As a founder of @zksync, I'm all in for scaling Ethereum L1 and figuring out interop between every chain. I'm bearish based rollups for a different reason: it's an overly complicated Rube Goldberg Machine. What I mean: all based rollups are essentially a single sequencer that concatenates n chains together; but instead of doing it directly like a simple high-performance chain, it has to deal with political coordination and management of intricate security interdependencies of a dozen of teams. I can elaborate on the technical details if needed. If we want to scale L1 and directly compete with Solana, let's do it by directly improving the performance of Ethereum clients. Personally, I think that in this case we will fail, because the other camp is much more willing to sacrifice decentralization for higher throughput and lower latency. ETH's strength is in its cypherpunk roots: security, unstoppability and censorship-resistance, that make it the best settlement layer in the world. If we want elastic, infinitely scalable network of sovereign rollups on Ethereum that can all talk to each other trustlessly, let's enshrine a rollup cluster archtitecture (i.e. shared bridge) directly into L1. It doesn't need to be Superchain or the Elastic Network. Happy to cooperate on this. If we want the price of ETH to go up, we should stop trying to clinge to the once high, MEV-driven fees. It's just too late, there is no going back. The incentive to control the MEV of a rollup is too high for any OG social pressure to stop people from doing this. All these attempts to revive ETH's position as a capital asset inevitable lead smart money to analyze chain revenues, and they won't look good compared to the pre-rollup world. It's the reason for ETH/BTC ratio to be where it is. Instead, we should focus on the fact that ETH is the BTC of the emerging Internet of Value built on Ethereum. There is literally no second best in this economy that can serve as trustless Defi collateral and Store of Value. I'm saying all of this as an ETH maxi, and my incentives are perfectly aligned. Go check it yourself: all L2 tokens, including ZK and OP, are firmly glued to the price of ETH, with minimal variation.
Clusters of rollups like @zksync and @Optimism use a share bridge to have composability (once ZK becomes fast enough) and interoperability between their chains. However this is not a real solution for Ethereum. ZKsync has more adoption with institutions and a working ZK solution. Optimism has more adoption between degens thanks to Base and has more approval from the leadership of Ethereum. It can use riscv zkvms at some point to become a zk cluster. Ethereum needs a solution to have interoperability and composability across every cluster and rollup. Based just means to use the L1 for the sequencing of the L2. By definition those that built solutions for their own cluster will be at the beginning against a solution that moves things back to the L1. The L1 needs to scale, something that is more a political decision than a technical one but it also needs to solve the interoperability between clusters of rollups and specific rollups. This is both a technical, political and economic decision. I will always be on the side of what’s best for Ethereum. Long term we won’t be able to provide a better solution than Solana and other challengers without scaling the L1 and a cohesive interoperable and composable solution across the L2s.
391
66.61K
The content on this page is provided by third parties. Unless otherwise stated, OKX is not the author of the cited article(s) and does not claim any copyright in the materials. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent the views of OKX. It is not intended to be an endorsement of any kind and should not be considered investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell digital assets. To the extent generative AI is utilized to provide summaries or other information, such AI generated content may be inaccurate or inconsistent. Please read the linked article for more details and information. OKX is not responsible for content hosted on third party sites. Digital asset holdings, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk and can fluctuate greatly. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition.