Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin dropped a bomb on the Layer-2 ecosystem this week: the original vision for L2s as Ethereum's primary scaling solution "no longer makes sense." In a detailed X thread on February 3, 2026, Buterin argued that most rollups have failed to deliver on decentralization promises while Ethereum's base layer has quietly become faster and cheaper than ever. His blunt verdict? "If you create a 10,000 TPS EVM where its connection to L1 is mediated by a multisig bridge, then you are not scaling Ethereum." The response from Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and Starknet was immediate—and reveals a fundamental rethinking of what Layer-2s should actually be.

What Vitalik Actually Said

Buterin's critique centers on two uncomfortable realities that have emerged since the "rollup-centric roadmap" was first outlined in 2020:

First, L2 decentralization has stalled. Most major rollups remain stuck at "Stage 1" on Buterin's own decentralization framework—meaning they still rely on centralized sequencers, multisig-controlled bridges, and governance committees that can override transactions. Very few have reached Stage 2, which represents full trustlessness. "L2s are not able or willing to satisfy the properties that a true 'branded shard' would require," Buterin wrote. He noted that some L2s have explicitly stated they may never progress beyond Stage 1 due to regulatory requirements or customer demands for centralized control.

Second, Ethereum L1 is scaling faster than expected. Transaction fees on mainnet have dropped to approximately $0.44 on average in early 2026—down from $50+ during the 2021 congestion crisis. Gas limits are expected to increase significantly throughout 2026, with some proposals targeting 200 million by year-end. Proto-danksharding (EIP-4844) has already reduced data availability costs dramatically. The original premise—that L2s were necessary because L1 couldn't scale—is eroding rapidly.

The "Copypasta" Problem

In a follow-up post, Buterin doubled down: "We don't need more copypasta EVM chains." He criticized the proliferation of generic rollups that simply replicate Ethereum with standard bridges, offering nothing beyond "Ethereum but cheaper." As L1 fees drop, this value proposition disappears entirely. Buterin was particularly harsh on projects marketing themselves as deeply connected to Ethereum while functioning as standalone networks with multisig trust assumptions.

Buterin's New Framework

Rather than treating L2s as official "branded shards" of Ethereum, Buterin proposes viewing them as a spectrum:

The key shift: L2s must "identify a value add other than scaling" or risk becoming obsolete. Buterin explicitly endorsed privacy features, application-specific VMs, ultra-low-latency confirmation, non-financial use cases, and built-in infrastructure like oracles or dispute resolution.

How Major L2s Are Responding

The response from L2 teams ranged from defensive to philosophical to strategically aligned. What's clear: nobody is ignoring Buterin's critique.

Arbitrum: "We're Not Ethereum—We're Its Closest Ally"

Steven Goldfeder, co-founder of Offchain Labs (Arbitrum's developer), pushed back forcefully. He rejected the framing that L2s and a scaled L1 are at odds: "Arbitrum is not Ethereum. It's a core part of the ecosystem, a close-knit ally, and has enjoyed a symbiotic relationship for the last half-decade. But it is not Ethereum."

Goldfeder cited hard numbers: during recent market volatility, Arbitrum and Base each processed over 1,000 transactions per second while Ethereum L1 handled approximately 40 TPS. He warned that if Ethereum appears hostile to rollups, institutions might launch independent Layer-1 chains instead—a scenario where Ethereum loses its backbone status in Web3.

Notably, Goldfeder also noted that Offchain Labs directly funds Ethereum development, including the Prysm client. His message: scaling remains essential, and Arbitrum isn't going anywhere.

Optimism: "Challenge Accepted"

Karl Floersch, Optimism Foundation co-founder and OP Labs CEO, took a more conciliatory approach. He acknowledged the decentralization gap: "Stage 2 isn't production-ready. Current proofs lack sufficient security to protect major bridges." He also criticized the one-week withdrawal delays that still plague optimistic rollups.

But Floersch framed this as opportunity, not existential threat: "CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. Not a challenge related to drama farmers saying 'L2s bad, Ethereum dumb.' But instead the challenge of creating a modular L2 Stack that supports and enables customization and the full spectrum of decentralization."

Floersch emphasized that the OP Stack already supports multiple decentralization levels and backed Buterin's proposal for native rollup precompiles—a feature that would verify ZK-EVM proofs directly on L1.

Base: "L2s Are Websites, Not Ethereum"

Jesse Pollak, who leads Coinbase's Base L2, offered perhaps the most radical reframing: "L2s are websites. Every company will have its own, tailored to its needs. Ethereum is an open settlement standard."

This analogy—L2s as independent services rather than Ethereum extensions—represents a significant philosophical shift. Pollak noted that Base achieved Stage 1 last year and is progressing to Stage 2, while developing additional features like native account abstraction and privacy tools with Ethereum Foundation support. His focus: user and developer onboarding, not raw scaling.

Polygon: "Scaling Alone Is Insufficient"

Polygon CEO Marc Boiron aligned with Buterin's call for specialization: "Vitalik's point was not that rollups are a mistake, but that scaling alone is insufficient. The real challenge is building a unique blockspace that works for real-world use cases like payments, where cost, reliability, and consistency matter."

Polygon recently announced a pivot to focus primarily on payments—a clear example of the specialization Buterin advocates.

Espresso Systems: "L2s Are Flourishing, Not Dying"

Ben Fisch, CEO of Espresso Systems (shared sequencing infrastructure), rejected the "L2s are obsolete" narrative entirely: "I think it's the start of layer-2s flourishing and becoming independent from Ethereum. A layer-2 may use Ethereum as a service, but it by no means is beholden to Ethereum or what the leaders of Ethereum think."

The Native Rollup Solution

Central to Buterin's vision is the concept of "native rollups"—rollups embedded directly into Ethereum with transaction execution verified by Ethereum validators. He proposes a native rollup precompile that would:

• Enable trustless verification of ZK-EVM proofs on L1
• Auto-upgrade alongside Ethereum's core protocol
• Improve interoperability and composability across rollups
• Eliminate the need for multisig bridges entirely

Declan Fox of Linea Build (ConsenSys-affiliated L2) endorsed this direction, calling Linea "the first battle-tested Native Rollup technology stack." Whether other L2s can or will adopt this approach remains uncertain—especially those with venture capital valuations predicated on independent token ecosystems.

What This Means for L2 Token Holders

The debate has significant implications for investors holding ARB, OP, MATIC, and other L2 tokens:

L2 Token Investment Implications

The 21Shares 2026 L2 outlook suggests many L2s may not survive consolidation this year. Projects stuck at Stage 1 indefinitely—whether due to technical, regulatory, or control reasons—face reframing as "just another L1" rather than true Ethereum extensions. The market is already concentrating at the top: Arbitrum holds approximately $19 billion TVL, with most other L2s struggling to maintain meaningful user bases after airdrop incentives ended.

Starknet exemplifies the risk: despite raising $458 million and pioneering ZK-rollup technology, its token has fallen 98% from peak while maintaining an extremely high price-to-earnings ratio relative to actual daily active users and fee revenue.

The New L2 Playbook

Based on Buterin's framework and L2 responses, the emerging playbook for rollup survival includes:

1. Specialize or die. Generic EVM chains offering only "cheaper Ethereum" face extinction as L1 fees drop. Successful L2s will focus on privacy (Aztec), gaming (Immutable), social (Lens), payments (Polygon), or application-specific optimization.

2. Decentralize to Stage 2—or be honest about not doing so. Buterin is explicitly calling out L2s that market themselves as Ethereum extensions while maintaining centralized control. Projects must either achieve full trustlessness or clearly communicate their trade-offs to users.

3. Pursue native rollup integration. L2s that adopt enshrined ZK-EVM verification will inherit Ethereum's security guarantees automatically. Those relying on external bridges face permanent trust disadvantages.

4. Build unique infrastructure. Beyond VMs, L2s can differentiate through ultra-low latency, custom sequencing, built-in oracles, or dispute resolution systems that L1 doesn't offer.

5. Accept the new identity. As Jing Wang (Optimism Foundation) put it: "L2s are websites. Every company will have its own, tailored to its needs." This framing—L2s as independent platforms using Ethereum as settlement infrastructure—may be more honest than the "branded shard" narrative ever was.

The Evolution, Not Death, of Layer-2

Buterin's critique doesn't signal L2 obsolescence—it signals maturation. The era of launching generic EVM rollups, promising "Ethereum but cheaper," and riding airdrop speculation is ending. What emerges will be more honest: a spectrum of chains with varying Ethereum connections, each offering distinct value propositions to specific user bases.

For investors, this means increased selectivity. The L2s that survive 2026 consolidation will be those that either achieve genuine decentralization (becoming true Ethereum extensions) or find defensible specialization (becoming category leaders in privacy, gaming, payments, or enterprise applications).

For users, the takeaway is simpler: understand what guarantees your L2 actually provides. As Buterin emphasized, "Our job should be to make it clear to users what guarantees they have—and to build the strongest Ethereum we can."

Five years ago, Ethereum bet its scaling future on Layer-2. Now it's discovering that the best scaling solution may be making L1 more powerful while letting L2s find their own purpose. That's not betrayal—it's growth. The L2s unable to adapt will pay the price.