Before the next "major upgrade" on Ethereum is thoroughly written into the positive narrative, the first alarm has already sounded. On November 6, 2026, according to Deep Tide TechFlow, during the preparation for an upgrade named Glamsterdam, the security auditing agency ChainSecurity pointed out that the EIP-8037 and EIP-8038 included in the upgrade would adjust the gas pricing for certain operations and states, potentially breaking at least eight invariants established around gas costs. The Ethereum Foundation immediately published a blog, providing explanations and self-check tools in conjunction with the code repository, and researcher Marius van der Wijden further dissected the risk details, leading to the postponement of the originally planned hard fork for the Hoodi testnet in line with this upgrade.
For airdrop participants who are focused on the progress of Ethereum ecosystem tasks and the rhythm of receipt, this upgrade is no longer merely a linear positive of "performance optimization + new story," but adds an extra layer of security and rhythm variables due to the rewriting of underlying rules. Some contract projects that heavily rely on the old assumptions of gas costs and execution models may exhibit boundary effects after Glamsterdam that diverge from their intended designs, thereby affecting task paths, points records, and even the technical foundation for future airdrop realizations. In the Ethereum ecosystem map covered by airdrop radar, Glamsterdam is no longer just a point in time but is evolving into a critical turning point that requires the simultaneous re-evaluation of both risk and opportunity weights.
Audit raises red flags: Glamsterdam upgrade forced to slow down
The true "brake" has been applied by the seemingly tedious gas invariants in the audit report. In its review prior to the Glamsterdam upgrade, security audit agency ChainSecurity pointed out that some Ethereum ecosystem projects treated existing gas pricing as an unchanging premise, designing contract logic and economic models around these "constant costs." However, the EIP-8037 and EIP-8038, responsible for adjusting gas design in Glamsterdam, will break eight key assumptions at the foundational level. This means that without changing a single line of code, some contracts may exhibit boundary behavior differences after the upgrade, which could misalign cost structures or trigger branches that should not have been triggered, directly impacting task execution, points accounting, and even fund security, becoming the most direct catalyst for this rhythm change.
In response to this "red light alert," the Ethereum Foundation chose not to push forward as initially planned with the hard fork but rather to first clarify the risks and then discuss how to slow down. The Foundation systematically explained the changes to the eight gas pricing assumptions and invariants through a blog post, specifically reminding smart contract developers and auditors to promptly self-check whether they are stepping on these premises. Simultaneously, it built a code repository to provide explanations, examples, and self-check tools for each assumption, facilitating project teams in cross-referencing and troubleshooting in a testing environment. Following that, Ethereum researcher Marius van der Wijden further articulated risk details and clearly stated that the planned hard fork process for the Hoodi testnet, which was intended to coincide with Glamsterdam, was temporarily suspended—effectively pressing the "pause button" on the testnet and shifting the upgrade rhythm backward to allow the ecosystem time for a comprehensive inspection under the new gas rules.
From the perspective of airdrop radar, this forced slowdown signifies the Ethereum community's clear trade-off between the upgrade timeline and safety boundaries: It is preferable to delay the hard fork validation of Hoodi than to ensure that the contract world built around gas cost assumptions undergoes a self-check first before discussing task issuance, points accumulation, and the reliability of future airdrop realizations.
Gas pricing rewrite pushes certain airdrop projects into gray areas
As Ethereum begins to rewrite gas pricing rules, the issue shifts from "how expensive are the transaction fees" to "which old contracts' worldviews are being quietly rewritten." In the Glamsterdam upgrade, EIP-8037, EIP-8038, along with the eight invariants related to gas pricing, have undergone surgery: gas costs for certain operations and states have been recalculated, loosening the details in the execution order that rely on these cost differences. For some projects that were launched early on and incorporated the assumptions of "this step will definitely be cheaper" and "that step will definitely be heavier" directly into their contract logic or economic models, the upgrade could lead to imperceptible but behavior-altering shifts—liquidation bots may no longer trigger at the original rhythm, breakeven points for fee refund pools could shift, and even the overall cost curve for users participating in certain operations may rise, distorting the originally calculated incentive mechanisms.
If these contracts are embedded with DeFi liquidity incentives, NFT minting and trading, or the points records and token distribution plans of infrastructure protocols, then the airdrops themselves become entangled in this rewrite. Paths designed under the old gas model for "trading to earn points" or "accumulating weight from specific interactions" might turn into loss-making operations after the upgrade, prompting project teams to adjust point weights, delay snapshot dates, or even entirely redo their airdrop plans. The Ethereum Foundation has already provided explanations and examples of the eight gas assumptions through blogs and code repositories, urging developers and auditors to self-check before taking action. However, before the mainnet is truly upgraded, these contract projects that have not yet completed public compatibility assessments have effectively been pushed into a gray area of "unlikely to have immediate issues but difficult to make firm commitments."
From the airdrop radar perspective, this means the interpretation of Ethereum ecosystem clues must be fine-tuned: no longer only looking at "is there a clear airdrop" or "are task paths published," but additionally tracking the "whether contracts have completed compatibility self-checks for Glamsterdam" as an implicit variable. Projects relying on on-chain interaction points and contract call frequency as core selection criteria, if they fail to provide technical explanations regarding gas rewrites, will be internally classified to need reassessment of rhythm and certainty, even if their card statuses remain unchanged. We will apply more cautious heat judgments and rhythm expectations to delineate the true boundaries of these potential opportunities.
Hoodi testnet paused, chain reaction on testnet tasks
When Ethereum researcher Marius van der Wijden wrote that the "Hoodi testnet hard fork is temporarily suspended" in the explanatory document, the pause button was pressed not just on a specific test chain. The Hoodi planned to execute a hard fork process in line with the Glamsterdam upgrade as a key scenario for contract upgrade rehearsals and user interaction experiments; now that the rhythm has been delayed, it means that the technical rehearsal, stress testing opportunities, and interaction rhythm surrounding this testnet have all shifted back a notch. For participants accustomed to completing "contract interactions—behavior sedimentation—pre-mainnet lurking" during the testnet phase, this serves as a signal from the foundation, not merely a case of "a project delaying updates."
Such changes will often first manifest on the Airdrop Radar page in the form of tasks primarily based on Ethereum testnets: new test interactions are delayed, originally planned contract calls in the testnet are postponed, and some cards linger for a long time in the "ongoing testing" narrative. This may appear as project operational rhythms slowing, but it is actually a delay in the foundational testnet upgrade that has pulled back the timeline for accumulating user behavior data. For projects relying on testnet interactions to filter active addresses and build point or whitelist systems, this passive slowdown directly translates to the uncertainty that "completing a task does not equal immediately moving to the next phase," which is conveyed to users tracking these opportunities.
Therefore, when tracking the Ethereum ecosystem, Airdrop Radar will deliberately analyze these two types of stagnation separately: one type is technical tasks like Hoodi that are forced to be delayed due to timing adjustments for the Glamsterdam upgrade, which depends more on the Ethereum layer's timeline; the other type consists of project-level inaction or tactical hesitance. The former need not be overly interpreted as a negative but may require a lowering of short-term progress expectations; the latter will depress heat and rhythm weights in our internal assessments. Moving forward, whether the new timeline for the Hoodi hard fork is clarified, and whether various projects update their testnet plans in sync, will become key variables for us to judge whether testnet tasks are genuinely "on hold" or merely "delayed in starting."
Foundation self-check tools launched, how Airdrop Radar integrates safety signals
From "identifying issues" to "providing tools," the Ethereum Foundation has shifted the discussion from abstract risk warnings back to actionable development processes. Around the eight gas pricing assumptions that may no longer hold after the Glamsterdam upgrade, the Foundation has specifically established a code repository that breaks down each assumption into explanations, examples, and self-check prompts, instructing developers and auditors on whether contract logic relies on these premises and which paths may exhibit behavioral differences post-upgrade, enabling standardized steps for thorough inspections. This combination of "blog + repository tools," along with previous blog posts and supplemental explanations from researchers, effectively turns technical details that previously existed in only a few audit reports into publicly accessible processes that all projects can follow.
For potential airdrop projects, the extent to which these tools are earnestly utilized will directly contribute to their technical profile. Projects willing to complete internal self-checks based on this tool before the upgrade and clearly explain their findings to the community demonstrate to the outside world how they manage the uncertainty brought by foundational changes; conversely, projects that do not mention compatibility assessments for an extended period may find it challenging to explain their silence when the Glamsterdam enters the substantive landing phase. For ordinary participants, "whether the project referenced the Foundation's official self-check path and whether it publicly disclosed results" will become an important clue for understanding its technical risks, rather than merely relying on vague reputations and marketing narratives.
In this context, Airdrop Radar can use the self-check tools provided by the Foundation as an anchor point for organizing safety signals within the Ethereum ecosystem. When filtering candidate projects on the same chain, we will categorize projects that "actively explain how they adapt to changes in these eight gas assumptions" into a group with more transparent technical risk information: they may not necessarily be free of issues, but at least they provide a verifiable process in the face of upgrade uncertainties. As the rhythm of the Glamsterdam upgrade and contract compatibility continues to evolve, this self-check and disclosure surrounding official tools will gradually become a critical reference dimension for Airdrop Radar in assessing projects' foundational robustness and for users deciding whether to continue engaging in task paths.
Upgrade narrative encounters new variables, the safety baseline for airdrop participation
Glamsterdam was originally framed as a "positive upgrade" surrounding performance and gas costs; however, after ChainSecurity highlighted the eight gas pricing invariants, the narrative shifted to "performance + compatibility game": proposals including EIP-8037 and EIP-8038 imply that existing gas assumptions are no longer stable, and some contract logic and economic models may exhibit subtle deviations post-upgrade. The pause in the Hoodi testnet hard fork rhythm and the Ethereum Foundation's public risks and self-check tools serve as a signal: airdrop participants can no longer solely look at "are there tasks" and "when are they issued," but must now incorporate the question of whether contracts are robust under the new gas rules into their fundamental judgments of projects.
Against this backdrop, the airdrop rhythm within the Ethereum ecosystem is likely to experience mismatches in the short term: some projects will wait for self-checks to be completed or even reconstruct part of their logic before daring to continue pushing task clues, while others will leverage an external perspective, like Airdrop Radar, to make their disclosures regarding compatibility risks more comprehensive in exchange for clearer labels regarding their risk portraits. For users, this doesn't necessarily mean "fewer opportunities," but rather resembles a sifter being replaced with a finer mesh—technical safety, self-check progress, task paths, and market sentiment will collectively dictate whether it is worth continuing to invest time. In the future, what truly needs close attention are three variables: when the timeline for the Hoodi hard fork is clarified, whether mainstream protocols gradually provide compatibility explanations based on the Foundation's self-check tools, and whether the heat structure of Ethereum-related projects on Airdrop Radar shifts from "focusing solely on positives" to "paying more attention to safety disclosures;" until these three clues realign, treating safety as the primary screening criterion for participating in airdrops is the most realistic and reliable baseline in the Glamsterdam upgrade cycle.
Join our community, let's discuss, and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
