Add EIP: Deterministic Factory Predeploy #10092

frangio · 2025-08-04T01:53:31Z

A minimal CREATE2 factory is inserted as a system contract in the precompile range, to enable deterministic deployments at identical addresses across EVM chains that adopt it.

https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-7997-deterministic-factory-predeploy/24998

eth-bot · 2025-08-04T01:53:53Z

✅ All reviewers have approved.

frangio · 2025-08-04T02:12:22Z

EIPS/eip-.md

+
+1. A keyless transaction is crafted using Nick's method that can be posted permissionlessly to new chains. For this to work, the chain must support legacy transactions without [EIP-155](./eip-155.md) replay protection, and the fixed gas price and gas limit must be sufficiently high, but not so high as to exceed the limits of the chain.
+2. Private keys held by some party are used to sign creation transactions for each chain as needed. This creates a dependency on that party, does not provide a hard guarantee that the factory will be available on every chain, and can also irreversibly fail if transactions are not properly parameterized.
+3. [ERC-7955](./eip-7955.md): A private key is intentionally leaked so that any party can permissionlessly create an [EIP-7702](./eip-7702.md) signed delegation and deploy a factory from the leaked account. While this approach improves on the previous two, its reliance on ECDSA keys makes it non-quantum-resistant, and will fail once chains stop supporting ECDSA keys.


Pending merge: ethereum/ERCs#1052

I would also add as another downside that it stops working once there are network upgrades that accounts to permanently upgrade their code (which is loosely planed AFAIU).

which is loosely planed AFAIU

Will add the note but although this idea has been floated I actually don't think it's planned or likely. Because many contracts rely on ECRECOVER for authorization (eg, Permit), permanently setting a delegation doesn't effectively change the account logic. Messing with ECRECOVER to patch that is extremely unlikely.

EIPS/eip-.md

Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <[email protected]>

frangio · 2025-08-13T13:02:53Z

@lightclient This is now unblocked since ethereum/ERCs#1052 was merged. However, the validator bot doesn't support links to post-split ERCs, so it's not going to succeed even though the link will work fine once published.

Update: CI: Fix EIPW check by merging ERCs prior to running #10140

This PR changes the permissionless CREATE2 factory to propagate revert data (like [EIP-7997](ethereum/EIPs#10092)) instead of just reverting with empty data. Note that we no longer have the init code fiting into 32-byte :'(, but the runtime code still does :). That being said, the usability improvement of propagating revert data is worth the extra code size IMO. Note that deployment gas costs _still remain the same_, as the extra code is just in the `revert` branch for contract deployments. I also chose to keep `calldatasize() - 32` overflow behaviour as it is now. That is, it will revert with OOG (from trying to copy ~2**256 bytes of calldata to memory) instead of handling the revert manually. The rationale here is: 1. The call reverts one way or the other, so we don't have bad state (different from the suggestion in EIP-7997 which uses a saturating subtraction, where incorrect deployments will silently fail) 2. Additional gas costs would be paid on **every** create2 deployment to handle the conditional jump (basically, the "if calldatasize() < 32" check), for arguably very little benefit: it will only save gas for incorrect invocations, which shouldn't be used anywhere anyway.

g11tech · 2025-08-18T13:27:10Z

EIPS/eip-7997.md

+
+### Parameters
+
+* `FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER` = `TBD`


now we don't refer to fork block number in EIPs, we say on activation of EIP...

Thanks! Updated in 9d0aad3.

github-actions · 2025-08-18T18:52:50Z

The commit 9d0aad3 (as a parent of e3e94e2) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

This PR changes the permissionless CREATE2 factory to propagate revert data (like [EIP-7997](ethereum/EIPs#10092)) instead of just reverting with empty data. Note that we no longer have the init code fiting into 32-byte :'(, but the runtime code still does :). That being said, the usability improvement of propagating revert data is worth the extra code size IMO. Note that deployment gas costs _still remain the same_, as the extra code is just in the `revert` branch for contract deployments. I also chose to keep `calldatasize() - 32` overflow behaviour as it is now. That is, it will revert with OOG (from trying to copy ~2**256 bytes of calldata to memory) instead of handling the revert manually. The rationale here is: 1. The call reverts one way or the other, so we don't have bad state (different from the suggestion in EIP-7997 which uses a saturating subtraction, where incorrect deployments will silently fail) 2. Additional gas costs would be paid on **every** create2 deployment to handle the conditional jump (basically, the "if calldatasize() < 32" check), for arguably very little benefit: it will only save gas for incorrect invocations, which shouldn't be used anywhere anyway. The corresponding ERC changes are included here: safe-research/ERCs#5

This reverts commit 01def41.

This reverts commit fab9d80.

frangio · 2025-08-19T16:19:16Z

Removing reference to ERC-7955 until #10140 is merged.

g11tech · 2025-08-19T16:26:07Z

EIPS/eip-7997.md

+
+There is currently no native or fully robust way to perform multi-chain deterministic deployments. While `CREATE2` enables deterministic deployments, the created address is computed from that of the contract that invokes the instruction, so a *factory* that is itself multi-chain is required for bootstrapping. Four workarounds are currently known to deploy such a factory, each with their own issues:
+
+1. A keyless transaction is crafted using Nick's method that can be posted permissionlessly to new chains. For this to work, the chain must support legacy transactions without [EIP-155](./eip-155.md) replay protection, and the fixed gas price and gas limit must be sufficiently high, but not so high as to exceed the limits of the chain.


is it common knowledge what Nick's method is? else pls define/elaborate it

Yes it is common knowledge.

eth-bot

All Reviewers Have Approved; Performing Automatic Merge...

Add EIP: Multi-chain Deterministic Deployment Factory

ee680a8

frangio requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner August 4, 2025 01:53

github-actions bot added c-new Creates a brand new proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core labels Aug 4, 2025

eth-bot added the e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus label Aug 4, 2025

frangio added 2 commits August 3, 2025 23:02

add discussions link

e7676ac

rename for walidator

40b18ab

eth-bot added the e-review Waiting on editor to review label Aug 4, 2025

frangio added 2 commits August 3, 2025 23:10

sort requires

5322565

add links

6a3e6b9

frangio commented Aug 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Aug 4, 2025

Cassieminkus1 approved these changes Aug 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

abcoathup reviewed Aug 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

abcoathup reviewed Aug 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

abcoathup reviewed Aug 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

EIPS/eip-.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

frangio and others added 2 commits August 5, 2025 09:37

Update EIPS/eip-.md

b3d5dc3

Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <[email protected]>

Update EIPS/eip-.md

cebc2b2

Co-authored-by: Andrew B Coathup <[email protected]>

github-actions bot added w-ci Waiting on CI to pass and removed w-ci Waiting on CI to pass labels Aug 5, 2025

rename

efa237b

frangio changed the title ~~Add EIP: Multi-chain Deterministic Deployment Factory~~ Add EIP-7997: Multi-chain Deterministic Deployment Factory Aug 5, 2025

github-actions bot removed the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Aug 5, 2025

eth-bot changed the title ~~Add EIP-7997: Multi-chain Deterministic Deployment Factory~~ Add EIP: Multi-chain Deterministic Deployment Factory Aug 5, 2025

github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Aug 5, 2025

add further downside of erc 7955

2439eca

Cassieminkus1 approved these changes Aug 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Aug 13, 2025

nlordell mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2025

Propagate Revert Data safe-research/erc-7955#12

Merged

g11tech reviewed Aug 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

remove FORK_BLOCK_NUMBER and reword activation

9d0aad3

poojaranjan mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2025

EIP Editing Office Hour (EIP only) Meeting #69, Aug 19, 2025 ethereum/pm#1693

Closed

3 tasks

frangio added 3 commits August 19, 2025 13:14

use absolute link

01def41

Revert "use absolute link"

84dcb44

This reverts commit 01def41.

bypass link req

fab9d80

github-actions bot removed the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Aug 19, 2025

frangio added 2 commits August 19, 2025 13:18

Revert "bypass link req"

7c6390f

This reverts commit fab9d80.

remove erc ref

7088c21

add todo marker

f2978aa

g11tech reviewed Aug 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

g11tech approved these changes Aug 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

eth-bot enabled auto-merge (squash) August 19, 2025 16:29

eth-bot approved these changes Aug 19, 2025

View reviewed changes

eth-bot merged commit f8be9ce into ethereum:master Aug 19, 2025
13 checks passed

frangio deleted the multi-deploy branch August 19, 2025 16:34

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Add EIP: Deterministic Factory Predeploy #10092

Add EIP: Deterministic Factory Predeploy #10092

Uh oh!

frangio commented Aug 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

eth-bot commented Aug 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

frangio Aug 4, 2025

Uh oh!

nlordell Aug 5, 2025

Uh oh!

frangio Aug 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

frangio commented Aug 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

g11tech Aug 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

frangio Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

frangio commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

g11tech Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

frangio Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

eth-bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!


		There is currently no native or fully robust way to perform multi-chain deterministic deployments. While `CREATE2` enables deterministic deployments, the created address is computed from that of the contract that invokes the instruction, so a factory that is itself multi-chain is required for bootstrapping. Four workarounds are currently known to deploy such a factory, each with their own issues:

		1. A keyless transaction is crafted using Nick's method that can be posted permissionlessly to new chains. For this to work, the chain must support legacy transactions without [EIP-155](./eip-155.md) replay protection, and the fixed gas price and gas limit must be sufficiently high, but not so high as to exceed the limits of the chain.

Add EIP: Deterministic Factory Predeploy #10092

Add EIP: Deterministic Factory Predeploy #10092

Uh oh!

Conversation

frangio commented Aug 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

eth-bot commented Aug 4, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

frangio Aug 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nlordell Aug 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

frangio Aug 5, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

frangio commented Aug 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

g11tech Aug 18, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

frangio Aug 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Aug 18, 2025

Uh oh!

frangio commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

g11tech Aug 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

frangio Aug 19, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

eth-bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

frangio commented Aug 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

eth-bot commented Aug 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

frangio Aug 5, 2025 •

edited

Loading

frangio commented Aug 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

g11tech Aug 18, 2025 •

edited

Loading