Vitalik's Layer2 Reset: Can It Save Ethereum?

Article: YQ

Editor: Saoirse, Foresight News

Since 2015, I have been deeply involved in scaling technology research, exploring all technical iterations from sharding, Plasma, application chains (App Chains), to Rollup. I have worked closely with every major Rollup tech stack and team within the ecosystem. Therefore, whenever Vitalik releases content that fundamentally reshapes our understanding of Layer2 (L2), I pay special attention. The post he published on February 3rd is one such critical piece.

What Vitalik has done is no easy feat — admitting that the core assumptions of 2020 did not materialize as expected. Such honesty is often avoided by most leaders. Back then, the roadmap centered around Rollup, built on the premise that “L2 would serve as Ethereum’s ‘branded sharding’.” But four years of market data tell a different story: L2 has evolved into platforms with independent economic incentive mechanisms, and Ethereum Layer1’s scaling speed has far exceeded expectations. The original vision has long been disconnected from reality.

In fact, continuing to defend the old narrative would have been the easier choice — for example, forcing teams to pursue a vision that the market has already rejected. But that is not a sign of strong leadership. The truly wise approach is to acknowledge the gap between expectations and reality, propose new directions, and move toward a brighter future. And this post does exactly that.

Vitalik’s Actual Diagnosis of the Issues

The post highlights two core realities that require strategic adjustment:

First, the decentralization process of L2 is far slower than expected. Currently, only three mainstream L2s (Arbitrum, OP Mainnet, Base) have reached the first stage of decentralization; some L2 teams have explicitly stated that due to regulatory requirements or business models, they may never pursue full decentralization. This is not a moral “failure,” but a reflection of economic realities — for L2 operators, sequencer revenue is a core business model.

Second, Ethereum Layer1 has achieved significant scaling. Currently, L1 fees are low, the Pectra upgrade doubled data block capacity, and plans are in place to continue increasing the Gas limit through 2026. When the Rollup roadmap was initially designed, “high L1 costs and network congestion” were fundamental assumptions; now, that premise no longer holds. L1 can handle a large volume of transactions at reasonable costs, shifting the value proposition of L2 from “a necessity for availability” to “an optional solution for specific use cases.”

Two Major Realities Requiring Strategic Adjustment Highlighted by Vitalik

Reconstruction of the Trust Spectrum

Vitalik’s most significant conceptual contribution is liberating L2 from the “single category, unified obligation” framework, redefining it as “a diverse presence along the trust spectrum.” The previous metaphor of “branded sharding” implicitly assumed all L2s should pursue the second stage of decentralization and serve as extensions of Ethereum, sharing the same value and security guarantees as L1. The new framework recognizes that different L2s have different purposes; for projects with specific needs, zero-stage or first-stage decentralization can be a reasonable endpoint.

This strategic redefinition is significant because it breaks the implicit judgment that “L2s that do not pursue full decentralization are failures.” For example, a regulated L2 serving institutional clients with asset freezing capabilities is not “a flawed Arbitrum,” but rather “a differentiated product targeting different markets.” By acknowledging this “trust spectrum,” Vitalik allows L2s to honestly define their own positioning without making unsupported promises of decentralization that lack economic incentives.

Different trust levels correspond to different use cases — all levels can exist reasonably

Ethereum L2 Trust Level Classification Table

Native Rollup Precompile Proposal

The core technical idea in Vitalik’s post is the “Native Rollup Precompile” scheme. Currently, each L2 must independently build a system to prove state transitions to Ethereum: Optimistic Rollup uses fraud proofs with a 7-day challenge period, ZK Rollup employs validity proofs based on custom circuits. These implementations require independent auditing, may contain vulnerabilities, and need updates when Ethereum hard forks change EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) behavior. This “fragmented” situation poses security risks and maintenance burdens for the entire ecosystem.

The “Native Rollup Precompile” aims to embed the “EVM execution verification” function directly into Ethereum. In the future, L2s will no longer need to maintain custom provers; they can simply call this shared infrastructure. The advantages are significant: only one codebase needs auditing (rather than dozens), it can automatically upgrade with Ethereum, and once the precompile is battle-tested, it may even eliminate the need for a security committee.

Comparison of Ethereum Native Rollup Precompile Architecture

Synchronous Composability Vision

In a detailed post on ethresear.ch, Vitalik elaborates on a mechanism to achieve “synchronous composability” between L1 and L2. Currently, transferring assets or executing logic across L1 and L2 either requires waiting for final confirmation (7 days for Optimistic Rollup, hours for ZK Rollup) or relies on fast bridges with counterparty risks (Fast Bridge). “Synchronous composability” allows transactions to “atomically use L1 and L2 states”— meaning data read/write across layers within the same transaction either succeeds entirely or rolls back completely.

This mechanism involves three types of blocks:

• Regular ordering blocks: for low-latency L2 transactions;
• Slot-ending blocks: mark the boundaries of time windows;
• Base blocks: generated after slot-ending blocks, can be built permissionlessly.

During the window of base blocks, any block builder can create blocks that interact with both L1 and L2 states.

These three types of blocks support periodic synchronization and interaction between L1 and L2.

Responses from L2 Teams

Mainstream L2 teams responded within hours, demonstrating healthy strategic diversity — precisely the effect Vitalik’s “trust spectrum” framework aims for: different teams can choose different positions without pretending to move toward the same endpoint.

Four Major Ethereum L2 Projects’ Differentiated Responses to Vitalik’s “L2 Reset” Proposal

This diversity of responses is healthy:

• Arbitrum emphasizes independence and self-sufficiency;
• Base focuses on applications and users;
• Linea aligns closely with the native Rollup direction proposed by Vitalik;
• Optimism acknowledges current challenges while claiming ongoing improvements.

There are no right or wrong positions here — only strategic choices targeting different market segments, which the “trust spectrum” framework recognizes as reasonable.

Vitalik’s Recognition of L2 Economic Realities

One of the key significances of this post is the implicit acknowledgment of L2’s economic attributes. When he mentions “some L2s may never surpass first-stage decentralization due to regulatory requirements (retaining ultimate control),” he is recognizing that L2s are not idealized “branded sharding,” but legitimate economic entities with legal business interests. Sequencer revenue is real, and regulatory compliance requirements are real — expecting L2s to abandon these interests for ideological reasons from the start is unrealistic.

Most of the revenue from fees remains with L2 — this economic reality shapes decentralization incentives

Vitalik’s Future Pathways

His post is not just about “diagnosing problems,” but also “solving problems.” He outlines several concrete directions for L2s that want to maintain value amidst ongoing L1 scaling. These are not mandatory requirements but suggested paths for differentiation when “cheaper Ethereum” is no longer the core competitive advantage.

Ethereum L2 Differentiation Value Direction Table

Rational honesty in leadership enables adaptive ecosystem development

Summary

In February 2026, Vitalik Buterin published this post, marking a key recalibration of Ethereum’s L2 strategy. Its core insight is that L2 has evolved into an independent platform with legitimate economic interests, rather than a “branded sharding” that must assume obligations to Ethereum. Vitalik does not oppose this reality but proposes to recognize differentiation through the “trust spectrum,” strengthen collaboration via “Native Rollup Infrastructure,” and enable cross-layer interaction through “Synchronous Composability” — thus embracing reality.

Responses from the L2 ecosystem show healthy diversity: Arbitrum emphasizes independence, Base focuses on applications, Linea aligns with the native Rollup direction, and Optimism acknowledges challenges and pushes forward. This diversity is exactly the expected outcome of the “trust spectrum” framework: different teams can pursue different strategies without pretending to follow the same path.

For Ethereum, this strategic correction, by “acknowledging reality” rather than “defending outdated assumptions,” maintains its credibility. Considering the maturity of ZK-EVM technology, related technical proposals are feasible; strategic proposals also create space for efficient ecosystem evolution. This embodies “adaptive leadership” in technology: recognizing environmental changes and proposing new paths rather than stubbornly sticking to rejected strategies.

Having worked in scaling research for a decade and operating a Rollup infrastructure company for four years, I have seen many leaders refuse to adapt when facts change — often with poor results. Vitalik’s choice this time is not easy: openly admitting that the 2020 vision needs updating. But it is the right choice. Clinging to market-rejected narratives benefits no one. The new direction is much clearer than a week ago — and that alone is highly valuable.