# LIP 27: Ensuring Compatibility with Ethereum’s Pectra Upgrade

**URL:** https://research.lido.fi/t/lip-27-ensuring-compatibility-with-ethereum-s-pectra-upgrade/9444
**Category:** Proposals
**Created:** [January 30, 2025, 12:31pm UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/lip-27-ensuring-compatibility-with-ethereum-s-pectra-upgrade/9444 "2025-01-30T12:31:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Mol\_Eliza](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/research.lido.fi/mol_eliza/32/3617_2.png) [@Mol\_Eliza](https://research.lido.fi/u/Mol_Eliza)
#### Post date: [February 4, 2025, 11:22am UTC](https://research.lido.fi/t/lip-27-ensuring-compatibility-with-ethereum-s-pectra-upgrade/9444/2 "2025-02-04T11:22:05Z")

</div>

Hey there, as a contributor from analytical workstream I highly support this well-thought, and **required** LIP.

It covers all the possible effects outlined in [Research on Pectra effects on the protocol params](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gRXxYHHG9dmmwiVyM8EC6ZrbK6yzervgzf3cH2zilig/edit?usp=sharing) , with the scope on:

- Module shares and corresponding risk structure

- Oracle report sanity checker params

- Calculations within VEBO and supportive documents

- “Bunker mode” activation triggers and possible parameters changes

As an additional main outlines of research, Pectra upgrade would lead to **lowering** possible consequences of slashing risk for any reasonable scenarios, opening up more protocol design options, while lowering overall risk, simultaneously leading to even lower probability of conditions triggering “Bunker mode”.

---

_[View the full topic](https://research.lido.fi/t/lip-27-ensuring-compatibility-with-ethereum-s-pectra-upgrade/9444)._