The L2 scaling challenge may potentially undermine the long-term security of Ethereum and Bitcoin.

The L2 expansion challenge may weaken the long-term security of Ethereum and Bitcoin The two major blockchains, Ethereum and Bitcoin, are facing significant scaling challenges. As more users and transactions shift to second-layer (L2) solutions, these systems may undermine the security and sustainability of the base layer (L1), while also reducing the fees and rewards for miners and validators. The rapid adoption of L2 raises concerns about the base layer Ethereum and Bitcoin are both struggling to solve a fundamental problem: how to scale their networks to accommodate the growing number of users, without sacrificing security or decentralization. Recently, Cybercapital founder Justin Bons put forth his theory that second-layer (L2) platforms are "parasitic" to Ethereum. Bons has long expressed concerns about the increasing impact of Ethereum's L2 solutions on the main chain, as well as other blockchains adopting L2 scaling methods. Here is an overview of the dilemma facing first-layer (L1) blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum. In the current state, no blockchain can process transactions at a speed comparable to centralized systems like Visa or Mastercard, while the fees for using the base layer may be prohibitively high. Since 2015, the ongoing debate over modifying the consensus layer to improve Bitcoin's scalability has led advocates to increasingly favor L2 solutions like the Lightning Network. Ethereum's core developers have similarly pushed for the development of L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and Linea. These L2 solutions promise faster transaction speeds and lower fees, but they also bring new challenges. By design, second-layer solutions shift transactions from the base layer (L1) to the second layer. For Ethereum, L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism bundle multiple transactions into a single L1 transaction, reducing costs and increasing throughput. For Bitcoin, the Lightning Network allows users to transact off-chain, only settling on the main blockchain when absolutely necessary. While these solutions are welcomed for improving transaction speed and reducing fees, they may pose potential threats to the security and economic model of L1 blockchains. Ethereum's first layer has significantly benefited from the activity of these second-layer (L2) solutions. By November 2023, L2 solutions like Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, and Linea were contributing around $200,000 per day in rental fees to Ethereum's L1. By December, these fees had skyrocketed to as high as $1.5 million per day. However, this financial support has since begun to decline. From December 2023 to March 2024, the L2 fees paid to Ethereum dropped to less than $250,000 per day, until spiking again to around $1.7 million in early March. By the end of April 2024, these fees had plummeted, with less than $10,000 per day being paid to the Ethereum mainnet. This decline has raised questions about the long-term sustainability of Ethereum's L1 infrastructure, as much of the activity may permanently shift to L2. Bitcoin faces a similar problem. Once Bitcoin (BTC) is moved to the Lightning Network or other Bitcoin sidechains, the transactions will bypass the main chain, depriving miners of the fees they typically earn from processing transactions. Bitcoin's economic security relies on the incentives for miners, including transaction fees and block rewards, the latter of which halve approximately every four years. As fees shift off-chain, there is growing concern that Bitcoin miners may lose sufficient economic motivation to continue maintaining the network, potentially compromising its security over time.

Along with Bons, Nikita Zhavoronkov, the chief developer of Blockchair, also expressed concerns about the reduction in Bitcoin's security budget. The fundamental issue is that both Ethereum and Bitcoin were designed with the expectation that users would pay to use the base layer. These fees are an important component of maintaining blockchain security, especially as block rewards diminish over time. If too many transactions occur on L2, L1 may suffer from insufficient fees, reducing the incentives for validators and miners to protect the network.

While L2 solutions like Arbitrum and Optimism provide direct benefits in terms of scalability and cost-effectiveness, if they fail to contribute sufficiently to the base layer, they may undermine the long-term viability of the Ethereum L1. Similarly, the Bitcoin Lightning Network, while addressing some of Bitcoin's scalability issues, completely excludes miners from the transaction loop, making the BTC security model entirely dependent on the ever-decreasing block rewards.

While L2 solutions undoubtedly provide temporary solutions to the scalability problems of Ethereum and Bitcoin, they also raise important questions about the long-term health of these networks. If L1 blockchains rely on a stable flow of fees to incentivize miners and validators, and these fees are increasingly captured by L2 solutions, the economic models of these blockchains may become imbalanced.

The ultimate goal of Ethereum and Bitcoin has always been to create decentralized, secure networks capable of meeting global demand. However, if L2 solutions continue to siphon transactions away from L1 without providing sufficient fees to the base layer, the security and decentralization of these networks may be at risk. Finding a balance between L1 and L2 activity is crucial for the future scalability of blockchains. The issue of rewards has also failed to address the criticism of the L2 concept, which is often seen as more centralized than the mainnet, making it more vulnerable to attacks and theft.

In summary, while L2 solutions offer clear benefits in terms of transaction speed and cost, they also pose significant risks to the long-term sustainability of Ethereum and Bitcoin. Without mechanisms to ensure that L2 makes meaningful contributions to the security and infrastructure of the base layer, these solutions may be more like temporary stopgaps than permanent solutions. Both the Ethereum and Bitcoin communities need to carefully consider how to scale their networks without compromising their unique principles in the decentralized finance world.

As mainstream adoption approaches, the urgency for the Ethereum and Bitcoin communities to address these scaling issues intensifies. If a sustainable balance between L1 and L2 is not established soon, the security and decentralization of these blockchains may be threatened in the coming years. Resolving these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the networks and ensuring their long-term survival.

Disclaimer: As a blockchain information platform, the articles published on this site represent the personal views of the authors and guests, and are not related to the stance of Web3Caff. The information in the articles is for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice or offer, and please comply with the relevant laws and regulations of your country or region.