Original author: Haotian
Recently, @solana Foundation also blew the horn of network expansion. Interestingly, it abolished the term layer 2 and named its network expansion plan Network Extention. I cant help but ask, has Ethereum layer 2 really become the target of public criticism? According to Solana, can the problem of layer 2 be solved by fully transforming the general layer 2 into a specific-purpose chain? Next, let me talk about my opinion:
1) Layer 2 has been the hottest narrative in the past two years. It should have taken on the expectations of this round of bull market and become another summer for Ethereum besides DeFi Summer. However, the bleak price of coins in reality cannot support this expectation, resulting in the entire track experiencing emotional backlash and strong bearish sentiment.
But leaving aside the emotions, I have always believed that layer 2 is relatively successful. The success is that layer 2 has diverted part of the main network traffic, so that the main network no longer bears the pressure of high gas congestion. This is consistent with the original goal and vision of layer 2 (although it has been criticized for being a bloodsucker and parasite...);
But in essence, I think the biggest success of layer 2 is to eliminate the Alt-layer 1 narrative of Ethereum Killer. At least for now, Ethereum is still the only choice besides Bitcoin in the blockchain world. Other narratives such as high-performance layer 1, parallel EVM, modularity, and chain abstraction are all supplemented by the assumption that Ethereum is the center. Putting aside the price of the currency, this is the success of the Rollup-Centric strategy.
2) Layer 2 and Network Extention are both based on the outward expansion of the main network. Ethereums layer 2 builds an off-chain state network with more intensive computing, high and low gas, and faster transaction rates, focusing on functional extension; Solanas network expansion emphasizes more specific solutions to specific problems, such as a variety of solutions including new execution environments and specialized processing capabilities: State Compression, Neon compatible with EVM environment, large-scale cNFT processing, privacy transactions, etc.
I dont think there is any difference between the two. If I have to say the difference, I can barely summarize it in two points:
1. Ethereum’s own performance is inherently limited, and it has no choice but to “passively” seek expansion. Solana’s chain itself focuses on high performance, and expansion is actually “actively” embracing other solutions that attempt to be compatible in order to expand the radiation front.
2. Ethereum layer 2 track infrastructure is already very mature, and even has reached the point where infrastructure development is far ahead of the application market. The recently criticized Blobs space is not fully utilized, which illustrates this point. In contrast, Solanas expansion plan is still a blue ocean. Solana recently promoted the OP Stack business stacking paradigm SOON, and the Network Extention was proposed to promote the prosperity of this B-side business narrative.
In the final analysis, it is just a matter of first come, first served, and we cannot favor one over the other. After all, if you do not think that Ethereum’s layer 2 strategy is successful, how can you view the Ethereum business story that Solana is trying hard to replicate?
3) As for the controversy between General-Purpose chains and Specific-Purpose chains. I heard a saying that Ethereums general-purpose chain sucks liquidity from the main network like a vampire, and some more targeted specific chains that can make up for the shortcomings of the main network are worth promoting. At first glance, it makes sense, and it makes people feel that Ethereums general-purpose chain has become the original sin, as if the layer 2 strategic path has gone wrong.
But in fact, Ethereums initial layer 2 solutions include: @loopringorg, StarkEX, @DeGateDex and other early layer 2 projects, all of which are specific use cases. Ethereum layer 2 has always been developed in two legs, General and Specific. In addition, there are many other layer 2 categories such as Validium, Plasma, Parallel, etc.
Therefore, the problem is not that the general chain has become the original sin, but that the specific chain has not been effectively developed.
Moreover, there is no clear boundary between the Specific chain and the General chain. For example, Starknet can be regarded as a specific chain at the beginning. Its Cario programming language, its parallel execution capabilities, its STARKs algorithm-intensive computing, etc. are all unique.
However, with further development, Starknet has become the universal chain that people are looking forward to after it sits on the throne of the four kings. Therefore, whether it is a specific chain or a universal chain is entirely a matter of market expectations and application scenarios, and is not the key to distinguish the pros and cons of layer 2 strategies.
