Source: "Milk Road Crypto"

Compiled by: Felix, PANews

Ethereum may have already become the settlement layer for tokenized finance. However, to truly support the global financial market, there remains a key challenge that needs to be addressed: speed. Recently, the "Milk Road Crypto" program engaged in a dialogue with ETHlabs team members Julian Ma, Derek Chiang, and Binji to discuss initiatives aimed at enhancing Ethereum's speed, including Quick Slots, faster transaction finality confirmation, interoperability between L1 and L2, and account abstraction, as well as to analyze the impact these upgrades will have on ETH.

PANews has compiled the highlights of the interview.

Host: ETH Labs previously published an article titled"Ethereum Needs to Speed Up: How the Ecosystem Views EIP-8198". The article focuses on a concept called "Quick Slots." For the listeners who haven't read the article, can you explain what Quick Slots are?

Binji: Let me try to answer that. In simple terms, Ethereum currently has a fixed block time, which is 12 seconds. Quick Slots is a proposal for the next upgrade after Glamsterdam (named Hegotá). Quick Slots is essentially an EIP that suggests implementing a mechanism that gradually shortens the block time over time.

Currently, there is no such mechanism in the Ethereum protocol layer, and 12 seconds is hard-coded, leaving everyone building on Ethereum stuck in this 12-second framework. While some have attempted workarounds, you can only accept 12 seconds at the protocol level. Quick Slots would allow the protocol to tweak and shorten this time in the future, with the initial proposal being to reduce the block time to 10 seconds and assess its effectiveness over time.

This EIP was originally written by Carl Beak and advocated by Barnaby, one of the co-founders of ETHlabs. Barnaby shared the proposal at the core developer meeting (ACD) on August 6 and subsequently spent a significant amount of time communicating with hundreds of people. Upgrades like "Faster Ethereum" encompass everyone, from users to developers to every role on L1. ETHlabs does not need to define "what is a faster Ethereum" on its own; rather, it would be beneficial if ETHlabs could help establish a feedback loop across ecosystems to gather the needs of the affected parties. We have communicated with over 20 ecosystem teams and individuals advocating for Quick Slots, and we strongly believe this is an S-level priority that should be prioritized in the Hegotá upgrade.

Host: The last time we communicated, ETHlabs had just been established, and everyone was speculating about its positioning. It seems that you have focused on the goal of a "faster Ethereum." Can you provide a more specific definition of "faster Ethereum"? Why is this an S-level priority for ETH Labs and the entire Ethereum ecosystem?

Julian Ma: Yes, let me answer that. We continuously hear this demand from many developers in the ecosystem. Making Ethereum faster can essentially be broken down into speeding up three key intervals:

• Speeding up the bridging from L1 to L2;

• Speeding up the bridging from L2 to L1. This is the strongest demand from developers and applications; currently, the withdrawal waiting time for Optimistic Rollups from L2 to L1 can be as long as 5 to 7 days, which is very painful;

• Faster Slots: Since slots are the most basic atomic unit driving the interoperability between L1 and L2 as well as the L1 user experience.

Binji: I want to add that today the SEC approved an exemption for tokenized innovations. Currently, the vast majority of tokenization activity occurs on Ethereum and its L2s, and in the past month, Ethereum's transaction volume even surpassed that of the Singapore Stock Exchange. If we want to continue being a globally competitive value settlement layer, we must enhance performance.

But here is a critical warning: being fast for the sake of being fast makes no sense in Ethereum. The reason Ethereum can be the preferred platform for tokenization is that it is decentralized, has trusted neutrality, and is extremely secure. This gives people the trust to bring hundreds of millions of dollars worth of assets on-chain. If speed is achieved at the cost of decentralization or security, that would ruin everything. Conversely, if we can make it faster while preserving these core characteristics, it will be very attractive. Interestingly, Quick Slots can also enhance censorship resistance. It finds the perfect balance between performance and robustness.

Derek: Quick Slots is just part of our "faster Ethereum" roadmap. When we talk about making Ethereum faster, it’s not just about speeding up the chain itself but also about speeding up settlement with other chains (i.e., cross-chain bridging). This yields our other workflows, such as faster finality and quick confirmation rules.

At ETHlabs, we like to refer to Ethereum as a "special chain." There will be many chains in the world, but Ethereum plays a special role because it is the best place to issue assets. When you issue assets on Ethereum, you can seamlessly move them to any L2 and even to other L1s like Solana. With quick finality and quick confirmation rules, Ethereum will further solidify its status as the only special chain in the world that can settle with other chains at lightning speed in a fully decentralized, trustless manner.

Host: There’s a sentence in your article that really caught my attention: "These efforts have a common goal - to give Ethereum higher responsiveness and value, and the benefits will aggregate to ETH assets." How do you see the logical mechanism between a faster Ethereum and the value capture of ETH assets?

Binji: If Ethereum can continue to serve as the hub and base for tokenized assets while enhancing the settlement performance of the entire ecosystem, it will make the Ethereum ecosystem more attractive. Whether it's improving censorship resistance or providing a smoother UX, these will create a value proposition for people to choose Ethereum.

Why do people choose to mint assets on Ethereum? Because it is trust-neutral and globally accessible. We can increase the speed of NASDAQ, but you cannot create a faster Ethereum without sacrificing principles. By enhancing performance and attracting more value and trading volume to Ethereum, this will inherently increase the demand for network security and network usage, thereby aggregating value to ETH assets.

Host: I want to ask about account abstraction. Derek, after you recently joined ETHlabs, you tweeted mentioning that Ethereum and Base had spent months trying to establish a shared account abstraction standard but ultimately gave up. Can you share the background and process behind that?

Derek: Account abstraction is quite a hardcore technical topic. To put it simply, the timeline goes like this: In January this year, Ethereum announced plans for native account abstraction on Ethereum L1. Currently, users must hold ETH to pay gas fees, which is a significant pain point for consumer applications. Account abstraction allows wallets or applications to sponsor gas fees for users or allows users to pay gas directly in stablecoins (the protocol will automatically convert stablecoins to ETH for payment). Additionally, it allows using alternatives like Apple PassKey instead of the traditional 12 mnemonic words.

Earlier this year, the Ethereum Foundation proposed EIP-8141 (also known as Frame Transactions) as the account abstraction standard for L1. After 6 to 7 months of refinement, by July, all core developers had essentially run Frame, and everyone thought adopting Frame in the Hegotá upgrade was a done deal. However, in July, Base announced its own native account abstraction proposal, EIP-8130. The Base team presented their proposal at the ACD meeting. This was actually a good thing; we are very happy to see L2s actively participate in ACD. But it also brought competition and tension.

At that time, ETHlabs and I personally tried to promote a "unified standard," attempting to merge the strengths of both proposals because their focuses were different:

The L1 Frame proposal is deeply optimized for L1 needs, emphasizing privacy, quantum-resistant signature aggregation, aligning with Ethereum's post-quantum roadmap. Base's EIP-8130 proposal is highly optimized for L2 high throughput (targeting thousands of TPS) and high performance, and includes strict compliance and certification features.

I spent three weeks in intensive communication with Vitalik, Matt from Geth, and teams from Base and Arbitrum. But ultimately, everyone realized that: Ethereum wants to be the best version of Ethereum, and Base wants to be the best version of Base. Forcing a merger would only make neither side happy. Therefore, both parties unanimously decided to proceed separately, even though this would result in a certain degree of specification fragmentation in the ecosystem in the short term.

Host: It sounds like Ethereum is "divorcing" from one of its biggest L2s (Base)? How do you view this relationship?

Derek: Saying that Base is "divorcing" from Ethereum is definitely an over-exaggeration. Whenever I see someone say on X that Base is "not Ethereum enough," I feel quite frustrated. Base is one of the L2s that aligns most closely with Ethereum: they actively participate in ACD, hold a substantial amount of ETH, are one of the largest consumers of Blobs, and their technical architecture fully adopts decentralized solutions like Optimistic and ZK. As Ethereum's ecosystem develops, we can no longer take for granted that all L2s will blindly follow every technical decision made by L1. Companies like Robinhood launch their own L2s to have their own block space. Different use cases require different technologies.

Binji: A metaphor I often use is that Ethereum is the value internet. Building their own websites does not mean Facebook is disconnected from the internet; establishing their own payment channels does not mean Uber is separated from the Apple ecosystem. Another metaphor is that Ethereum is like New York City — if every corner of New York were the same as Tribeca, it would be very boring; we need cultural and architectural diversity. Base has deposited hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ETH on L2, continuously consuming Blobs, and we share a common big goal: to build the value internet.

Moreover, progress on account abstraction at the protocol level is a huge victory — regardless of whether it's Base's proposal or Frame's, users will ultimately use ETH to pay gas or as the underlying asset, and the network effects of EVM are as solid as TCP/IP.

Host: Julian, what are your latest views on the ongoing tokenization craze on Ethereum?

Julian: At ETHlabs, we are very pleased to see the achievements of Robinhood and Base in distributing tokenized stocks to global users. There won't be only one "correct" way to implement tokenization; currently, we see different models, like Securitize and Superstate as Transfer Agents, which are different from Robinhood's tokenized stocks.

There are currently two noteworthy issues. One is token fragmentation; there are various different versions of tokenized stocks of Nvidia or Apple, which also exists in traditional finance, but cryptocurrency can improve backend trading costs. The second is geographical asset expansion; Robinhood is using its chain and token to expand into Europe, and if more European local stocks or global stocks are tokenized in the future, it will greatly promote the popularity of tokenization.

Host: Since many tokenization activities are happening on L2, should we push to bring tokenized issuance back to Ethereum L1?

Julian: To put it in capital letters: WE CARE. We strongly hope for assets to be tokenized on L1. This is not out of ideology, but out of product logic.

Firstly, distribution and liquidity. Assets issued on L1 are easier to transport cross-chain to all L2s and application chains as collateral. If issued solely on a specific L2, the cross-chain infrastructure becomes very complicated; whereas issuing on L1 allows for quick confirmation rules, enabling seamless access to various applications within seconds.

Secondly, legal and ledger of record. New proposals from UK regulators and the US SEC indicate that blockchain is evolving from being just a distribution channel to becoming a true financial ledger of record. When blockchain becomes a legal ledger, L1's liveness, security, and risk resistance become critical.

Binji: From an institutional perspective, decentralization equals "minimized counterparty risk." Placing assets on L1 can eliminate intermediary layer risks. Meanwhile, L1 acts as an asset hub, able to increase the bridging speed from L1 to L2 nearly 30 times.

Host: When looking at Quick Slots, account abstraction, and L1 asset issuance together, how does this help ETH capture value?

Julian: These three are mutually reinforcing. Quick Slots improve cross-chain experiences, better account abstraction lowers barriers, and L1 asset issuance attracts institutions, which will directly boost the trading and settlement demand for L1, consuming more gas fees and making ETH the counterparty for more assets.

Derek: It's like why the dollar is the dominant global asset; it’s because the U.S. has the most advanced financial infrastructure in the world. Similarly, ETH remains dominant because Ethereum has the best digital infrastructure. Even on various L2s, the vast majority of top trading pairs are still denominated in ETH. The technical attributes of Ethereum are deeply intertwined and inseparable from the financial attributes of ETH.

Binji: ETH is the most liquid, neutral asset without a central issuer, supporting over $170 billion of stablecoins and over $50 billion in the DeFi market. The progress of Ethereum is the progress of ETH.

Host: The market reacts strongly to privacy solutions like Zcash, Aztec, and Monero; does Ethereum need to compete with native privacy solutions on L1?

Binji: There are already excellent privacy platforms on Ethereum like Railgun, and the Ethereum Foundation has launched the Kohaku project aimed at building an open-source wallet SDK that provides privacy and quantum resistance by default. Ethereum offers composable privacy.

Privacy is not just a narrative in crypto; it is a security necessity in the real world (for instance, to prevent users from being kidnapped due to address exposure or data leaks). ZK technology allows you to prove identity without exposing sensitive information like addresses.

Derek: Imagine if Ethereum had privacy from day one; now if someone wanted to take away that privacy, everyone would certainly find it unreasonable to make all transactions public. Here we must also commend the Ethereum Foundation. ETH Labs focuses on addressing the current pain points of developers and users (short to medium term), while the Foundation focuses on long-term investments (like privacy and quantum resistance) over 5 to 10 years, creating a perfect "combo attack."

Related reading: From Glamsterdam to Hegotá: What will Ethereum address in the next phase after scaling?

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。