Obviously, many people have underestimated the long-term technological innovation impact of EVM transitioning to RISC-V @VitalikButerin. In my view, Ethereum may be about to usher in a new technological narrative-driven big Cycle of "changing lanes and overtaking":
1) The transition from EVM to RISC-V is not a tactical iteration for Ethereum, but a strategic upgrade, perhaps the next revolutionary technological narrative journey after Layer 2 scaling solutions. Just like the transition from PoW to PoS, it seems to be merely a change in consensus mechanism, but in fact, it is a reshaping of the network's foundation.
The technological stack update centered on EVM transitioning to RISC-V is the key to Ethereum opening its next 10-year growth cycle, with no room for controversy, only a matter of survival. E-guards, perhaps $ETH's performance in this cycle is mediocre, but do not forget the accumulated developer team on Ethereum. Once the technological narrative returns, Ethereum's second-half comeback is still worth anticipating;
2) In fact, the fate of EOF (Ethereum Object Format) is a typical example. This technical proposal, which has gone through numerous tug-of-wars and technical struggles, may ultimately face being abolished? Simply put, EOF is an optimization at the EVM software level, while RISC-V is a more systematic overhaul at the hardware level. Since RISC-V is chosen, the remaining EOF naturally has no further necessity?
This indicates that Ethereum is rethinking its path of innovative breakthroughs. The previously sustained Layer 2 scaling solutions may become a glorious and great history. In the face of increasing competition from high-performance Layer 1 chains, Ethereum has no choice but to seek a true underlying framework reconstruction, and changing the outdated and constraining EVM virtual machine is a brand new start. From the perspective of technological evolution, Ethereum is shifting from "external expansion" to "kernel innovation", which is the inevitable result of strategic reversal;
3) ZK (Zero-Knowledge Proof) was once the most glorious technological narrative on Ethereum, but so far, the technical value of ZK has only been scratched, mainly used for state proofs between Layer 2 and Layer 1, merely touching the tip of the ZK potential.
If RISC-V truly steps onto the historical stage, the new wave of infrastructure iteration around Ethereum's technological narrative may have just begun. Recall the previous disputes over Layer 2 scaling solutions like Plasma, Rollup, Parallel, Validium, etc. The process of diversified technical solution development itself is a crucial move in promoting ecosystem prosperity. It can be anticipated that solutions around ZK's privacy and expansion will likely become the new round of internal competition, such as the collision between RISC-V and zkMIPS, the fusion and iteration of zkEVM and zkVM, parallel EVM, hardware acceleration, and so on;
4) RISC-V, as a hardware instruction set intervening in the originally software-level technological update, is destined to be a more thorough overhaul. It may transform Ethereum's "building block development" approach of continuously stacking new patches on the lagging old EVM system into a more flexible ecosystem expansion thinking based on a completely new modular mindset.
This change can be said to be the beginning of Ethereum's technological narrative rejuvenation. Rather than widening and expanding on a dilapidated old road, it is better to directly open up a brand new highway, transforming from a "monolithic architecture + external expansion" paradigm to a "modular architecture + kernel enhancement" paradigm;
That's all.
In essence, I want to reiterate that Ethereum's RISC-V transformation is not a simple technological iteration. At a time when the L2 track is becoming increasingly crowded and narrative dividends are gradually diminishing, Ethereum's technical team realizes that only by returning to L1 source innovation can they break the predicament of "L2 ecosystem landing not meeting expectations" and reshape Ethereum's strategic competitive barriers.
Of course, I know many people no longer believe in "technological narrative", and even some idealistic developers I previously admired have become discouraged and retreated. So, some will certainly think this is another beginning of infrastructure innovation rolling the "technological narrative" concept, with no application ecosystem landing. Right, even if that's the case, why not? It's still better than the current stagnant pool.
