Everything

Light

would

Ethereum

<p>Ethereum is getting a fork called Hegotá next year, and after that an era ends. That is the core claim of a post co-founder Vitalik Buterin published on September 27, 2026, under the title “The cryptographic world computer”: Hegotá is likely to be the network's last “normal” fork, with properties and technology that someone from 2015 would still recognise. Everything after it concerns recursive STARKs, automated formal verification, heavily optimised consensus procedures and the task of making the whole thing quantum-safe.</p>
<p>For you as a holder there is nothing to do about it for now. There is no deadline, no swap, no address that becomes invalid tomorrow. What matters is the direction: the way Ethereum authorises a transaction, the way a block is verified and the way your wallet talks to the network are all due to change over the coming years. Anyone deciding on custody today is also deciding how much work that changeover will cause them later. <a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/prediction/ethereum-price-prediction/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Ethereum</a> traded between $2,711 and $2,722 on Tuesday midday, depending on the data source; Buterin's post did not move the price, and that is the accurate finding: this is technology on a horizon of years, not a trading impulse.</p>
<h2 id="what-vitalik-buterin-wrote-on-september-27">What Vitalik Buterin Wrote on September 27</h2>
<p>Buterin's starting point is a critique of the word “blockchain”. He works through the original Bitcoin white paper section by section and sets each method from 2010 against the way Ethereum is meant to solve the same task in 2030. His conclusion: in almost every section the method has changed or will change. The question of whether a transaction was authorised was answered in 2010 by a signature; in 2030 it is meant to be sometimes a quantum-safe signature, sometimes several of them, sometimes a zero-knowledge proof. The question of how a node verifies a block was answered in 2010 by downloading and re-executing everything; in future it will be enough to check a SNARK plus data availability via PeerDAS.</p>
<p><strong>Zero-knowledge proof</strong> is the name for a cryptographic method with which one party demonstrates that a statement is true without revealing the underlying data. <strong>SNARK</strong> and <strong>STARK</strong> are two constructions of such proofs; STARKs dispense with a pre-generated secret and are, on current understanding, considered resistant to quantum computers. <strong>PeerDAS</strong> is the method by which nodes check on a sampling basis whether block data is genuinely available, without loading all of it.</p>
<p>From this Buterin draws a conclusion that goes beyond technology: a modern cryptographic network such as Ethereum after the Lean upgrade is still called a “blockchain” mainly for historical reasons. In substance it is a hybrid of Satoshi Nakamoto's core ideas and cryptographic tools that emerged from fifty years of academic work and either did not exist in 2009 or were not mature.</p>
<h2 id="hegot-the-last-fork-a-user-from-2015-would-recognise">Hegotá: The Last Fork a User From 2015 Would Recognise</h2>
<p>Hegotá is the name of the Ethereum upgrade that, according to Buterin, is planned for next year. He is referring to the “strawmap”, the roughly sketched roadmap of the developer community. The sentence at issue appears verbatim in his post: Hegotá is probably Ethereum's last normal fork. After it begins a phase in which it is not individual parameters that change but the construction itself.</p>
<p>The word “normal” carries the actual information here. A normal fork shifts fee rules, introduces a new transaction type or improves a process that already exists. A user from 2015 would have understood all of that. What Buterin expects afterwards would be alien to that user: proofs instead of re-execution, signature schemes resting on different mathematics, and block production involving several parties rather than a single producer.</p>
<p>By way of context: a roadmap is not a commitment. Buterin himself writes of a horizon of the next three years and of the fact that much of it is still research or early implementation. Every component has to take the usual route through the core developers, and dates in Ethereum development shift regularly. Anyone deriving a date from this post is reading in more than it contains.</p>
<h2 id="recursive-starks-how-ethereum-will-prove-blocks-instead-of-re-executing-them">Recursive STARKs: How Ethereum Will Prove Blocks Instead of Re-Executing Them</h2>
<p>Today the rule is: anyone who wants certainty that a block is valid re-executes it. A full node loads the transactions and runs them again. That is why running your own node costs storage space and computing time. The roadmap reverses this relationship: the block brings its proof with it, and the node checks the proof. <strong>Recursive</strong> here means that a proof in turn aggregates proofs, so that in the end a single compact proof stands for a long chain of operations.</p>
<p>In practice that means two things. First, the barrier to checking for yourself falls. Buterin explicitly names this as a side effect for privacy: anyone running their own node does not have to tell anybody which addresses interest them, and a node becomes easier to run once the computational load disappears. Second, the role of light clients changes. So far they can follow the consensus but have to trust an honest majority for validity. In future they should be able to establish both themselves, data availability and computation.</p>
<figure><img src="https://cryptoticker-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/ethereum_hegota_letzter_fork_2_cdd039f604.webp" alt="A heavy brass shutter falls closed and divides the image into a lit and a shadowed half, on the left a brightly polished coin with a diamond-shaped symbol, on the right the same coin matt and tarnished" width="1200" height="675">
 <figcaption>
  On Buterin's account, Hegotá closes the window for changes an Ethereum user from 2015 would still recognise.
 </figcaption>
</figure>
<h2 id="quantum-safe-signatures-and-the-authorisation-of-a-transaction">Quantum-Safe Signatures and the Authorisation of a Transaction</h2>
<p>The point that affects holders most directly sits in the first row of Buterin's table. Today a signature demonstrates that you authorised a transaction. That signature rests on elliptic curves, a method that a sufficiently large quantum computer could break on the current understanding of cryptography. For 2030 Buterin describes a different state: sometimes a quantum-safe signature, sometimes several of them, sometimes a zero-knowledge proof.</p>
<p>The Ethereum Foundation also lists quantum resistance as a field of work in its public <a href="https://ethereum.org/roadmap/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">roadmap</a>, in the section on network security. There too no changeover date appears, only a description of the goal. What follows from that for you depends less on the protocol than on the software you use to access your balance: your wallet has to support a new signature type, and on a device that means new firmware. How it looks in everyday use therefore depends on your custody route and not on the protocol; at European level the question now occupies supervisors and custodians as well.</p>
<p>One qualification belongs with this, because it is often lost: it does not follow from “Hegotá is the last normal fork” that Ethereum would be quantum-safe afterwards. It follows that the work on it moves to the foreground after Hegotá. Between a statement of intent and a rolled-out signature changeover lie several years and many intermediate steps for a network with this volume of wallets, applications and contracts.</p>
<h2 id="proof-of-stake-after-hegot-few-slot-finality-and-what-stakers-will-notice">Proof of Stake After Hegotá: Few-Slot Finality and What Stakers Will Notice</h2>
<p>On consensus, Buterin describes the path from proof of work through today's proof of stake to a “heavily optimised” form. Specifically he names <strong>few-slot finality</strong>, meaning finality within a few slots instead of today's wait of around a quarter of an hour, and an “available chain”, a chain whose data is demonstrably available. Added to that is block production involving several parties, among other things through the FOCIL mechanism, which does not leave the inclusion of transactions to a single builder.</p>
<p>If you stake ETH through a provider or run your own validator, this affects you in two places. Faster finality shortens the time after which an operation counts as complete, which can speed up deposits and withdrawals at exchanges and staking services. And a change to the consensus always means a client update by a set date for validators. Anyone who misses the date earns no rewards in that period and risks penalties. This is not a new insight but the reason why serious staking requires maintenance.</p>
<p>In his post Buterin also names how a transaction's path into the network is meant to change. Today it goes from the user into the mempool and from there to the producer of the block. In future the mempool itself should bring privacy properties with it, and signatures as well as proofs should be separated out early and bundled by mempool nodes. That sounds technical but has one visible consequence: it becomes harder to read out of the mempool who is planning what, and that is precisely where many front-running attacks originate today.</p>
<h2 id="peerdas-and-light-clients-the-small-node-gains-weight">PeerDAS and Light Clients: The Small Node Gains Weight</h2>
<p>PeerDAS is the component of the roadmap that, on Buterin's account, has already begun the transition. Instead of loading all the data, nodes take samples and thereby establish whether the data really was published. The same logic applies to storing history: rather than every node keeping everything, each is meant to hold only a small part, distributed across the network.</p>
<p>For you this is above all a statement about independence. The less an own node costs, the more realistic it becomes not merely to believe what your wallet software reports but to check it against the network. Today that is not an option for most private holders, which is why every wallet asks a service provider. Anyone wanting to know how differently providers handle this dependency will find the differences in the <a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/comparison/software-wallets/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">software wallet comparison</a>.</p>
<figure><img src="https://cryptoticker-strapi-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/ethereum_hegota_letzter_fork_3_03b740887d.webp" alt="Workbench under a task lamp with a small black custody device, a metal plate with a stamped honeycomb grid and a coin bearing a diamond-shaped symbol" width="1200" height="675">
 <figcaption>
  Whether a new signature type reaches you is decided by the software on the device that holds your keys.
 </figcaption>
</figure>
<h2 id="hardware-wallet-and-software-wallet-what-holders-should-look-for-in-the-signature-standard">Hardware Wallet and Software Wallet: What Holders Should Look for in the Signature Standard</h2>
<p>The changeover of a signature scheme does not reach you through the blockchain but through a software update. That raises questions you can already answer today about your custody route, without waiting for Hegotá.</p>
<ul>
 <li><strong>Does your device still get firmware?</strong> A hardware wallet is only fit for the future as long as the manufacturer keeps delivering new schemes. Older models eventually drop out of support, and then precisely the signature type the network expects is missing.</li>
 <li><strong>Do you know your recovery route?</strong> Anyone who has their recovery words safe can change devices. Anyone who does not is tied to one manufacturer's support.</li>
 <li><strong>Does your provider know whose keys these are?</strong> If your ETH sits at an exchange, it takes on this work entirely. That is convenient and shifts the risk onto its solvency and its supervision.</li>
 <li><strong>Do you use smart contract accounts?</strong> Accounts controlled by a contract can be adapted to new schemes more flexibly than a classic account tied to a single key. That is exactly what the term account abstraction in the roadmap is aimed at.</li>
</ul>
<h2 id="holding-eth-through-an-etp-who-hands-over-the-key-question">Holding ETH Through an ETP: Who Hands Over the Key Question</h2>
<p>Some German investors do not hold Ethereum themselves at all but through an exchange-traded product in their securities account. For this group the signature question is a matter for the issuer and its custodian. You acquire a debt instrument or a share, not a private key, and with that the topic shifts from your firmware to issuer risk. Which routes exist for this in Germany, and how to recognise costs and structure, is set out in our overview of <a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/crypto-etf-germany-buy/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">crypto ETFs and ETPs for German securities accounts</a>.</p>
<p>That is not an argument for or against either route. It is a division of tasks: self-custody gives you control and the duty of maintenance. A product in a securities account takes the maintenance off you and gives you a counterparty whose creditworthiness you cannot influence.</p>
<h2 id="holding-period-and-tax-what-a-protocol-upgrade-changes-about-the-acquisition-date">Holding Period and Tax: What a Protocol Upgrade Changes About the Acquisition Date</h2>
<p>One question comes up with every major upgrade: does it change anything about the tax holding period? On the current understanding in Germany, the one-year period for private disposals applies to crypto assets held privately, and a protocol upgrade is not an acquisition: your ETH remains the same asset, it is neither swapped nor newly acquired. The case is different if a fork produces two chains with two tokens, or if you sell and rebuy your holdings in the course of a changeover.</p>
<p>With Hegotá, nothing on the record so far points to a split of the chain; it is described as a planned upgrade that the developer community follows together. What gives you certainty, though, is only the documentation of your own transactions: purchase date, quantity, price and equivalent value at every movement. Anyone keeping that continuously never has to reconstruct backwards at an upgrade. A binding answer for your case comes from tax advice, not from a trade article.</p>
<h2 id="what-remains-open-dates-intermediate-steps-and-the-state-of-research">What Remains Open: Dates, Intermediate Steps and the State of Research</h2>
<p>Three points remain expressly open after Buterin's post, and they belong in any assessment. The timing of Hegotá is roughly named as “next year”; the post gives no date. The order of the components after Hegotá is not settled; Buterin describes a bundle of directions, not a sequence. And the maturity varies: PeerDAS is already getting under way, while real-time proofs for entire blocks and quantum-safe signature schemes are, on his own account, in part still research or early implementation.</p>
<p>What is solid, then, is the direction, not the calendar. Anyone deriving a price forecast from it overstretches the source: a roadmap spanning several years does not move a daily price, and the post contains no statement about valuations. Anyone deriving from it that custody requires maintenance, however, is right, and that needs no date.</p>
<h2 id="ethereum-after-hegot-what-to-take-away">Ethereum After Hegotá: What to Take Away</h2>
<ol>
 <li><strong>Find out how long your custody route is supported.</strong> Look at whether your device still receives firmware and whether your recovery words are within reach. The <a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/comparison/hardware-wallets/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">hardware wallet comparison</a> shows which manufacturers keep delivering and for how long.</li>
 <li><strong>With staking, settle who updates the client.</strong> With your own validator that is you, with a service it is the provider. Which models exist and what they cost is set out in the <a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/comparison/best-staking-rewards-platforms/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">overview of staking platforms</a>.</li>
 <li><strong>Choose deliberately between key and securities account.</strong> If you do not want to take on the maintenance, a product in a securities account is the more honest route than a self-custody arrangement you do not keep up; the routes for that are in the overview of <a href="https://cryptoticker.io/en/crypto-etf-germany-buy/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">crypto ETFs in Germany</a>.</li>
</ol>
<p><em>(As of September 29, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy. The primary source is Vitalik Buterin's post <a href="https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2026/09/27/the_cryptographic_world_computer.html" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">“The cryptographic world computer”</a> of September 27, 2026.)</em></p>

Ethereum After Hegotá: Buterin Sees the Last Normal Fork Coming Next Year

Table of Contents

CryptoTicker ENG

Other articles published on Sep 29, 2026

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!