Chainfeeds Introduction:
Crypto researcher Jan believes that BTCFi L2/L1 has three development pain points: lack of consensus on the UTXO architecture, fragmented views within the Bitcoin ecosystem, and lack of consensus on the definition of Bitcoin L2. He also explained why he believes that the Bitcoin chain needs to enhance contract capabilities through a soft-fork, and the purpose of the enhancement should be to facilitate the implementation of CSV-type assets and the Lightning Network.
Source:
https://x.com/busyforking/status/1835516682393243850
Article author:
Jan / PoW
Viewpoint:
Jan / PoW: Let's rule out three options that I don't think are pain points: 1) Too many projects distract attention and resources: This is a normal phenomenon for a prosperous ecosystem, and no one complains about too many projects on ETH/SOL. No matter how many projects there are, you have to learn to distinguish signals from noise. 2) No masterpieces: The Lightning Network is definitely a masterpiece, but the Lightning Network often gives people the illusion that "it's just like this after so long of development." I think it's only a matter of time before more masterpieces appear, and the flexibility provided by L2 will accelerate this process. 3) Lack of money and resources to promote: Obviously not true, the Bitcoin/Lightning Network ecosystem has enough investment. Lack of consensus may be the biggest problem. First of all, from the perspective of the entire crypto industry, there is no understanding and consensus on the UTXO architecture, and "there is no smart contract on the UTXO chain and dapp cannot be developed" is still a common misunderstanding. Secondly, even within the Bitcoin ecosystem, opinions are very divided: fundamentalists believe that we only need BTC, and any changes to the Bitcoin chain are unnecessary. Progressives believe that it is necessary to improve the Bitcoin chain, but there are huge differences on "how much improvement is reasonable?" The most radical progressives believe that more assets and even contract capabilities should be supported through soft-forks, while conservative progressives believe that only minimal changes should be made to enhance BTC itself without causing unnecessary scenarios to pollute the Bitcoin chain. Third, there is no consensus on how "Bitcoin L2" should be defined. Either way is impossible today due to the limitations of Bitcoin Script capabilities, and there is no way to ensure that L2 users can safely withdraw to L1. I personally prefer "moderate" progressivism: the Bitcoin chain needs to enhance contract capabilities through soft-forks, and the purpose of the enhancement should be to facilitate the implementation of CSV-type assets and the Lightning Network. The reason is simple: 1) L1 needs to serve L2, whether it is a programming model or an economic model; 2) Bitcoin L1 is a very good asset issuance/storage platform. This scenario can not only maximize the benefits of Bitcoin chain security investment, but also is a way to solve the bug of L1's economic model based on handling fees. CSV asset protocols occupy the least space on the chain, and are the most economical and healthy for Bitcoin L1; 3) Lightning Network is the most mature Bitcoin L2 at present, and other Bitcoin L2s are just assumptions. Any modification to the Bitcoin protocol for a hypothesis is irresponsible to Bitcoin's $1 trillion market value. Under this scale, mempool improvements are appropriate, OP_CTV may be appropriate, OP_CAT may be excessive, and ZK primitive or the covenant required for rollup is obviously excessive.
Content Sources 
