Although not the main point of the article, Tom Lehman argues in the article above that MegaETH and existing rollups are less secure than Facet. Personally, I have some doubts about whether Facet is actually more secure than other rollups and whether its structure is truly effective. First of all, all assets within Facet are not managed by the official L1 <> L2 bridge, but rather by external bridges. Because these assets are not under the control of the official bridge, they cannot benefit from the security benefits offered by Stage 2. Simply put, if the bridge provider is malicious, they can steal all funds within Facet. Furthermore, this external bridge is managed by a 2/3 multisig. Furthermore, Stage 2 requires stringent conditions such as a "30-day upgrade delay" and "Security Committee intervention only for on-chain verifiable bugs." Facet responds to these conditions by "forgoing the upgrade." In other words, Facet's structure prevents anyone from performing feature upgrades, and it cannot respond to vulnerabilities that arise. Given that the EVM is still under continuous development, the feasibility of a structure like Facet is a question worth considering. Due to the stringent upgrade requirements and complexity of Stage 2, Vitalik has argued for prioritizing ZK conversion over Stage 2 to reduce withdrawal times. In any case, the argument itself seems interesting. The competition between MegaEther and the existing L2 is also something worth watching!