Decoding Three Web3 Protocol Shifts: What Makers Need to Know About BAM, BRC2.0, and EIP-7999

The Distributed Block Building Revolution: Jito BAM Reshapes Solana’s Transaction Flow

At its core, Jito’s BAM represents a fundamental rethinking of transaction sequencing—essentially a pluginized block construction framework designed to optimize MEV handling and prevent centralized manipulation on Solana. The initiative brings together heavyweight players including Triton One, SOL Strategies, Figment, Helius, and Drift, signaling coordinated action from the Solana ecosystem.

The interpretation of BAM’s value becomes clearer when examining Solana’s linear block production mechanism. Unlike Ethereum’s model where entire blocks are arranged before consensus, Solana’s POH algorithm produces blocks in a gradual process—each 400ms slot contains 64 time segments, with transactions pushed immediately rather than batched. BAM circumvents this limitation by leveraging Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) to pre-arrange full block transaction orders through plugin code, then submitting them to validators as complete sequences.

For market makers specifically, the plugin architecture offers tangible advantages. An oracle operator could hardcode price updates as the first transaction in a block, reducing randomness in on-chain pricing. DEX makers could write plugins to identify likely-to-fail transactions and exclude them from BAM packaging, avoiding unnecessary failure fees.

Jito’s deployment roadmap begins with Jito Labs operating nodes with limited validator participation, eventually expanding to cover 30%+ of network staking before full open-source decentralization. The strong narrative and focused use cases are compelling, though challenges loom: TEE infrastructure requires significant investment, operates at only thousands of QPS, and historical data shows Jito earned just 22,391.31 SOL (roughly $4M) in Q2 2025 through tips alone. Yet for specialized applications like oracle sequencing, market makers demonstrate willingness to pay for deterministic guarantees.

BRC2.0: Bitcoin-Backed EVM Execution Without Chain Status

Launching September 2, 2025, BRC2.0 represents an unconventional approach to Bitcoin programmability—essentially a dual-layer system where instructions are written on Bitcoin using inscriptions or commit-reveal schemes, then executed by a modified EVM running in the indexer layer rather than on-chain.

The bestinslot platform, which gained prominence during the Bitcoin inscription era, drives this initiative with a philosophy of layering programmability atop Bitcoin without modifying its core consensus. User-controlled EVM addresses derive from Bitcoin addresses through hashing and map to virtual EVM addresses, mirroring BRC20’s asset control logic through JSON encoding.

What distinguishes the execution model is its fee structure: gas pricing runs at zero on the EVM layer (reserved as a resource constraint only), while actual fees settle through Bitcoin transaction costs. This approach carries meaningful risks—security reviews found no call depth or recursion limits in the current implementation, theoretically allowing malicious contracts with unlimited self-calls to crash the execution layer.

The interpretation of BRC2.0’s market viability hinges on a crucial tension: while the protocol shares design philosophy with BRC20, Bitcoin’s strength fundamentally derives from scarcity and consensus, not programmability. Pursuing smart contract functionality may diminish precisely what makes Bitcoin valuable. Market makers seeking Bitcoin-native asset manipulation may find better alternatives in existing high-speed chains, though niche use cases for deterministic Bitcoin-backed execution could sustain limited adoption.

EIP-7999: Ethereum’s Multi-Dimensional Fee Market Unification

Spearheaded by Vitalik Buterin, EIP-7999 (previously EIP-0000) addresses the fragmentation created by transaction fee splitting following EIP-4844. Currently, transactions incur different pricing vectors for blobs, calldata, and execution—forcing wallets, routers, and auctioneers to navigate disjointed fee markets where L2 developers must set independent caps for each resource dimension.

The unified proposal introduces a single max_fee parameter replacing multiple max_fee_per_gas fields across different categories. During EVM execution, this consolidated fee automatically allocates across EVM gas, blob gas, and calldata gas based on actual demand. This represents a significant engineering shift affecting block headers, RLP encoding, and protocol limits—essentially requiring adaptations across the entire ecosystem rather than just a hard fork.

For market makers operating L2/L3 infrastructure, the implications are substantial. Current fee market fragmentation creates failure scenarios where a transaction abandons execution despite sufficient total fee budget if any single resource dimension’s base cost spikes. EIP-7999 solves this through dynamic allocation, dramatically simplifying fee estimation for future layer development.

Implementation faces notable complexity—every wallet must parse transactions of this new type even without native support, and full deployment likely extends beyond 1-2 major hard forks given the comprehensive infrastructure changes required. Nevertheless, Vitalik’s economic analysis embedded in the proposal contains profound design principles warranting careful study by anyone building on Ethereum’s expanding ecosystem.

These three protocols collectively demonstrate Web3’s maturation: distributed block building optimizes consensus robustness, Bitcoin explores programmability boundaries, and Ethereum systematizes fee mechanics. The divergent interpretation of each protocol’s market viability ultimately depends on whether makers and users find concrete value in solving real problems at scale.