Clearly, Vitalik's point is that L2 utilizes L1, but it hasn't adequately provided value or ecosystem feedback. Now that L1 can scale independently without relying on L2, L2 must either maintain consistency with L1 (native rollup) or become L1 itself.
Let's break down Vitalik's meaning more simply:
1. L2 utilizes L1, but the value/ecosystem feedback isn't adequate:
Vitalik didn't explicitly say "utilize," but he implied that L2 borrowed L1's security, consensus, and asset anchoring (e.g., ETH on L1), but didn't fully give back to the ecosystem. For example, some L2s fragmented liquidity (user funds scattered across different L2s, making cross-chain transactions difficult), leading to a deterioration in the overall Ethereum user experience and failing to contribute to the overall growth of L1. Many interpret this as L2 "profiting"—using L1's security to attract users and TVL (Total Value Locked), but not fully returning the token economy or liquidity to ETH or L1. Vitalik said this is the price of an open ecosystem; he wasn't angry, but transparency is crucial: if L2 contains centralized elements (like regulatory backdoors), it shouldn't claim to be "expanding Ethereum." Some say this is "detoxifying" the L2 narrative, preventing L2 from relying on L1's security for free.
2. Now L1 can scale itself, without depending on L2: This is the source of Vitalik's confidence. He repeatedly emphasizes that L1's optimized fees are extremely low (currently just a few cents), and the gas limit will increase significantly in 2026 (doubling throughput), enabling it to handle most scaling needs. Previously, L2 was the "savior," but now L1 says, "I can manage on my own; I no longer need you as the sole scaling tool." However, this doesn't mean completely abandoning L2—L1 will still help L2 build tools (such as native rollup pre-compilation, which is an L1 built-in validator that makes it easier for L2 to securely connect to L1, achieving seamless interoperability). 3. L2 must either maintain consistency with L1 (native rollup) or become L1: Vitalik encourages L2 to "maintain consistency"—using tools like native rollup pre-compilation to closely align with L1, achieving full inheritance security (stage 1 or 2), and focusing on complementary innovations (such as privacy, high speed, and low-latency apps). However, if L2 doesn't want to play this way (slow progress or clients want centralization), then it should "go independent"—don't call it L2 anymore, just become an independent chain (equivalent to another L1, such as a sidechain or a new public chain). It's not about "becoming L1" (because L1 specifically refers to the Ethereum main chain), but about "becoming its own L1-level chain," building its own consensus, security, etc. But he cautions: after going independent, it must have a unique selling point; otherwise, why wouldn't users just use the increasingly powerful Ethereum L1?
What does this mean? It's bad news for general-purpose L2, but good news for L2 application chains, as we've consistently stated before. L2 application chains can be used in many creative ways, providing value back to the ecosystem.
In conclusion: Vitalik's message is "the old dream is over, the new path begins"—L2 should stop relying on L1's halo and receive genuine feedback (through innovation and interoperability); L1 has gained confidence and will focus on the underlying infrastructure, but still welcomes L2 as partners. This isn't anger, but rather a push for evolution to make the entire Ethereum ecosystem healthier.
