Let's discuss the L2 issue in detail. Has L2 truly failed? Vitalik expressed that general-purpose L2 has little future significance because it initially only provided simple scaling, while Ethereum L1 now boasts strong scaling capabilities. Therefore, he suggests that these L2 platforms should find value additions beyond "scaling," such as privacy, social interaction, and perks, exemplified by Lightner. However, this situation will likely ultimately be beyond Vitalik's control. Established L2 platforms, such as Base, will continue to be active and won't shut down their ecosystems simply because of Vitalik's views. Just like in 2020, when Vitalik was overly concerned about the DeFi Summer, it didn't hinder the rapid growth of the DeFi ecosystem—that's the charm of decentralization. But encouraging application-oriented L2 is, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Ethereum's infrastructure is currently the best, giving it a very high chance of attracting institutional deployments, such as Robinhood (although it currently plans to build on Arbitrum). A major problem with this cycle is that the market is overly focused on Vitalik's views on ecosystem building. In reality, his actual impact in this area is limited; he can only make the road wider and smoother. He can't influence what kind of vehicles are on the road, nor can he control how fast they travel. Returning to the debate about whether L1 and L2 should coexist, the price of ETH actually has little to do with L2. It's just a problem researchers are arbitrarily blaming. Imagine if L2 didn't exist; numerous sidechains and homogeneous L1 chains would still be everywhere, like Polygon, BSC, and Avalanche. If these chains grew large, wouldn't they drain Ethereum's resources? This competitive relationship has always existed and won't increase or decrease simply because of the emergence of L2.

King You of Zhou played with the feudal lords by lighting beacon fires.

V's influence on the Ethereum ecosystem is getting smaller and smaller. Can a few words be used to correct this?

I think the lesson and learning principle is that we must respect market forces, and roadmaps cannot be designed solely based on one person's ideas. However, the current halt can be seen as Ethereum stopping the bleeding.

Personally, I think the statement "abandoning the Ethereum L2 route" is unreasonable. Although many people use this as a title, the original text clearly does not mean that.

Should we say that Ethereum has given up on relying on L2 scaling?