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.
3,435
0
本页面内容由第三方提供。除非另有说明，欧易不是所引用文章的作者，也不对此类材料主张任何版权。该内容仅供参考，并不代表欧易观点，不作为任何形式的认可，也不应被视为投资建议或购买或出售数字资产的招揽。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情况下，此类人工智能生成的内容可能不准确或不一致。请阅读链接文章，了解更多详情和信息。欧易不对第三方网站上的内容负责。包含稳定币、NFTs 等在内的数字资产涉及较高程度的风险，其价值可能会产生较大波动。请根据自身财务状况，仔细考虑交易或持有数字资产是否适合您。