In the past two days, many people in the English community have mentioned that after the upgrade of Glamsterdam, the Ethereum L1 gas limit will be directly lowered from the current 60M to the lower limit of 200M. What does this mean? Equivalent to 3 times the execution capacity of L1, and there is an expectation of further doubling in the future. By combining technologies such as ePBS, BAL optimization, and gas reprogramming, the throughput of L1 can be significantly increased. Without a sudden surge in demand, the cost of L1 may remain at a very low level for a long time, even leaving users feeling indifferent. So, what does this mean for Ethereum L2 or other high-performance public chains? Firstly, the cost of Ethereum L1 is approaching L2, and even almost the same. Currently, the ordinary transfer fee for L1 is already very low (about 0.1-0.4 US dollars). If the gas price further drops to the 0.01-0.05 GWEI level after upgrading, many simple transactions can be done directly in L1 without going to L2. Firstly, there is an additional layer of bridge/withdrawal cost, and secondly, it is not as safe as L1. One of the core selling points of L2 in the past - 'much cheaper than L1' - will be significantly weakened. Secondly, the economic model of L2 is facing adjustments. L2 itself also needs to package data into L1 (data availability), which is beneficial for L2 as L1 becomes cheaper (rolling up costs decrease). However, at the same time, L1 itself becomes "sufficient and cheap", and many applications may choose to deploy L1 directly (especially DeFi, NFT, and gaming scenarios that do not require ultra-high TPS). This also forces L2 to upgrade. In order to maintain competitiveness, L2 must widen the gap in speed, custom execution environment, and specific application optimization (such as zk proof speed, account abstraction, PERP private chain, etc.), rather than simply relying on "cheapness". The trend of evolution is that, in addition to a few generic L2, such as base and arbitration, there may be more application chain L2 in the future, such as Lighter and ronin, which will also prompt Polymarket to choose the path of Ethereum L2. In the short term, Ethereum L1 seems to have lost a lot of fee income; But in the long run, this will be very helpful for Ethereum's ecological control and ultimately translate into more fee income. Finally, the pressure on high-performance public chains has increased significantly. High performance chains used to target 'ETH L1 is slow and expensive'. Now ETH L1 has suddenly become "fast and cheap, with the highest security, deepest liquidity, and the most comprehensive developer ecosystem", severely compressing the differentiated advantages of high-performance public chains. Unless they can continue to lead significantly in actual TPS, finality, developer experience, and capital efficiency, many projects and users may reassess whether it is worth leaving the Ethereum ecosystem. This will lead to a trend where, apart from a few 1-2 high-performance public chains, other high-performance public chains will gradually become part of the Ethereum ecosystem, and more and more projects and users will turn to Ethereum L1 and L2. This upgrade is a return to Ethereum's "single chain narrative": L1 first builds up capacity, and L2 continues to stack on top. For the L2 project team, the short-term is positive (cost reduction), while the medium-term is pressure (they must prove themselves more valuable than L1). For other public chains, the competition threshold has been raised again.