[Vitalik: The Existing L2 Roadmap Is Wrong] Vitalik made a groundbreaking argument: we should no longer view L2s as "branded shards of Ethereum." His main arguments are as follows: - There are too many Stage 0 L2s, and some L2s have no intention of moving to Stage 2 for regulatory reasons. These L2s are effectively separate chains rather than "extending Ethereum." - Furthermore, Ethereum has been rapidly increasing scalability through recent updates. - Therefore, L2s should no longer simply provide scalability and branding; they should strive to provide value beyond what Ethereum offers. - This could include achieving extremely high scalability, building non-EVM environments, developing environments optimized for specific apps, or creating execution environments for non-financial applications. - Furthermore, any chain handling ETH must achieve at least Stage 1. - As an alternative to multi-sig L2, native rollups, which Ethereum directly provides ZK-EVM verification, are highly regarded. This discussion began when Mark Tyneway, co-founder of Optimism, tweeted that "Stage 2 is not what customers want." Sigil founder Tim Clancy fiercely rebutted this, sparking a heated debate. The MegaETH post above was also an extension of this debate. In this context, Vitalik's post can be seen as a summary of his disappointment with the existing L2s' stance and the need for improvement. In fact, there's nothing wrong with what Vitalik said. Major L2s have been stuck in Stage 0/Stage 1, relying on multi-sig for a long time. While Stage 2 is technically challenging, it appears that there's no real commitment or active development on Stage 2. This has become such a big issue that everyone is quoting Vitalik's words. Here's a summary of the reactions: - "We were right!" type reactions Many projects building specialized L2s have shown this reaction, and some agree with the view of reinforcing L1. Bread from Megaider, Keone from Monad, Zac from Aztec, and Eli from Starknet are prime examples. - Reactions from existing L2s Optimism's Karl/Jing and Base's Jesse seem to be taking a stance that they are addressing the issues Vitalik pointed out, but they also seem to be advocating for a more builder-centric approach, moving away from the semantic debates surrounding chains. Arbitrum's Steven took a more defensive stance, stating that it could be dangerous to view L2 from a perspective that deems scalability a primary value. - Ethereum Maxi Ethereum Maxi (tim-clancy, Zeng), who previously disliked the existing L2-centric roadmap or multi-sig L2s, have voiced strong support for the idea. - Moderator When rumors circulated that "Vitalik said the existing L2 is unnecessary," Binji and others stepped in to mediate. Such debates are still occurring sporadically on Twitter, so if you're curious, you might want to check them out! With Vitalik's stance having shifted significantly, it will be interesting to see how the community sentiment and the development direction of L2s unfold. Source