Fanfest 2026 delivered where it was supposed to. Military Campaigns look promising. The new Navy Destroyers have people excited. FC Rattati even dangled something we’ve been waiting years to hear: projection changes are “coming in September.” Community devs like FC Jotunn followed up with a single sentence dropped into Discord servers that sent r/eve sideways and had Goons dismantling their floating Nyx models.

Force Projections changes will use the Jump Fatigue system for alliances using Ansiblex Jump Bridges, basing the fatigue on the distance from an Alliances capital system.

It was one sentence. No details. Just enough to confirm the direction. And I already know it won’t be enough.

Before we get to September, let’s talk about June. Based on the language Jotunn used and the pattern FC follows with major mechanical changes, I expect the actual details to drop alongside the Cradle of War expansion announcement — with a Q4 release date attached. This gives CSM members and candidates weeks to react to an unfinished version of the proposal, which means the current CSM — stacked with null-seccers who are already unhappy — will spend most of that time pulling the changes back from anything meaningful.

We’ve watched this exact sequence play out before.

When Equinox dropped its sovereignty changes, everyone outside of null cheered. Finally, a lever to crack open the big blocs. Everyone inside null hated it — not out of entitlement, but because the changes restricted space that groups had actively built and defended without offering anything in return. The result? FC walked most of it back. We returned to a status quo that nobody claims to want and almost nobody is willing to honestly diagnose.

Look at the April 2026 Monthly Economic Report. The Dronelands — primarily PVP-focused groups — generated 15.8 trillion ISK with 5.2 trillion in destruction. Winter Coalition, before their Keepstar fell and the big war of the year consumed them, pulled over 100 trillion. The Imperium pulled 269 trillion.
Now look at what percentage of each group’s economic output went toward actual fighting:

• Dronelands: 24.8% destruction influence
• Winter Coalition: 10.6% destruction influence
• Imperium: 8.8% destruction influence

The groups making the most money are fighting the least. That’s not an ansiblex problem. That’s a value proposition problem. The big blocs aren’t stagnant because their gates are too fast. They’re stagnant because the null-sec economy has calcified around a model where alliances depend entirely on massive populations of ratters and miners to fund operations — and those players, by definition, don’t want fights. They want to be left alone. So leadership optimizes for protecting them, because losing that tax base is existential. The PVP players get dragged into a defensive posture to protect the krabs, because without the krabs, there’s no alliance.

What made null vibrant in EVE’s earlier chapters wasn’t gate configuration. It was nomadic groups — roaming capsuleers who would invade space, hold it long enough to extract value, and move on when they couldn’t hold anymore. Those groups don’t exist at scale today because the incentive structure doesn’t support them. You can’t sustain a lean PVP alliance in null-sec without either taxing a krab population or burning through your members’ personal ISK. There’s no middle path.

The fix isn’t removing ansiblex gates. The fix is adding passive income for alliances tied to holding sovereignty — not ratting, not mining, but the act of controlling the space itself. Give groups a reason to hold fringe systems. Give smaller groups a reason to try to take fringe systems, knowing they can extract value even if they can’t hold forever. Make the space itself worth fighting over independent of your member count.

That changes the psychology. A lean PVP group doesn’t need to become a null-sec warlord managing a krab empire. They hold what they can hold, earn from it, move when they can’t, and fight again somewhere else. The blocs, faced with actual threats to space they now passively earn from, respond. Content isn’t manufactured — it’s structural.

I’m running for CSM because I can see the cause and effect of these changes before they ship — and what I see is that neither FC nor the current CSM has correctly identified the problem. The ansiblex change, by itself, is another stick pointed at null without a carrot attached. It restricts existing avenues for content without creating new ones. It will produce the same outcome the Equinox sov changes produced: anger from null residents, a rollback or dilution, and a return to the status quo everyone agrees is broken. I’m not against ansiblex fatigue. I’m against ansiblex fatigue as the entire solution.

The people arguing for and against this change want the same thing: a null-sec that feels alive, with real conflicts, real stakes, and real opportunities for groups of all sizes. That outcome requires more than nerfing a gate. It requires rethinking what null-sec gives you for living there — and making that answer good enough that people actually want to fight to keep it.

I fell in love with a space game where the stakes were high and the rewards matched them. Where objectives were contestable at any scale. Where smaller groups could make their mark on the map without needing to out-blob a coalition. I want that game back, and I think most of you do too.

That’s what I’m going to Iceland to fight for.