Ethereum’s L2 argument is shifting from capacity to specialisation

In a 23 March post, Ethereum Foundation platform-team authors argued that L2 networks should increasingly differentiate through features, customisation, services and their own operating choices. They still provide additional scale. The authors describe Ethereum L1 as a permissionless settlement and liquidity hub, with L2s offering capabilities and control that a common base layer cannot provide for every use case. It is a strategic argument by that team, not a rule requiring every network to adopt the same business model. Source.

Ethereum’s own L2 guide distinguishes networks that post their data to Ethereum from more independent arrangements. It also says network safety depends on the technology, smart contracts and maturity involved. There is no official L2 in the sense of one network chosen as the sole authorised extension. For users, this means compatibility with Ethereum tools does not automatically establish identical security or exit properties. The relationship between the systems must be examined, not inferred from branding or a familiar wallet interface. Source.

Our view is that a new network needs to answer a product question before a capacity question: what can its intended users do that is difficult elsewhere? A game, financial application and enterprise workflow may value different guarantees. Lower fees alone do not explain who controls upgrades, where data is available or how a user withdraws during disruption. A useful comparison sets out those dependencies beside the feature advantage. The platform team’s argument makes specialisation more explicit, but successful differentiation still requires evidence of demand. A fast, inexpensive network without a clear reason for users to stay remains a difficult business proposition.

For example, a developer comparing two deployment environments can list the user action, its fee, the assets it needs and the route out if the service stops. The same table should name any privileged operator or upgrade authority. This makes a specialised feature comparable with its dependencies instead of allowing a chain label to stand in for an architecture review.