Skip to content

LibraryPrivacy2020Design paperCorpus record

Revised Ethereum Smart Contract Packaging Standard (EthPM v3)

ERC 2678. g. nicholas d’andrea , Piper Merriam , Nick Gheorghita , Christian Reitwiessner , Ben Hauser , Bryant Eisenbach.

ERC 2678, Revised Ethereum Smart Contract Packaging Standard (EthPM v3). A data format describing a smart contract software package.

Status in the source: Final. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification.

Revised Ethereum Smart Contract Packaging Standard (EthPM v3) is worth reading for the rule it actually adds: A data format describing a smart contract software package.

The five-minute read

The rule

A data format describing a smart contract software package.

What was already failing

A signature that does not commit to what the user saw can be replayed into a different spend, a different chain, or a different message.

What the number does not mean

The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

What a builder should be able to point at

An implementation either constrains JSON, IPFS, snake_case or it is a different design.

One action, walked through

  1. Open ERC 2678 and read the status line before the examples.
  2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: A data format describing a smart contract software package.
  3. Name the object that changes: JSON, IPFS, snake_case.
  4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What the text is allowed to settle

Ethereum Request for Comment 2678 can settle the shape of Revised Ethereum Smart Contract Packaging Standard (EthPM v3). It cannot settle whether a later client, a later fork, or a later wallet still does this.

What this page will not pretend

There is no benchmark, no adoption number, and no claim that the mechanism is safe outside the assumptions written in the source.

What has to be true

  • You are implementing ERC 2678 at the status the text itself states: Final.
  • The object that has to change is JSON, IPFS, snake_case. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
  • Wallet support is not the same as consensus validity.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

  • What is covered by the signed bytes in Revised Ethereum Smart Contract Packaging Standard (EthPM v3)?
  • Can the same signature be replayed on another chain, account, or message?
  • Which primitive does the text require: JSON, IPFS, snake_case?

Terms

ERC 2678
The public text titled Revised Ethereum Smart Contract Packaging Standard (EthPM v3).
Final
The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

A signature that does not commit to what the user saw can be replayed into a different spend, a different chain, or a different message.

What the design proposes

  • A data format describing a smart contract software package.
  • This EIP defines a data format for package manifest documents, representing a package of one or more smart contracts, optionally including source code and any/all deployed instances across multiple networks.
  • Package manifests are minified JSON objects, to be distributed via content addressable storage networks, such as IPFS.

How the mechanism is specified

  • Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: This EIP defines a data format for package manifest documents, representing a package of one or more smart contracts, optionally including source code and any/all deployed instances across multiple networks.
  • Locate JSON, IPFS, snake_case in ERC 2678 and apply it to one transaction or call.
  • Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

  • A signature scheme is not a privacy system. It hides the signer only if the protocol says so.
  • Wallet support is not the same as consensus validity.
  • The source marks this final. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use ERC 2678 when a pitch says 'Revised Ethereum Smart Contract Packaging Standard (EthPM v3)' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.