A friend asked me how to evaluate Vitalik Buterin's latest simplified L1 proposal? Actually, it can be viewed in different ways, as the current Crypto technology narrative has reached a point of testing the holder's "faith". Don't believe me? I can provide both "black" and "red" versions of the evaluation:
Black Fan Version - Making Ethereum as simple as Bitcoin, declaring the failure of Ethereum's universal world computer strategy:
This article reveals that Vitalik is finally willing to admit that Ethereum's past focus on "complexity" needs adjustment. The essence of this "slimming" movement directly announces that Vitalik's previous boast - the "world computer" - has become an unattainable crypto holy grail.
Replacing EVM with RISC-V appears to be a systematic overhaul and technical upgrade, but it actually equals the complete failure of the previous layer2 Rollup-Centric grand strategy. While Solana attracts a large number of users with its concise architecture and purely commercial MEME tactics, Ethereum is still struggling with how to manage interoperability across hundreds of L2s. Rather than calling this an active optimization strategy, it's more like a self-amputation for survival under pressure.
As the second-consensus blockchain in the crypto world, when unable to compete with new chains in performance, suddenly trying to gain presence by comparing itself to Bitcoin, it looks like a strategic contraction from any angle. It's hard to imagine that after 10 years of technological development, the final answer is "learning from Bitcoin to simplify" - remember, the conclusion of simplifying the chain was already written in the code by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009.
The next-generation universal computing platform that once intended to revolutionize the "internet" and attempted to move the entire internet onto the blockchain has thus perished, leaving not a trace behind.
Red Fan Version - Ethereum finally simplifies, safely carrying everything with a new "modular" mindset:
As I've written in previous articles, Vitalik's proposal essentially signals that the current blockchain industry has transformed from a "monopolistic" breadth competition to a "strategic alliance" depth optimization strategy, meaning Ethereum has finally let go of its ivory tower image of technology representing everything and started truly embracing the community's approach towards the "market".
Replacing EVM with RISC-V will blow the trumpet of "ZK technology narrative + modular" infrastructure innovation, allowing Ethereum to rejuvenate with a brand new technological narrative paradigm.
The potential of 100 times performance improvement means Ethereum will provide stronger support for the Layer2 ecosystem while maintaining security. Previously limited by the Layer2 ecosystem, a self-strengthening L1 will position itself as a "secure consensus layer", allowing it to directly compete with other Layer1s while avoiding being exploited by Layer2 newcomers.
"Learning from Bitcoin" is not a "surrender" of complexity, but a tribute to the first-principle path of "security first". At least Bitcoin has verified the feasibility of this path. Ethereum, empowered by a new modular concept, will focus L1 on secure settlement while giving L2 full space to release innovative applications.
This seemingly laissez-faire yet spiritually guided ecosystem architecture will prove to be the most efficient with time.
From a macro perspective, while high-performance Layer1 competitors like Solana are still pursuing single indicators to show off, Ethereum has already begun layout for the next decade: not computing everything, but safely carrying everything. Because, after several cycles, the true public chain winner is not determined by performance, but by "stability" - and the premise of stability is simplicity.
Look, Ethereum's current biggest problem is "consensus fragmentation". Certainly, there's a large group of hardcore technology narrative holders, but the black fan army that has already defected and hurled abuse is growing stronger.
But actually, whether Ethereum is good or bad is just a matter of perspective. The truth is simply: because "believing", therefore seeing; because "not believing", therefore destruction.
