Author: YQ, Crypto KOL;

Translation by: @jinsefinancexz

Since 2015, I have been deeply involved in the research of scaling technology. From sharding, Plasma, application chains to Rollups, I have personally witnessed the iteration of all technical routes. In 2021, I founded AltLayer, focusing on app Rollups and Rollup-as-a-Service solutions, and maintaining in-depth cooperation with all mainstream Rollup technology stacks and teams in the ecosystem. Therefore, when Vitalik proposed to fundamentally reconstruct our understanding of L2, I naturally paid close attention. His recently published article marks such a milestone moment.

Vitalik's work was not easy. His candor in acknowledging that the core assumptions of 2020 failed to materialize is something most leaders lack. The rollup-centric roadmap was built on the premise that "L2 will serve as a branded shard of Ethereum ." However, four years of market data have revealed a different picture: L2 has evolved into an autonomous platform with independent economic incentives, Ethereum L1 is scaling faster than expected, and the original framework is out of touch with the current situation.

It would be easier to continue defending old narratives. It would be easier to keep pushing the team to pursue a vision that has been proven false by the market. But true leadership should not be like that. Acknowledging the gap between expectations and reality, proposing new paths, and moving towards a brighter future—that is the responsibility that is needed. And Vitalik's argument does exactly that.

1. What is reality?

Vitalik pointed out two intertwined realities that together necessitate a strategic adjustment. First, the decentralization process of L2 is slower than expected. Currently, only the three major L2 platforms (Arbitrum, OP mainnet, and Base) have reached the first stage of decentralization, and some L2 teams have explicitly stated that due to regulatory requirements or business model limitations, they may never pursue full decentralization. This is not a moral flaw, but rather reflects the economic reality that sequencer revenue is the primary business model for L2 operators.

Secondly, Ethereum's L1 has achieved substantial scaling. Transaction fees are low, the Pectra upgrade doubled block capacity, and the gas cap will continue to increase until 2026. When the initial Rollup roadmap was designed, L1 was characterized by high fees and congestion, but this premise no longer holds true. L1 can now handle a large number of transactions at a reasonable cost, which changes the value proposition of L2: from a "necessity for ensuring availability" to an "optional for specific scenarios."

2. Trust Spectrum Reconstruction

Vitalik's core theoretical contribution lies in redefining L2 as existing on a continuous spectrum, rather than a single category with uniform obligations. The metaphor of "branded sharding" once implied that all L2s should pursue second-stage decentralization and operate as an extension of Ethereum's value and security guarantees. The new framework acknowledges that different L2s serve different goals, and for projects with specific needs, Phase 0 or Phase 1 may be a perfectly reasonable endpoint.

This restructuring is of significant strategic importance because it eliminates the implicit judgment that "an L2 that doesn't pursue full decentralization is a failure." A regulated L2 serving institutional clients who require asset freezing capabilities is not a crippled version of Arbitrum, but rather a differentiated product for different markets. By justifying this spectrum of existence, Vitalik enables L2 to honestly position itself, rather than making decentralized promises lacking economic incentives.

3. Native Rollup pre-compilation proposal

The core technology in Vitalik's article lies in the native Rollup pre-compiled scheme. Currently, each L2 implementation has built its own system for transitioning to Ethereum's proof state: Optimistic Rollup uses fraud proofs with a 7-day challenge period, while ZK Rollup relies on validity proofs using custom circuits. Each implementation requires independent auditing, may harbor vulnerabilities, and must be upgraded synchronously when Ethereum hard forks change EVM behavior. This fragmented state introduces security risks and maintenance burdens to the entire ecosystem.

Native Rollup pre-compilation will directly embed the Ethereum EVM's verification functions. Each Rollup will not need to maintain a customized proof system; it will only need to call this shared infrastructure. This will bring significant advantages: replacing dozens of independent implementations with a single audited codebase, automatically maintaining compatibility with Ethereum upgrades, and potentially eliminating the security committee mechanism once the pre-compilation functionality has been proven in practice.

4. Vision of Synchronous Composability

The ethresear.ch post details the mechanism for achieving synchronous composability between L1 and L2. Currently, transferring assets or executing logic across the L1 and L2 boundaries requires waiting for a final confirmation period (7 days for Optimistic Rollup and several hours for ZK Rollup) or relying on fast cross-chain bridges with counterparty risk. Synchronous composability will allow transactions to atomically call L1 and L2 states, enabling cross-chain read and write operations within a single transaction, ensuring that transactions either succeed completely or are completely rolled back.

The proposal designs three block types: regular sorted blocks for low-latency L2 transactions, boundary blocks that mark the end of a slot, and permissionless blocks that can be built after a boundary block, during which any builder can create blocks that interact with both L1 and L2 states simultaneously.

5. The L2 team's response

Within hours, various L2 teams responded, demonstrating a healthy strategic diversification. This is precisely the situation that Vitalik's Trust Spectrum framework aims to achieve: different teams can pursue differentiated positioning without deliberately creating the illusion that "everyone is on the same path to the same destination."

A diverse range of responses is a hallmark of a healthy market. Arbitrum positions itself as an independent ecosystem, Base focuses on applications and user experience, Linea closely follows Vitalik's native Rollup approach, and Optimism acknowledges challenges while emphasizing its own progress. These strategic choices are not inherently right or wrong; they represent differentiated strategies for different market segments—and this is precisely the legitimacy granted by the Trust Spectrum framework.

6. Vitalik's profound understanding of economic realities

One of the most important insights in Vitalik's article is the implicit acknowledgment of the L2 economic model. When he points out that some L2 entities, due to considerations of "regulatory needs" and "ultimate control," "may never go beyond Phase 1," he is essentially acknowledging that L2 entities, as commercial entities, have legitimate economic interests that are fundamentally different from the idealized "branded sharding" model. Ranking revenue is a real business need, and regulatory compliance requirements are an unavoidable reality. Expecting L2 entities to relinquish these interests for ideological consistency is itself illogical from a business perspective.

7. Vitalik's Planned Path Forward

Vitalik's arguments are constructive, rather than merely diagnostic. He points out several specific directions for L2 developers who hope to maintain value amidst the continued scaling of L1. These are not hard and fast rules, but rather differentiated development suggestions for L2—opportunities they can leverage to build their own advantages when the "cheaper Ethereum " selling point is no longer sufficient.

8. Conclusion

Vitalik Buterin's article, published in February 2026, marks a strategic recalibration of Ethereum 's L2 strategy. Its core insight is that L2 has evolved into an independent platform with legitimate economic benefits, rather than an obligatory "branded sharding" of Ethereum . Instead of attempting to fight this trend, Vitalik advocates embracing reality by establishing a trust spectrum that recognizes diverse paths, providing native Rollup infrastructure to enhance L1-L2 integration for those who need it, and designing synchronous composability mechanisms for cross-layer interactions.

The L2 ecosystem has responded with healthy diversity. Arbitrum emphasizes independence, Base focuses on applications, Linea aligns with the native Rollup direction, and Optimism continuously drives improvement while acknowledging challenges. This diversity is exactly what the Trust Spectrum framework envisioned: different teams can follow different strategies without having to pretend everyone is on the same path.

For Ethereum , this roadmap revision maintained its credibility by acknowledging reality rather than defending outdated assumptions. Given the maturity of ZK-EVM technology, the related technical proposals were feasible. The strategic proposals, on the other hand, created space for the healthy evolution of the ecosystem. This exemplifies adaptive leadership in the technology field: recognizing changing circumstances and proposing new paths forward, rather than clinging to old strategies after the market has already made its choice.

After a decade of research in scaling and four years running a rollup infrastructure company, I've seen far too many crypto leaders refuse to adapt when reality differs from expectations, and none of them have fared well. What Vitalik did was difficult—publicly acknowledging that the 2020 vision needed adjustment. But it was the right decision. Clinging to a narrative that's out of touch with the market benefits no one. The path forward is becoming clearer every day. That in itself is of great value.