On February 3, 2026, Vitalik Buterin published a lengthy article on X, directly addressing the controversy surrounding the development direction of Ethereum L2. He repositioned this track, originally seen as a "cheap scaling channel," back into the "Ethereum-first" coordinate system. This is not a simple interpretation of a technical update, but a public redefinition of the entire L2 narrative: on one side is the anticipated significant increase in gas limit for L1 itself in 2026, and on the other side is the old L2 story wrapped around "lower fees, higher TPS." The tension between the two is beginning to unfold. Vitalik's stance is very clear—the core value of L2 should not remain solely in cheap transactions, but should provide differentiated security, liquidity, and functionality that L1 cannot directly offer, centered around ETH as the main asset and the Ethereum mainnet, rather than getting caught in a single dimension of "cheaper."
L1 Gets Faster and Wider: The Old Selling Points of L2 Are Failing
● L1 Performance Expectations: According to a single source in the briefing, Ethereum is expected to significantly increase the gas limit in 2026, which means that L1 blocks can accommodate more transactions and complex contract calls without changing the consensus mechanism. For end users, the queuing time during congestion and average fees are expected to decrease significantly, improving the user experience in high-frequency scenarios like DeFi and NFTs, which directly undermines the old narrative of "L1 is too congested, L2 comes to the rescue."
● Dilution of the Old Narrative: Looking back, mainstream L2s have always fought against L1 congestion during peak times with "lower gas, higher TPS," packaging themselves as high-performance "cheap chains" within the Ethereum ecosystem. This positioning is highly attractive when L1 resources are tight, and project teams are happy to leverage subsidies and airdrops to widen the profit margin. However, as L1 bandwidth continues to expand, the logic of attracting users solely based on "fee differences" begins to falter, as performance and price benefits are no longer exclusive to L2.
● External Pressure of Performance Involution: Meanwhile, some high-performance L1s in the market are using extremely high throughput and low latency as their selling points. Although the briefing only pointed out market backgrounds like SOL dropping below 100 USDT and increased Bitcoin volatility without providing details, it is clear that these public chains still maintain a strong narrative on performance. If L2 continues to compete only on TPS and gas, it is essentially engaging in homogeneous involution with these alternative L1s, consuming resources while struggling to occupy a unique position in the overarching "Ethereum-first" narrative.
● The Question of Existence: As L1 gradually "gets faster and wider," L2s that merely serve as "overflow channels" will be forced to answer a fundamental question—when the main chain itself is no longer so congested, what reason do users, developers, and capital have to migrate assets and activities to an additional layer? Vitalik's voice at this moment aims to elevate this inquiry from a technical discussion level to a strategic positioning level, compelling every L2 to re-explain its value proposition.
Brand Fragmentation Is Difficult to Sustain: Multiple Narratives on the Same Chain
● The Meaning of "Brand Fragmentation": The term "brand fragmentation" refers to different L2s issuing their own tokens, telling independent stories, and supporting their own ecosystems under the Ethereum banner, gradually forming a perception that runs parallel to or even separates from the main Ethereum brand. Each L2 is packaged as an independent "nation," where users know there are subsidies and new projects on certain L2s, but the boundaries between them and Ethereum itself become increasingly blurred. This is beneficial for pulling TVL in the short term but weakens the overall brand concentration.
● Dilution of Network Effects: In line with Vitalik's viewpoint, merely dispersing users and assets across multiple L2s with different narratives is akin to creating multiple "sub-brands" on the same tech stack, which dilutes Ethereum's overall network effects and cognitive unity. The role of ETH as the main asset is also weakened—users care about "tokens and yields on a certain L2," rather than "the secure settlement system around ETH," which conflicts with Ethereum's goal of building a unified security and value hub.
● Fragmented Costs of Experience and Security: The parallel existence of multiple L2s brings not only "diversity" but also heavy costs in user experience and security. Users need to frequently bridge between different L2s, manage addresses and assets across multiple chains, and liquidity is split into multiple pools, making depth difficult to concentrate; cross-chain bridges add layers of complexity, significantly expanding the attack surface. Although the briefing did not list specific attack data, the perception of cross-bridging as a systemic risk is already a consensus in the industry, clearly indicating that this is not a sustainable scaling path.
● Vitalik's Implicit Demand: In this context, Vitalik is effectively proposing a "soft united front": L2s can maintain diversity and innovation, but need to realign their narratives and security boundaries with the Ethereum mainnet. In other words, each L2 should more clearly reflect its identity as "an extension of Ethereum" and "an amplifier of ETH's value," rather than decentralizing endlessly in branding and token economics to the point of detaching from the Ethereum mainline.
From Cheap Channels to ETH's Moat: Redefining Stage 1/2
● The Meaning Behind Stage 1 Standards: Vitalik proposed in the lengthy article that L2s should at least meet the stage 1 standard for ETH-related assets, which is one of the key data points provided in the briefing. Stage 1 is not a vague slogan, but refers to the ability to provide security and credibility close to that of the mainnet in dimensions such as data availability, fault recovery, and upgrade governance, with the "additional trust assumptions" that users bear on these assets strictly controlled within an auditable and acceptable range.
● The Reality of Stage 2 Lag: According to a single source in the briefing, most L2s are making slow progress in transitioning to stage 2, which itself exposes dual bottlenecks in technology and governance. To achieve true "Ethereum-level" security inheritance, upgrades need to be completed in areas such as proof systems, data availability solutions, and decentralized orderers. This is not only a matter of engineering difficulty but also involves token benefit distribution and governance rights transfer, with many L2s clearly hesitating at this step.
● Direction of New Positioning: Guided by Vitalik's original words that "L2 must provide unique value that L1 cannot achieve," reconstructing positioning around the ETH main asset has become a more promising path. For example, L2s can focus on providing deeper liquidity aggregation for ETH-denominated assets, more flexible settlement layer logic, or efficient solutions for specific financial, identity, and contract combinations, all still secured by Ethereum's safety boundaries, rather than simply moving all applications down to reduce costs.
● "Semi-Trust" Forms Under Compliance Pressure: The briefing pointed out that some L2s may remain at stage 1 for a long time due to compliance and regulatory demands. This means they may maintain a certain degree of "semi-trust" structure in protocol governance, operational entities, and access control. This form can better connect with real-world compliance requirements, but it will also face pressure in the decentralization narrative, with its role potentially becoming closer to "compliance modules backed by Ethereum security," rather than fully open permissionless Rollups. This is a state that will likely coexist long-term within the L2 ecosystem.
Native Rollups and ZK Track Reshuffling
● The Meaning of Protocol-Level Embedding: Vitalik mentioned in the lengthy article that "native Rollup precompiled solutions can automatically upgrade with the protocol." The key here is "automatically upgrade with the protocol": once a certain type of Rollup logic is written into Ethereum's precompiled or core protocol layer, L2s can enjoy the evolution of L1 in critical security and functional upgrades without relying on their respective teams to coordinate hard forks or security-critical updates separately. This is akin to directly welding part of L2's logic into L1's evolutionary track.
● The Technical Foundation of ZK and Interoperability: In terms of technical background, the briefing emphasized the need for ZK-EVM proofs and cross-chain interoperability. ZK Rollups that can generate validity proofs with high fidelity in EVM semantics and achieve low-friction interoperability with the Ethereum mainnet naturally have a better chance of obtaining "native Rollup" status, as they are easier to standardize and protocolize in terms of proof systems and compatibility. Those L2s whose architecture is closer to Ethereum and whose proof systems are easier to audit will gain a competitive advantage in this round of "native" competition.
● The Dual Competition of Technology and Governance: The key dividing line for L2s in the next phase will be who can access protocol-level upgrade benefits the fastest while maintaining sufficient decentralization. On one hand, technical teams need to continuously iterate on ZK circuits, proof efficiency, and client implementations; on the other hand, project teams must be willing to cede some "independence" in governance structures and accept the rhythm and framework of the Ethereum protocol layer. This will inevitably lead to a long-term game of interests between token holders and operational entities.
● Direction of Restructuring: Once the "native Rollup" route is advanced, projects that maintain a high degree of synchronization with Ethereum's core development path and align deeply on security and EVM compatibility will gain significant advantages in narrative and security premiums. Conversely, those that resemble independent public chains, merely adopting Rollup architecture while having highly self-rotating branding and token economics, may be reclassified by the market as "L1-like," weakening their core position within the Ethereum ecosystem, thus facing a new round of reshuffling in the L2 landscape.
The End of the Rollup Route Controversy: Nominal Debate and Substantive Change
● Controversial Interpretation: Following this statement, a voice emerged in the market suggesting that this is a signal of the "end of the rollup-centric route." The briefing clearly labeled this as a controversial and unverified interpretation, lacking consensus and official characterization. From a technical and narrative evolution perspective, understanding this statement as a "direct denial of the Rollup route" is not rigorous; a more reasonable perspective is that Ethereum is adjusting the Rollup forms and priorities it wishes to see.
● The Exit of Narrow Narratives: It is important to distinguish between "ending a certain narrow rollup narrative" and "upgrading to a more Ethereum-centric rollup narrative." What is being questioned and diluted is the expansion rhetoric that only emphasizes "cheap, fast, and many chains," without touching on Rollup as the technical foundation of Ethereum's scaling mainline. In other words, it is about eliminating the old version that centers solely on performance and subsidies, rather than abandoning the scaling technology route based on Rollups.
● The Complex Interests Behind: This debate intertwines multiple interests. Existing L2s hope to preserve the space for "independent brands + token premiums," inevitably wary of "re-bundling ETH"; alternative L1s expect to see more fractures within Ethereum, thereby strengthening their "single-chain sovereignty" narrative; public chain investment institutions are betting on different camps, each with their own preferences for which narrative becomes mainstream. This causes the same technical and governance proposal to be pulled into distinctly different emotional colors in the market.
● Substantive Re-bundling: Regardless of whether the term "rollup-centric" is nominally rewritten, the substantive trend is already quite clear—Ethereum is forcing the L2 camp to re-bundle around the main asset and main security through mechanisms such as security standards, protocol-level native integration, and prioritizing ETH assets. Those L2s that choose to synchronize with the mainnet's rhythm will gain an advantage in resources and trust; while those attempting to "detach from the virtual to the real, and establish their own identity" will be forced to face competition pressures and valuation frameworks nearly identical to those of alternative L1s.
From Ecological Fission to Re-concentration: Ethereum's Next Crossroads
With the expected increase in gas limit in 2026 as a time anchor, the core of Vitalik's statement is to redefine a "Ethereum-first" value coordinate for L2 in the era of L1 expansion and multi-chain competition: no longer encouraging unrestrained brand fragmentation and subsidy-driven expansion, but emphasizing a deep binding around the ETH main asset, security boundaries, and protocol evolution. From diffusion to convergence, Ethereum is attempting to refocus its narrative and security dividends while maintaining innovation and diversity.
Looking to the future, the prospects for different types of L2s will show more pronounced differentiation: projects that are technically advanced, closely aligned with the protocol layer route, and actively aligning with ZK proof and native Rollup standards are expected to gain security premiums and narrative advantages; while those L2s primarily driven by subsidies, airdrops, and independent brand stories, if they cannot provide clear answers on ETH assets, security inheritance, and protocol collaboration, are likely to be gradually marginalized, or even reclassified by the market as "another L1."
For participants focused on this track, it is worth closely tracking the progress of Ethereum's protocol layer regarding native Rollup precompiles, as well as whether mainstream L2s make significant adjustments in their stage 1/2 evolution, governance structures, and brand narratives. If in the next year or two, we can see more L2s prioritizing the security and liquidity of ETH-denominated assets, then this "repositioning" initiated by Vitalik will not just be a long post on X, but the starting point for reshaping the L2 landscape.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
