrate that a computation was performed correctly. Recursive proofs can verify other proofs, making it possible to combine many checks into a smaller verification task.

The proposed mempool could aggregate transaction signatures, validity proofs and other dependencies before block execution. Validators would then verify the aggregated proof instead of independently repeating each original computation.

Buterin suggested that this approach might also reduce the amount of verification data placed on-chain. If the recursive proof establishes that all dependencies were valid, some of the original data could potentially be omitted.

That outcome is not part of the current EIP-8141 specification. It would require additional research covering proof generation, mempool coordination, data availability and protections against invalid aggregation.

The design also relates to Ethereum’s preparation for post-quantum cryptography. Quantum-resistant signatures are generally larger and more expensive to verify than the ECDSA signatures used by ordinary Ethereum accounts.

EIP-8141 could allow accounts to define new authorization schemes without waiting for Ethereum to replace a single fixed signature standard. Recursive proof aggregation could then reduce the cost of verifying large post-quantum signatures.

EIP-8141 could help Ethereum accounts adopt post-quantum authorization if practical signature systems become available. That remains a longer-term security path rather than an immediate response to an active quantum threat.

Keyed nonces could remove transaction bottlenecks

Ethereum accounts use sequential nonces to prevent transaction replay. If an account submits transactions numbered 10, 11 and 12, the network normally processes them in that order.

The sequence can create a bottleneck. If transaction 10 becomes stuck or invalid, later transactions from the same account may also wait, even when their operations are unrelated.

Keyed nonces would give an account several independent nonce sequences. Transactions assigned to different keys could proceed without waiting for another sequence to advance.

This could help smart accounts, privacy systems and applications that submit several independent operations simultaneously. Each workflow could receive its own nonce domain while retaining replay protection.

Crypto.news previously reported that keyed nonces could prevent independent private transactions from blocking each other. The feature is part of a broader effort to improve privacy transactions, flexible accounts and censorship resistance.

Buterin also connected the transaction work with alternative state models, including native UTXO designs and proof-based state structures. These projects explore whether some assets or operations can use predictable state rules while complex contracts retain Ethereum’s existing flexibility.

The approach could create several processing levels. Simple, declared operations would be easier to analyze and could receive lower fees. Dynamic contract calls would continue to work but would consume more resources because clients cannot prepare their execution in the same way.

Such differentiated pricing would attempt to align fees with the actual scaling constraints created by each transaction. It would not guarantee lower fees for every user or application.

EIP-8141 still requires developer approval and testing

EIP-8141 must pass several stages before it can affect Ethereum users. Core developers first need to agree that Frame Transactions offer a better path than competing account-abstraction designs.

The proposal would then require client implementations, development networks, interoperability testing, wallet support and security review. Developers would also need to test how Frame Transactions interact with block builders, mempools, fee markets and existing smart contracts.

Earlier developer discussions considered EIP-8141 for Ethereum’s future Hegotá upgrade. However, crypto.news reported that Frame Transactions remained under consideration rather than formally scheduled.

FOCIL, a separate proposal intended to improve censorship resistance through transaction inclusion lists, has also been discussed alongside EIP-8141. The two proposals address different problems. Frame Transactions concern authorization and execution structure, while FOCIL concerns the inclusion of eligible transactions in blocks.

Developers have argued that using them together could provide native account abstraction with stronger censorship resistance. That combination is still a proposed package, not an approved Ethereum roadmap commitment.

Buterin’s Sept. 6 comments therefore describe a possible direction for Ethereum transaction design. They do not announce a completed upgrade, activation date or confirmed change to mainnet gas fees.

The next verifiable milestones would be formal developer support, inclusion in an upgrade scope and working implementations on development networks. Until then, EIP-8141 and recursive STARK mempools remain active research and engineering proposals.

FAQs