Client diversity
Execution layer diversity improved dramatically, but consensus layer supermajority risk persists with one client exceeding 33% threshold.
STRENGTHS
Multiple production-grade clients
Multiple execution and consensus clients are actively used in production, reducing single-client failure risk.
Actively managed client diversity
Client distribution is publicly monitored and coordinated to stay below safety-critical concentration thresholds.
RISKS
Over-concentration on a single execution or consensus client increases the risk of correlated failures that threaten liveness or safety. Client diversity has improved with broader adoption of minority clients; however, some concentration remains, leaving residual risk of correlated failures.
Widespread reliance on a small set of MEV relays and builders creates correlated dependencies across validators, reducing effective diversity in block production and increasing the risk of network-wide censorship, policy enforcement, or simultaneous failure.
Staking centralization
Proof-of-stake relies on a decentralized validator set, but economic incentives and operational constraints naturally concentrate stake among large operators. This creates correlated failure and censorship risks, making staking decentralization an ongoing protocol-level challenge.
STRENGTHS
Permissionless validator participation
Anyone meeting protocol requirements can participate directly in consensus without centralized approval.
Proposer–builder separation observability
Off-protocol PBS improves visibility into block construction and reduces opaque validator–builder collusion.
RISKS
Concentration of staking power among a small set of operators increases censorship and coordinated failure risk. Liquid staking diversification has improved, but concentration remains significant.
Quantum risk
Advances in quantum computing pose a long-term threat to the cryptographic primitives that secure Ethereum accounts, consensus, and data availability. While practical quantum attacks are not yet feasible, migrating to quantum-resistant cryptography is complex, resource-intensive, and requires broad ecosystem coordination. These constraints extend the window of exposure and make post-quantum preparedness a systemic challenge rather than a purely technical upgrade.
STRENGTHS
Cryptographic agility via hard forks
Ethereum can introduce new signature schemes through protocol upgrades without system replacement. This multi scheme operation is demonstrated via dual use of ECDSA and BLS.
RISKS
High costs and scalability constraints of post-quantum signatures delay migration, extending the period during which advances in quantum computing could compromise existing keys and signatures.