Editor's Note
Ethereum's evolution has increasingly focused on L2 solutions. While these enhance scalability, they raise concerns about decentralization and trustlessness. Developers face a critical choice: uphold Ethereum's core principles or pursue faster, more efficient networks? In this Bankless episode, hosts Ryan Sean Adams and David Hoffman explore whether Ethereum's roadmap is veering off course, particularly examining how L2 solutions impact Ethereum's trajectory.
Featured guest Max Resnick, an Ethereum researcher specializing in special mechanisms, challenges mainstream perspectives. He argues that Ethereum's overemphasis on Rollups neglects L1 improvements, leaving it ill-equipped to support DeFi and other key applications. Max advocates prioritizing L1 decentralization and performance optimization over reliance on L2s, proposing shorter block times as a critical redesign focus. The discussion also covers his optimism for ZK technology and skepticism about current L2 ecosystems.
Key Questions Explored:
- Has Ethereum’s roadmap derailed?
- Are L2 solutions truly extensions of Ethereum—or are they diverting users, transactions, and value from the mainnet?
- Do centralized sequencers in Optimistic Rollups conflict with Ethereum’s goals? What are the consequences?
- If these issues transcend FUD, how should the community respond?
TL;DR
Critical Concerns Highlighted:
- Detoured Roadmap: Max asserts Ethereum’s original decentralization and anti-censorship goals are sidelined by excessive L2 focus.
- L2 Challenges: While reducing fees, centralized sequencers threaten Ethereum’s decentralization ethos.
- L1 Prioritization: Boosting Layer 1 capacity and speed is essential to support core applications like DeFi without full L2 dependence.
- ZK vs. Optimistic Rollups: Technologically superior ZK Rollups receive less attention than Optimistic Rollups in current plans.
- Decentralized Sequencers: Many L2 projects claim but fail to implement decentralization, risking long-term centralization.
Major Debates:
- L2s as Competitors: Max questions whether L2s are Ethereum extensions or independent chains competing for users.
- Worst-Case Scenario: Over-reliance on centralized L2s could erode Ethereum’s decentralized foundation.
- Technical Pathways: Community disagreements persist on timelines for L2 decentralization.
"Ethereum Derailed Its Roadmap Long Ago"
Key Insights:
- "A weakness in Ethereum research is insufficient communication across teams." — Max highlights siloed efforts between consensus, MEV, and other specialists.
- "We must compete on speed and throughput—or lose." — Shorter block times are vital against rivals like Solana.
- "Post-Merge, we’ve been prioritizing the wrong things." — Post-merge fatigue led to misplaced focus, particularly favoring Optimistic Rollups.
- "ZK tech is superior but undervalued." — Political influences within Ethereum Foundation (EF) may skew support toward Optimistic solutions.
EF’s Deep Waters
David: Describe your role in Ethereum’s ecosystem.
Max: I research MEV but now collaborate across teams. Isolated efforts hinder solutions—e.g., consensus teams conflict with MEV mitigation goals.
Ryan: Summarize your "against the grain" view.
Max: Ethereum’s roadmap is misaligned. L1 must better support DeFi; forcing apps to L2 weakens Ethereum.
David: You’re not anti-Rollup but advocate reprioritization?
Max: Exactly. Rollups suit low-value transactions, but core activities belong on L1. Forcing users onto insecure L2s harms trust.
"Are You Trying to Start an Ethereum Civil War?"
Centralization Risks:
- "Many L2s lack incentives to decentralize." — Projects like Base and Arbitrum profit from sequencer control, resisting change.
- "Without action, Ethereum becomes a centralized hub." — Max warns of a future where L2s operate as independent, centralized chains.
Calls to Action:
- Based Rollups: Align incentives by bundling L2 sequencing with L1, though adoption faces hurdles.
- L1 Improvements: Shorten block times, enhance real-time anti-censorship, and boost throughput to retain developers.
Final Solution?
Max Advocates:
- ZK Integration: Compress state to reduce bandwidth demands.
- Parallel Execution: Borrow from newer chains to isolate and manage state growth.
- Community Pressure: Demand L2s fulfill decentralization promises.
Save Ethereum
ETH’s Value Proposition
Ryan: How do your proposals affect ETH’s value?
Max: "ETH gains value as L1’s primary transactional asset—not abstract ‘store of value’ narratives."
Samani’s Paradox
If L2s are "parasitic," why do their tokens struggle? Max: Poor tokenomics (excessive supply) and misaligned incentives degrade L2 token value, creating conflicts with ETH.
Final Appeal
Max Urges:
- Developers: Pressure core teams for shorter block times.
- Stakers: Disclose hardware capabilities to support higher bandwidth.
👉 Explore Ethereum’s future with OKX
FAQ
Q1: Can L2s ever fully decentralize?
A: Yes, but requires economic incentives (e.g., profit-sharing) to prioritize decentralization over control.
Q2: Is ZK tech the ultimate solution?
A: Technologically, yes—but current roadmap favors Optimistic Rollups due to earlier adoption.
Q3: How can users influence Ethereum’s direction?
A: Stakeholder engagement (e.g., stakers, devs) is critical to rebalance L1/L2 priorities.