Exactly same opinion like @ryanberckmans.
More important than shipping Fusaka in time is making sure transition is 100% flawless.
Tom Lee and others have recently made clear that very important USP of ETH is 100% uptime and reliability.
Moving release of Fusaka into Q1 2026 would matter less than ETH going down.
If we can have both - awesome.
But reliability and 100% liveness >>> shipping upgrades in time.
But surely agree that focus should be 100% on Fusaka and Glamsterdam should only get attention if Fusaka isn't endangered by that.
Glamsterdam may be getting some attention (it is a fork for Q1/Q2 2026). In the meantime, we should be more concerned about any potential delays to Fusaka (Q4 2025). As I have said many times, no amount of talking about Ethereum's roadmap and vision matters if we cannot achieve coordination levels that consistently meet goals on schedule. I know that some extremely talented people are now working on resolving the issues that caused teams to suggest moving the dates. I would love to see a broad agreement that the timelines matter a lot. A lot.
1.14K
24
The content on this page is provided by third parties. Unless otherwise stated, OKX is not the author of the cited article(s) and does not claim any copyright in the materials. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent the views of OKX. It is not intended to be an endorsement of any kind and should not be considered investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell digital assets. To the extent generative AI is utilized to provide summaries or other information, such AI generated content may be inaccurate or inconsistent. Please read the linked article for more details and information. OKX is not responsible for content hosted on third party sites. Digital asset holdings, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk and can fluctuate greatly. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition.