Ethereum Layer2 faces multiple challenges: An SEC commissioner pointed out that Layer2 solutions relying on centralized sequencers may be classified as "exchanges," Scroll has paused its decentralized DAO governance, and core developers of Optimism have resigned. Currently, the decentralization issue of Layer2 remains unresolved, with mainstream projects like Arbitrum and Optimism still using centralized sequencers. Scroll’s governance pause reflects setbacks in decentralization experiments, possibly indicating a shift toward prioritizing efficiency. More projects, such as Hyperliquid and Stripe, are opting for independent chains instead of Layer2 architectures, raising concerns about whether chains like Base might withdraw. Analysis suggests that general-purpose Layer2 solutions struggle to compete with high-performance Layer1 chains. Relying solely on Ethereum’s security inheritance cannot sustain ecological prosperity; they must transform into Specific-layer2 solutions or face market elimination.

Summary
Discussions around Ethereum Layer2 have intensified recently. An SEC commissioner stated in a podcast that reliance on centralized sequencers could lead to Layer2 being classified as "exchanges." Scroll suddenly announced the suspension of its decentralized DAO governance, and several core developers of Optimism have resigned. The market’s uncertainty and anxiety about Ethereum Layer2 have grown—what a daunting technical debt for Ethereum!

Here are some personal subjective views:

1. The issue of decentralized Sequencers is currently untimely for discussion. Most mainstream Layer2 solutions, including Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base, use centralized sequencers. This problem has been addressed by Vitalik Buterin’s proposed technical alignment roadmap from Stage 0 to Stage 2, as well as a pragmatic approach to achieving 1-hour withdrawals. Although Metis has implemented decentralized sequencers, it remains a small-scale experiment within its own ecosystem.
   The underlying implication is clear: Decentralization of Layer2 is temporarily unsolvable. Therefore, debating whether Layer2 will be classified as an exchange is largely meaningless.

2. Scroll’s pause on decentralized DAO governance can be interpreted in different ways. On one hand, it could be seen as a failure of Scroll’s decentralized zkEVM "experiment," as it cannot achieve the trustless特性 of decentralized sequencers. On the other hand, it might not be entirely negative. The team could be prioritizing commercialization, where DAO governance becomes a burden. If decentralized sequencers are unattainable, decentralized DAO governance might merely be formalism. Abandoning it could allow Scroll to embrace flexibility and efficiency for a rebirth.

3. The resignation of core developers from Optimism is a event reflecting Layer2’s loss of narrative dominance in market technology. The real question is why projects like Hyperliquid and Stripe (Tempo) have chosen to build independent chains instead of relying on Layer2 architectures. Will chains currently dependent on Layer2, such as Base, Robinhood, and Upbit, eventually withdraw from Layer2?
   Additionally, Megaeth, another player in the L2 camp, awaits market validation. Is Layer2 truly lacking sustainable growth soil?

All signs indicate that general-purpose Layer2 solutions will inevitably lose out in competition with high-performance Layer1 chains. Relying solely on Ethereum’s security inheritance cannot support Layer2’s ecological prosperity. They must either transform into Specific-layer2 solutions to compete with other Layer1 chains or face being淘汰.

The process of Ethereum’s technical debt may be more brutal than everyone imagines.

Ethereum Layer2 faces multiple challenges: An SEC commissioner pointed out that Layer2 solutions relying on centralized sequencers may be classified as "exchanges," Scroll has paused its decentralized DAO governance, and core developers of Optimism have resigned. Currently, the decentralization issue of Layer2 remains unresolved, with mainstream projects like Arbitrum and Optimism still using centralized sequencers. Scroll’s governance pause reflects setbacks in decentralization experiments, possibly indicating a shift toward prioritizing efficiency. More projects, such as Hyperliquid and Stripe, are opting for independent chains instead of Layer2 architectures, raising concerns about whether chains like Base might withdraw. Analysis suggests that general-purpose Layer2 solutions struggle to compete with high-performance Layer1 chains. Relying solely on Ethereum’s security inheritance cannot sustain ecological prosperity; they must transform into Specific-layer2 solutions or face market elimination.

Summary
Discussions around Ethereum Layer2 have intensified recently. An SEC commissioner stated in a podcast that reliance on centralized sequencers could lead to Layer2 being classified as "exchanges." Scroll suddenly announced the suspension of its decentralized DAO governance, and several core developers of Optimism have resigned. The market’s uncertainty and anxiety about Ethereum Layer2 have grown—what a daunting technical debt for Ethereum!

Here are some personal subjective views:

1. The issue of decentralized Sequencers is currently untimely for discussion. Most mainstream Layer2 solutions, including Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base, use centralized sequencers. This problem has been addressed by Vitalik Buterin’s proposed technical alignment roadmap from Stage 0 to Stage 2, as well as a pragmatic approach to achieving 1-hour withdrawals. Although Metis has implemented decentralized sequencers, it remains a small-scale experiment within its own ecosystem.
   The underlying implication is clear: Decentralization of Layer2 is temporarily unsolvable. Therefore, debating whether Layer2 will be classified as an exchange is largely meaningless.

2. Scroll’s pause on decentralized DAO governance can be interpreted in different ways. On one hand, it could be seen as a failure of Scroll’s decentralized zkEVM "experiment," as it cannot achieve the trustless特性 of decentralized sequencers. On the other hand, it might not be entirely negative. The team could be prioritizing commercialization, where DAO governance becomes a burden. If decentralized sequencers are unattainable, decentralized DAO governance might merely be formalism. Abandoning it could allow Scroll to embrace flexibility and efficiency for a rebirth.

3. The resignation of core developers from Optimism is a event reflecting Layer2’s loss of narrative dominance in market technology. The real question is why projects like Hyperliquid and Stripe (Tempo) have chosen to build independent chains instead of relying on Layer2 architectures. Will chains currently dependent on Layer2, such as Base, Robinhood, and Upbit, eventually withdraw from Layer2?
   Additionally, Megaeth, another player in the L2 camp, awaits market validation. Is Layer2 truly lacking sustainable growth soil?

All signs indicate that general-purpose Layer2 solutions will inevitably lose out in competition with high-performance Layer1 chains. Relying solely on Ethereum’s security inheritance cannot support Layer2’s ecological prosperity. They must either transform into Specific-layer2 solutions to compete with other Layer1 chains or face being淘汰.

The process of Ethereum’s technical debt may be more brutal than everyone imagines.