Three Major Web3 Technical Initiatives Decoded: Jito BAM, BRC2.0, and EIP-7999

Jito BAM on Solana: Rethinking Block Architecture Through Pluginized Building

Solana’s MEV landscape is undergoing significant restructuring. Jito BAM—a block-building infrastructure layer—aims to tackle a fundamental architectural limitation: traditional sequential transaction processing. Unlike Ethereum’s PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) model, BAM leverages Solana’s unique POH (Proof of History) consensus to pre-arrange entire blocks within a TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) before validator distribution.

The initiative represents a coalition of heavyweight ecosystem players. Beyond Jito Labs, which commands 90% of Solana validators, the supporting cast includes Triton One, SOL Strategies, Figment, Helius, Drift, and Pyth. This coordinated push addresses an urgent competitive threat: specialized chains like Hyperliquid are capturing market share by optimizing native order-book DEX operations—capabilities that Solana’s linear block production struggles to replicate.

The technical architecture introduces a novel element: programmable transaction ordering through plugin code. This means developers can hardcode specific sequencing rules directly into the block structure. An oracle provider might ensure price feeds execute first, minimizing stale-data risks. A DEX builder could filter high-failure transactions in the TEE phase, reducing user costs from failed swaps.

The roadmap begins with Jito Labs operating nodes, gradually expanding to validators representing 30%+ of network staking, eventually moving toward decentralized governance.

However, scaling challenges loom. TEE throughput maxes out in the thousands of transactions per second, while Solana’s ambitions extend far beyond this ceiling. Operating multiple TEEs introduces complexity in disaster recovery, memory management, and bandwidth provisioning. Moreover, unless compelling economic incentives materialize, the infrastructure may struggle with profitability—Jito’s Q2 2025 earnings of approximately 4 million USD via tips underscore modest current returns.

The killer use cases—oracle sequencing reliability and transaction failure immunity—could justify market maker and institutional trading platform investments. Yet the fundamental risk remains: even 99% certainty doesn’t suffice for deterministic guarantees when 100% certainty is the standard.

BRC2.0: Bitcoin-Anchored EVM Execution

Bitcoin enters the programmability race with a distinctly different approach. Set for activation September 2, 2025, BRC2.0 reframes the conversation: rather than adding computational layers atop Bitcoin, it anchors programmable contracts to Bitcoin transactions while executing them in an off-chain, EVM-compatible environment.

Users inscribe instructions onto BTC blocks using inscription or commit-reveal mechanisms. An indexer interprets these instructions, executing them against a modified EVM runtime. Critically, no gas fees apply—only Bitcoin transaction fees matter, as the EVM parameter remains unpacked.

The protocol’s lineage traces to Bestinslot, the inscription-era platform that popularized ordinal theory. The philosophical continuity with BRC20 is evident: expand Bitcoin’s utility without altering consensus. Yet the engineering execution differs substantially—this targets EVM execution rather than simple token issuance.

A philosophical question emerges: should Bitcoin pursue programmability at all? The consensus-security-decentralization tradeoff that enables Bitcoin’s store-of-value narrative differs fundamentally from throughput-oriented chains. High-speed chains already outpace Bitcoin’s performance ceiling across every dimension. Bitcoin’s scarcity model and fixed-supply consensus mechanism create a unique valuation framework—precisely because programmability remains structurally limited. Layering execution capabilities risks diluting this core differentiation.

From an engineering perspective, the current implementation carries vulnerabilities. Recursive contract calls lack depth limitations, theoretically exposing the VM to crash scenarios from unbounded recursion. While fixes are straightforward, their absence in deployed code warrants caution.

EIP-7999: Harmonizing Ethereum’s Multi-Resource Fee Market

Vitalik Buterin’s latest fee-market proposal represents a systematic response to fragmentation. Ethereum currently manages pricing across four dimensions: execution gas (EIP-1559), blob gas (post-EIP-4844), calldata bytes (differentiated since 2015), and computation resources.

For users and wallet developers, this complexity breeds UX friction. L2 builders face a genuine crisis: miscalibrating any single fee dimension can fail the entire transaction, regardless of aggregate fee budget adequacy. A sudden blob gas spike might trigger failure despite sufficient execution gas allocation.

EIP-7999 introduces unified pricing through a single max_fee parameter that the EVM dynamically allocates across resource vectors. Implementation requires new transaction types with restructured field definitions, impacting RLP encoding, block headers, and consensus validation rules.

The approach mirrors improved UX design relative to ERC-4337’s complexity, though adoption timelines remain uncertain. Full integration likely requires 1-2 major hard forks, necessitating wallet ecosystem adaptation and node-level changes.

The economic reasoning deserves careful examination—Vitalik’s supporting analyses contain sophisticated models of resource utilization, fee extraction, and long-term network sustainability that warrant deep study by protocol developers and ecosystem builders navigating the next phase of scaling.

These three initiatives—each emerging from distinct blockchain ecosystems—reflect a broader maturation: builders are moving beyond simple scaling toward architected optimization, balancing technical feasibility with economic incentive alignment.