# Rethinking DevEx on Bitcoin L2s By [ECBSJ](https://paragraph.com/@ecbsj) · 2026-03-27 bitcoin, devex, devrel, devtools --- ![](https://paragraph.com/editor/callout/information-icon.png) The below is a candid reflection on a very niche and subtle topic that has been brewing in my mind during my time in DevRel with Stacks, a Bitcoin L2. This is also a collection of scattered thoughts that I've tweeted out before in the past year that I want to finally consolidate into a proper post. Tooling isn’t neutral — it shapes how developers think, and what ecosystems become. Maybe it’s just me. But spinning up a Hardhat project, writing Solidity, and connecting an EVM wallet to build on a Bitcoin L2 feels… off. Technically, it works. Pragmatically, it lowers the barrier. EVM tooling is powerful, battle-tested, and familiar to thousands of developers. I get the appeal. But culturally? Philosophically? From a developer-experience lens? It feels uncanny. Building on a Bitcoin L2 should still _feel like Bitcoin_. Even if execution happens elsewhere, the semantics, direct or indirect, should preserve elements of Bitcoin. Tooling isn’t just a convenience layer. It shapes mental models. It influences design decisions. It subtly dictates what gets built and who builds it. When a Bitcoin L2 inherits the EVM toolchain wholesale, something subtle shifts. Are we optimizing for Bitcoin-native builders or for Ethereum-native ones? And no offense to Bitcoin L2s embracing EVM tooling. There are strong arguments for it. Faster adoption. Lower switching costs. More liquidity of talent. But here’s the 🌶 take: Keep EVM tooling in EVM land. Bitcoin settlement and unilateral BTC movement are non-negotiable requirements. I'm all for that. But identity in the developer experience matters too. Thinking out loud a bit more on this, if we blindly continue inheriting EVM dev tooling to enable our end goal, are we quietly optimizing for Ethereum-native devs over our fellow Bitcoiners? Are we slowly removing the distinction between what Bitcoin feels like vs what Ethereum feels like? Or maybe maintaining a distinct identity of what it means to build on Bitcoin vs to build on Ethereum is not important? Maybe I’m over-indexing on a nuanced detail. Maybe this is minuscule in the grand scheme. But this “minuscule” thing keeps coming up in real conversations with builders. And I’ve come to believe that not being EVM-compatible L2 isn’t something to apologize for. That’s why I’ve always admired what Stacks did early on. Instead of defaulting to EVM compatibility, they invested in their own full-stack of devtooling primitives. Their tooling makes you _feel_ the Bitcoin connection. The L1 chain isn’t entirely abstracted away, elements of it are present in the L2 development experience. Take Stacks' Clarity smart contract language, for example. It’s different. Intentionally so. But that difference gave many developers their first real positive impression of what building on a Bitcoin L2 could mean. For those that think the _devtooling feels_ don't matter is like saying certain elements of the Bitcoin and Ethereum culture are NOT actually distinct. I think they are, with the devex and devtooling playing a huge role in that. --- *Originally published on [ECBSJ](https://paragraph.com/@ecbsj/rethinking-devex-on-bitcoin-l2s)*