Previously, everyone was competing to enhance the degree of decentralization at Stage 2, but now Vitalik directly states that fast withdrawals are more important, which is equivalent to reordering the priorities for the entire L2 track.

After carefully considering Vitalik Buterin's latest statement on fast L2 withdrawals, it's quite interesting.

Prioritizing 1-Hour Withdrawals Over Stage 2

In simple terms: He believes that achieving fast withdrawals within 1 hour is more important than reaching Stage 2. The logic behind this priority adjustment is worth pondering deeply:

1. The one-week withdrawal waiting period has indeed become a major problem in practical applications. Not only is the user experience poor, but more importantly, it has pushed up cross-chain costs. For example, intent-based bridging solutions like ERC-7683 require liquidity providers to bear the cost of capital occupation for a week, which directly increases cross-chain fees. As a result, users are forced to choose multi-signature schemes with weaker trust assumptions, which precisely goes against the original intention of L2.

Therefore, Vitalik proposed a 2-of-3 hybrid proof system (ZK + OP + TEE). Among them, ZK and TEE can provide immediacy, while both TEE and OP have sufficient production verification.

In theory, any two systems can ensure security, thus avoiding the time cost of simply waiting for ZK technology to be fully mature.

A Shift to Pragmatism?

Furthermore, Vitalik's new statement gives people the feeling that he has started to be pragmatic? From the idealistic young man who used to talk about "decentralization jihad" and "censorship resistance", he has become a pragmatist who directly sets hard indicators: 1-hour withdrawals and 12-second finality, everything has become simple and straightforward.

Previously, everyone was competing to improve the degree of decentralization at Stage 2, but now Vitalik directly says that fast withdrawals are more important, which is equivalent to reordering the priorities for the entire L2 track.

This is actually paving the way for the ultimate form of the "Rollup-Centric" grand strategy, making Ethereum L1 truly a unified settlement layer and liquidity center. Once fast withdrawals and cross-chain aggregation are realized, it will be even more difficult for other public chains to challenge the Ethereum ecosystem.

The reason why Vitalik takes this approach is that the market has already voted with its feet to tell him the result. The market does not care about the technical slogans of decentralization, but pays more attention to experience and efficiency. This shift from "ideal-driven" to "result-oriented" reflects that the entire Ethereum ecosystem is evolving in a more commercial and competition-oriented direction.

The Next Focus: ZK Technology Maturity and Cost Control

The question arises: To achieve the long-term goals of real-world experience and infrastructure construction, the Ethereum ecosystem will probably focus on the maturity and cost control of ZK technology next.

From the current situation, although ZK technology is advancing rapidly, cost is still a practical constraint. A ZK proof with 500k+ gas means that only hourly submission frequencies can be achieved in the short term. To achieve the ultimate goal of 12 seconds, it has to rely on breakthroughs in aggregation technology.

The logic here is clear: The cost of frequent proof submissions for a single Rollup is too high, but if the proofs of N Rollups can be aggregated into one, it becomes economically feasible to spread it over each slot (12s).

This also puts forward a new technical route for the L2 competition pattern. Those L2 projects that can take the lead in making breakthroughs in ZK proof optimization may find a foothold, while those still struggling with Optimism's optimistic proofs will probably lose their way.

Previously, everyone was competing to enhance the degree of decentralization at Stage 2, but now Vitalik directly states that fast withdrawals are more important, which is equivalent to reordering the priorities for the entire L2 track.

After carefully considering Vitalik Buterin's latest statement on fast L2 withdrawals, it's quite interesting.

Prioritizing 1-Hour Withdrawals Over Stage 2

In simple terms: He believes that achieving fast withdrawals within 1 hour is more important than reaching Stage 2. The logic behind this priority adjustment is worth pondering deeply:

1. The one-week withdrawal waiting period has indeed become a major problem in practical applications. Not only is the user experience poor, but more importantly, it has pushed up cross-chain costs. For example, intent-based bridging solutions like ERC-7683 require liquidity providers to bear the cost of capital occupation for a week, which directly increases cross-chain fees. As a result, users are forced to choose multi-signature schemes with weaker trust assumptions, which precisely goes against the original intention of L2.

Therefore, Vitalik proposed a 2-of-3 hybrid proof system (ZK + OP + TEE). Among them, ZK and TEE can provide immediacy, while both TEE and OP have sufficient production verification.

In theory, any two systems can ensure security, thus avoiding the time cost of simply waiting for ZK technology to be fully mature.

A Shift to Pragmatism?

Furthermore, Vitalik's new statement gives people the feeling that he has started to be pragmatic? From the idealistic young man who used to talk about "decentralization jihad" and "censorship resistance", he has become a pragmatist who directly sets hard indicators: 1-hour withdrawals and 12-second finality, everything has become simple and straightforward.

Previously, everyone was competing to improve the degree of decentralization at Stage 2, but now Vitalik directly says that fast withdrawals are more important, which is equivalent to reordering the priorities for the entire L2 track.

This is actually paving the way for the ultimate form of the "Rollup-Centric" grand strategy, making Ethereum L1 truly a unified settlement layer and liquidity center. Once fast withdrawals and cross-chain aggregation are realized, it will be even more difficult for other public chains to challenge the Ethereum ecosystem.

The reason why Vitalik takes this approach is that the market has already voted with its feet to tell him the result. The market does not care about the technical slogans of decentralization, but pays more attention to experience and efficiency. This shift from "ideal-driven" to "result-oriented" reflects that the entire Ethereum ecosystem is evolving in a more commercial and competition-oriented direction.

The Next Focus: ZK Technology Maturity and Cost Control

The question arises: To achieve the long-term goals of real-world experience and infrastructure construction, the Ethereum ecosystem will probably focus on the maturity and cost control of ZK technology next.

From the current situation, although ZK technology is advancing rapidly, cost is still a practical constraint. A ZK proof with 500k+ gas means that only hourly submission frequencies can be achieved in the short term. To achieve the ultimate goal of 12 seconds, it has to rely on breakthroughs in aggregation technology.

The logic here is clear: The cost of frequent proof submissions for a single Rollup is too high, but if the proofs of N Rollups can be aggregated into one, it becomes economically feasible to spread it over each slot (12s).

This also puts forward a new technical route for the L2 competition pattern. Those L2 projects that can take the lead in making breakthroughs in ZK proof optimization may find a foothold, while those still struggling with Optimism's optimistic proofs will probably lose their way.