The debate moves beyond Ethereum
Vitalik Buterin’s reassessment of Ethereum Layer 2 blockchains did not stay confined to the Ethereum community.
His remarks opened a wider conversation across crypto ecosystems about what scaling actually means in practice, and whether the original L2 narrative still applies. Responses from Ethereum developers, ZK teams, alternative L1s, and app-focused chains reveal a fragmented but more honest picture of where infrastructure is heading.
Rather than defending L2 as a category, most reactions focused on specialization, trade-offs, and clarity of purpose.
Internet Computer: L2s are not Ethereum
Dom Williams from the Internet Computer community took one of the most direct positions.
He argued that most L2s are not meaningfully Ethereum at all. In his view, many L2 networks function as independent Layer 1 blockchains that attempt to capture Ethereum liquidity by simulating a connection rather than inheriting full security guarantees.
Williams also emphasized that ZK proofs alone do not make applications unstoppable. Data availability and long-term accessibility remain unresolved problems, regardless of execution proofs.
This critique aligns closely with Buterin’s insistence on honesty around security assumptions.
Paradigm: L1 scaling alone is not enough
Dan Robinson of Paradigm offered a more pragmatic counterpoint.
While acknowledging the importance of scaling Ethereum’s base layer, he argued that current L1 plans do not address key constraints around block time and MEV. Without a credible path to sub-six-second block production or a replacement for PBS-style auctions, L2s retain a significant role.
From this perspective, L2s are not a temporary workaround but a necessary layer to absorb demand that Ethereum cannot yet handle natively.
Solana: architecture debates miss the bigger picture
Lily Liu from the Solana Foundation reframed the discussion entirely.
Rather than focusing on L1 versus L2 architecture, she emphasized the importance of open systems winning over closed ones. Her response suggested that the exact scaling model matters less than whether networks remain permissionless and globally accessible.
This view reflects Solana’s broader philosophy: performance and openness as primary drivers of adoption, rather than strict alignment with Ethereum’s roadmap.
Ethereum core developers: vanilla rollups are fading
Ethereum developer Tomasz Stanczak offered one of the most nuanced takes.
He argued that successful L2s already differentiate themselves through unique value propositions, citing Starknet, zkSync, Base, and Arbitrum. The era of “vanilla rollups” that offer little more than cheaper execution without Stage 2 decentralization is ending.
In his view, Ethereum’s future lies in a combination of L1 scaling and native rollups, creating blockspace without security compromises. Rollups remain essential, but only when their trust assumptions are explicit and aligned with Ethereum’s security model.
COTI: privacy as a defining value
Shahaf Bar-Geffen from COTI highlighted privacy as a core differentiator.
COTI’s approach treats L2 not as a generic scaling solution, but as infrastructure designed for confidential transactions. From this angle, short-term market reactions are less important than long-term demand for privacy-preserving financial systems.
This reinforces Buterin’s recommendation that L2 projects should focus on specialized capabilities rather than generic throughput.
Astar and Abstract: scaling users, not TPS
Sota Watanabe of Astar Network and Soneium pushed the conversation toward culture and creators.
He argued that chasing raw throughput metrics misses the point. Financial applications brought crypto to its current stage, but entertainment, culture, and creator ecosystems will drive the next wave of adoption.
Cygaar from Abstract echoed this sentiment, noting that Abstract never positioned itself as a universal scaling solution. Instead, it aims to become a consumer-first Ethereum environment for games, social platforms, and memecoins.
In this model, decentralization trade-offs were accepted early in favor of usability, with Stage 1 decentralization planned as the next step.
zkSync and Linea: native rollups as the endgame
ZK-focused teams framed Buterin’s comments as validation rather than criticism.
Analysts pointed out that zkSync already aligns with the vision of L2 as verified infrastructure rather than cheap EVM execution. Its strength lies in ZK-verified systems and growing RWA activity, where institutions value reliable Ethereum settlement more than ideological decentralization.
Linea took a similar stance, positioning itself as a future native rollup. Its emphasis on EVM compatibility without forks and progression toward zkEVM Stage 1 reflects the direction Buterin described.
BTCUSA commentary: L2 is fragmenting into clear categories
From a BTCUSA perspective, these reactions confirm a broader shift.
Layer 2 is no longer a single concept. It is fragmenting into:
– Ethereum-secured rollups with strong guarantees
– application-specific chains optimized for UX
– privacy-focused execution layers
– consumer-first environments prioritizing adoption over purity
This fragmentation is not a failure. It is a maturation process.
What the post-L2 narrative looks like
The emerging consensus is not that L2 blockchains are obsolete, but that their original framing is outdated.
Scaling is no longer about making Ethereum cheaper. It is about choosing which trade-offs matter: security, performance, privacy, composability, or user experience.
Projects that articulate those trade-offs clearly are likely to survive. Those that rely on vague “Ethereum scaling” narratives may struggle.
Conclusion
Vitalik Buterin’s comments acted as a catalyst, but the broader industry response reveals something deeper.
Crypto infrastructure is entering a phase where specialization matters more than slogans. Ethereum will scale, L2s will persist, and alternative architectures will continue to compete — but only with honest positioning.
The next phase of blockchain scaling will not be defined by labels like L1 or L2, but by clarity of purpose and real-world utility.
