Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko has expressed skepticism regarding the decentralization and security of Ethereum’s layer-2 (L2) scaling networks. In a debate on Sunday, Yakovenko argued that these networks possess a significant attack surface and code bases too extensive to be thoroughly audited for software vulnerabilities. He also pointed out that user funds on L2s, which depend on multi-signature custody, can be moved without the users' explicit consent.
Yakovenko stated, "The claim that layer-2s inherit ETH security is erroneous." He further elaborated on his concerns, saying:
“5 years into the L2 roadmap, wormhole ETH on Solana has the same worst-case risks as ETH on base and generates as much revenue for ETH L1 stakers. It’s wrong no matter how you slice it.”
The ongoing discussion about Ethereum’s layer-2 scaling networks involves developers, investors, and industry leaders debating their impact on the Ethereum layer-1 blockchain.
Proliferation of Ethereum Layer-2 Networks
As of the current time, there are 129 verified Ethereum layer-2 networks, with an additional 29 scaling networks awaiting review, according to data from L2Beat.
Adrian Brink, co-founder of the layer-1 blockchain protocol Anoma, suggested that the blockchain industry has approximately 10 times more L2s than necessary.
Conversely, Igor Mandrigin, co-founder of Web3 and blockchain infrastructure provider Gateway.fm, argued that there can never be too many L2s. He believes the significant increase in L2 networks is a positive indicator of Ethereum's network growth and the ecosystem's increasing diversity.
Anurag Arjun, co-founder of Avail, a unified chain abstraction solution and the Polygon layer-2 network, shares a similar view. He told Cointelegraph that each Ethereum L2 functions as a high-throughput blockchain, offering Ethereum a wide array of high-throughput options.
However, a report by Binance Research indicates that the rapid expansion of these layer-2 networks may be negatively impacting revenue on the Ethereum base layer. The researchers noted that these networks fragment liquidity and reduce revenue on the base layer due to their significantly lower transaction fees compared to transacting directly on the layer-1 blockchain.