The research explored a range of different EIPs and found that some are compatible with existing preconfirmation protocols, but others require adjustments and coordination across parties to ensure they continue to work as Ethereum evolves https://x.com/ConorMcMenamin9/...

For example, FOCIL is fully compatible with both inclusion and execution preconfirmations. It doesn't require any changes to existing protocols, making it a smooth fit in the evolving Ethereum landscape and one less thing for preconf teams to worry about

However, APS introduces specialized execution proposers via auctions or lotteries. Inclusion preconfirmations are compatible only if the proposer is elected before the slot begins and either doesn’t resell or can enforce commitments when resold. Is this realistic?

In proposals like MCP, inclusion preconfirmations remain compatible. However, execution preconfirmations break if no proposer can enforce priority over the final block content

As you can see, different EIPs have second order effects on preconfirmations and create a very dynamic environment for teams and adoption. For a detailed breakdown of how different EIPs impact preconfirmation compatibility, read the full research here: https://ethresear.ch/t/future-...

Thanks to Conor, Aikaterini, @linoscope and @Nethermindeth for this work and a great overview of the current landscape 🙏