The current performance of Ethereum”s Layer 2 (L2) solutions reveals a concerning trend, with more than 80% of the 135 tracked projects reporting daily user operations below 1 per second. According to data from L2Beat, dominant L2s like Arbitrum and Base handle approximately 90% of the total Ethereum scaling activity, while the majority of smaller or newer projects experience minimal engagement.
Out of the 136 L2s monitored, only 27 projects achieve an average of 1.00 User Operations per Second (UOPS) or higher, leaving about 109 projects with less than 1 UOPS. This disparity highlights how the scaling capabilities of the ecosystem—boasting an impressive scaling factor of nearly 97 times—are largely driven by a select few active chains.
The Ethereum ecosystem appears to be bifurcating, with Layer 1 (L1) functioning as a global vault and L2s acting as a retail front. This division is reflected in key performance metrics such as total value locked (TVL) and user activity. Currently, Ethereum boasts approximately $68 billion in TVL, while its L2 solutions collectively hold around $50 billion. The user distribution remains heavily skewed towards leading L2s, which are effectively capturing most liquidity and user interest.
Interestingly, Base has positioned itself as a user-friendly platform, often surpassing the mainnet in daily user engagement. This shift is largely attributed to a revised fee structure following the Dencun and subsequent Pectra/Fusaka upgrades, which have made transactions more affordable on the mainnet. Consequently, this has led users to gravitate back towards L1.
Despite the challenges faced by many L2s, they have collectively managed to process significantly higher transaction volumes than Ethereum itself, with some days showing over 20,000 transactions per second (TPS) during peak times. This surge in throughput has not gone unnoticed. Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum”s co-founder, has expressed concerns regarding the evolving role of L2s, suggesting that the initial vision of these solutions may no longer be applicable.
Buterin articulated that L1 does not require L2s to serve as “branded shards” since L1 is advancing its own scaling capabilities. He recommends a reevaluation of how L2s are perceived, encouraging them to innovate beyond merely replicating L1″s functions. “Don”t just “extend L1″, figure out something new to add,” he stated.
This discourse has sparked significant dialogue within the community, with leaders from major L2 projects weighing in. Steven Goldfeder, co-founder of Offchain Labs, acknowledged parts of Buterin”s perspective while advocating for the importance of L2s in scaling. Similarly, Karl Floersch from Optimism underscored the necessity for modular designs and innovation within the L2 landscape.
The consensus among industry leaders is clear: L2s must carve out unique identities and functionalities to remain relevant in a rapidly evolving ecosystem. As the discourse continues, it will be essential for L2s to adapt and differentiate themselves in order to thrive alongside the growing capabilities of Ethereum”s mainnet.
