error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-7002.md | 580 | Method (b) has been utilized in this EIP to eliminate additional EIP requirements and to reduce cross-layer complexity to allow for correctness of this EIP (now and in the future) to be easier to analyze. The EIP-1559-style mechanism with a dynamically adjusting fee mechanism allows for users to pay `MIN_EXIT_FEE` for exits in the normal case (fewer than 2 per block on average), but scales the fee up exponentially in response to high usage (i.e. potential abuse). | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+` = help: see https://ethereum.github.io/eipw/markdown-link-first/

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-7002.md | 591 | Like EIP-1559, it’s a self-correcting formula: as the excess goes higher, the `exit_fee` increases exponentially, reducing usage and eventually forcing the excess back down. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-link-first]: the first match of the given pattern must be a link --> EIPS/eip-7002.md | 593 | The block-by-block behavior is roughly as follows. If block `N` processes `X` exits, then at the end of block `N` `excess_exits` increases by `X - TARGET_EXITS_PER_BLOCK`, and so the `exit_fee` in block `N+1` increases by a factor of `e**((X - TARGET_EXITS_PER_BLOCK) / EXIT_FEE_UPDATE_FRACTION)`. Hence, it has a similar effect to the existing EIP-1559, but is more "stable" in the sense that it responds in the same way to the same total exits regardless of how they are distributed over time. | = info: the pattern in question: `(?i)(?:eip|erc)-[0-9]+`

error[markdown-rel-links]: non-relative link or image --> EIPS/eip-7002.md | 535 | Full specification: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3349 | = help: see https://ethereum.github.io/eipw/markdown-rel-links/

validation found errors :(