Ethereum is both a digital asset with long-term value storage capabilities (like Bitcoin) and an underlying platform that supports global application interoperability.

Written by: Jiawei, IOSG

Recently, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin had a flash interview AMA with FSL CRO Mable Jiang on the Tako App. This was Vitalik's first Chinese AMA in recent years, aimed at helping more community members understand the current state of Ethereum from technical, ecological, and future direction perspectives. We have organized the core viewpoints Vitalik provided on some specific issues of interest to the community, hoping to inspire readers.

Summary

Vitalik defines the "world computer" as "a place where applications of the world can interoperate," rather than "a computer that can simultaneously support every application in the world." Ethereum is both a digital asset with long-term value storage capabilities (like Bitcoin) and an underlying platform that supports global application interoperability. The two are not contradictory. The "world computer" is achieved through a highly decentralized, trusted L1 (layer one) and an L2 (layer two) with scalability and specialized features. Relying solely on L1 or L2 is not feasible.

The core task of L1 is to ensure security and network resilience—so that even if the foundation ceases to exist, global developers can still maintain the ecosystem based on open clients and protocols. L2, on the other hand, carries the mission of performance expansion and scenario innovation, such as high throughput, privacy, or AI model collaboration.

The relationship between the two is akin to the foundation and buildings of a city: L1 ensures geological stability, while L2 allows for free design forms. However, the premise of this architecture is that L1 must maintain sufficient throughput so that any user or application can interact directly with the mainnet when necessary, while also ensuring interoperability and preventing L2 from becoming a closed island.

In summary, Ethereum's ultimate goal does not require a binary choice between "digital gold" and "world computer." The compatibility of the two is precisely its unique value: Ethereum needs to be a decentralized, censorship-resistant, long-term trusted value storage medium like Bitcoin, while also serving as the underlying infrastructure to support global application interoperability.

Compared to a few years ago when the notion was "L1 fully supports L2," Vitalik proposed a "hybrid L1 + L2" in this AMA, meaning L1 also needs to take on certain roles, such as increasing blobs to give L2 more space and promoting cross-L2 interoperability. Based on actual needs, the market will clarify which transactions should occur on L1 and which should occur on L2.

Over the past three years, the development of the Rollup route has shown a certain polarization. On one hand, L2s represented by OP Stack have achieved second-level transaction confirmations and MEV control through centralized sequencers; on the other hand, excessive reliance on a single team's operational architecture has raised questions about censorship resistance and long-term credibility.

Vitalik believes that, on a technical level, it is necessary to ensure censorship resistance through mandatory on-chain transactions. On an ecological level, Vitalik encourages the exploration of "specialized L2s." For example, Aztec achieves privacy transactions through fully homomorphic encryption, Gensyn focuses on distributed AI training, and MegaETH achieves high-performance scenarios of 100,000 TPS through centralized sequencers—these experiments essentially answer the question of "what degree of decentralization suits what applications."

Vitalik has engaged in discussions and face-to-face conversations with many community members, believing that the Ethereum Foundation needs to focus on supporting public goods, establishing technical standards, and maintaining ecological balance in the future, rather than pursuing corporate governance. Corporate governance implies a pursuit of profit. Ethereum is a decentralized ecosystem, not a company; if Ethereum becomes a company, it will lose much of its long-term significance.

Vitalik does not support a culture of short-term speculation (such as the excessive hype around memecoins) or overly catering to political demands, advocating for the creation of long-term value and attracting long-term developers. Of course, Vitalik does not completely oppose memecoins; as early as March last year, he proposed potential practical uses for memecoins in his article "What else could memecoins be?"

In Vitalik's view, good applications should meet real user needs, have the ability to achieve sustainable profitability, and possess social value. Many projects fail because they fabricate non-existent or hard-to-verify needs, which do not require the censorship resistance, verifiability, and collaboration features of blockchain. Some successful products often start from a "minimum necessary scenario." A healthy profit model should be rooted in real value exchange, such as the fee collection of Uniswap on the financial side and the annual fees and scarce domain auctions of ENS on the non-financial side.

Core viewpoints on specific issues

Core viewpoints on decentralization and blockchain resilience

I believe these two ways of thinking are compatible.

If you need to distinguish which blockchains are "truly decentralized," you can use a relatively simple test: If its foundation disappears, can the chain survive? I feel that only Bitcoin and Ethereum can clearly answer: of course, they can. Most of Ethereum's development is outside the foundation, and the client teams have independent business models. Many researchers are no longer in the foundation, and almost all activities, except for Devcon, are independent.

Reaching this stage is difficult. Five years ago, Ethereum did not have this.

Giving up these advantages in pursuit of TPS is a significant mistake because new chains can always emerge with even higher TPS than yours. However, decentralization and resilience are valuable, and few blockchains possess them.

These characteristics are conducive to creating a digital currency with long-term value and also beneficial for a good world computer. However, the world computer also needs to solve scalability issues. The meaning of "world computer" is not "a computer that can simultaneously support every application in the world," but rather "a place where applications of the world can interoperate." High-performance computing can be placed on L2, which is fine. However, this role still requires L1 to have sufficient scale; specific details can be found in a recent article I wrote.

ETH is a digital asset suitable for use between world applications (including finance and others, such as ENS, etc.). ETH does not need every transaction to be on L1, but it needs to have sufficient throughput so that anyone wanting to use L1 can at least do so occasionally.

So these two directions are also compatible: helping Ethereum become a better world computer also enhances ETH as a better digital currency.

Hybrid scaling strategy of L1 and L2

So far, our scaling approach can be understood as hybrid L1 + L2, but I think no one has clearly defined which transactions should be on L1 and which should be on L2.

The answer of "everything on L2" is difficult to accept because:

• This risks losing ETH's position as a medium of exchange, store of value, etc.
• If you worry that L2 is taking users from L1 without returning any benefits to L1, this issue becomes more severe in a situation where "L1 does almost nothing."
• Cross-L2 operations still require L1. If one L2 has issues, users still need a way to move to another L2. So there are some use cases that inevitably require L1. I have written an article on this topic.

The answer of "everything on L1" is also difficult to accept because:

• If L1 supports many transactions, it risks becoming centralized, even with technologies like ZK-EVM, etc.
• The demand for on-chain transactions is infinite; no matter how high L1's TPS is, there will always be an application that needs 10 times more TPS (for example, artificial intelligence, micro-payments, micro-prediction markets, etc.).
• L2 not only does scaling but can also provide faster confirmation speeds through preconfirmations and can avoid MEV issues through sequencers.

So we need hybrid L1 + L2. I think the role of L2 will continue to change; for example, it seems that EVM-equivalent L2s are already sufficient, and we may see more privacy-focused L2s (like Aztec, Intmax, etc.), and possibly more application-specific L2s (if an application wants to control its MEV situation, there are benefits, etc.).

So in the short term, I think we should continue to enhance L1's capabilities, increase blobs to give L2 more space, and promote cross-L2 interoperability, and then the market will decide which scaling method suits which applications.

Trade-offs and solutions for centralized sequencers

Centralized sequencers actually have many advantages:

• Centralized sequencers can ensure that they do not steal users' money through frontrunning, etc.
• Instant preconfirmations can easily turn a traditional application into a blockchain application because the server directly becomes the sequencer.
• The decentralized characteristics of blockchain can mitigate the risks of centralized sequencers: forced inclusion mechanisms prevent sequencers from censoring users, and optimistic or zk proof mechanisms prevent sequencers from altering or violating application rules (for example, suddenly inflating a token or NFT collection).

However, centralized sequencers still carry risks, so we cannot rely entirely on centralized sequencers to solve problems; having the ability to conduct based rollups or direct transactions on L1 is also important. Therefore, I support having two parts of the ecosystem simultaneously promoting these two methods, and then we can see which method is more suitable for which applications.

Maintaining the ability for ordinary users to conduct censorship-resistant transactions is, of course, crucial.

On the development path and narrative updates of ETH

There is currently no such thing as ETH 3.0. Some may say that Justin Drake's five-year plan is it, but that plan only pertains to the consensus layer, not the execution layer, so it is only part of the future of the Ethereum blockchain.

The relationship and balance between L1 and L2 is an execution layer issue. Here is another roadmap: strengthen L1's capabilities (increase gas limit, add stateless verification (such as Verkle) and other features, etc.), improve cross-L2 interoperability, increase blobs, and so on.

I also believe that the question of whether L2 is paying enough transaction fees to L1 should not be viewed too short-term. For example, before EIP-4844, the complaints were the opposite: Is L1 sucking the blood of L2?

Now, the blob fees in the last 30 days are 500 ETH.

If the blob target increases from 3 to 128, according to our plan, if the blob gas price remains the same, it will burn 21,333 ETH per month, totaling 256,000 ETH per year.

So the narrative can change quickly here; now we need to strengthen L1 so that things that should happen on L1 can happen there, increase blobs, and maintain our community's adaptability.

Social Responsibility of Blockchain and Ecological Philosophy

I feel that the current blockchain community, along with the entire world, is in a relatively dangerous state. Many things without long-term value, or even malicious, are happening, and these issues and the people behind them are getting a lot of attention.

However, we cannot just oppose these things without proposing better alternatives. Therefore, our goal should be to create a good alternative, demonstrating that a stable and brighter future is possible.

Here, I simultaneously refer to the blockchain circle (if a memecoin that drops 97% in a day is not our future, then what is?) and a macro social aspect: many people now feel that democratic methods are impossible and that things can only be done through strongman leadership. However, at Devcon, a political scientist told me that one reason he respects Ethereum is that we are a truly open and decentralized ecosystem, and we have succeeded at this scale, which gives him hope. So if we can succeed in this way, the positive impact on the world could be significant, providing many people with a bright and successful example to follow.

But "decentralization" does not mean "doing nothing." The Ethereum Foundation's philosophy of subtraction does not mean "reducing the foundation to zero," but rather maintaining ecological balance. If there is an imbalance in one area of the ecosystem (for example, if a part of the ecosystem is too centralized, or if there is an important public good that others are not addressing), we can help counterbalance it. After solving this problem, the foundation can withdraw from that area. If a new imbalance arises, we can shift resources there, and so on.

In Chinese culture, the approach we pursue may resemble the thoughts of the Dao De Jing, but walking this path requires intelligence and the foundation's ability to enhance certain areas; it is not a matter of "doing nothing and succeeding." Therefore, in the short term, we need to put considerable effort into making some important pivots.

Developer Ecosystem and Standardization Construction

Here, we actually need to find ways to simultaneously address three issues:

• Attract more developers
• Encourage developers to create applications that are more open-source, secure, compliant with public standards, and have long-term value, etc.
• In solving (2), avoid the ecosystem becoming a closed circle (the phenomenon of "we are aligned because we are good friends of developers").

So I recently said that Ethereum alignment should be a technical game, not a social game.

I want to emphasize this issue because I feel that the most pressing centralization problems in decentralization are often not L1 issues, but rather L2, wallets, or application issues. Therefore, the entire ecosystem needs to work together to expand and attract new developers while making progress in these decentralized and trustless areas.

We can help achieve this situation in several ways:

• Education, making it easier for developers to understand why blockchain exists, what should be on-chain, what should not be on-chain, what needs to be cared about in the blockchain field, etc.
• If some blockchain-specific technologies are too difficult for application developers, the foundation can take the initiative to develop them, making it easier for developers to integrate. For example, zk programming languages, and a16z's Helios, etc.
• Provide clear standards for developers. For example, if you are building an Ethereum client, there are many tests you can run yourself to see if your client can pass. If you are building L2, there are frameworks like L2Beat's stage 1, stage 2, etc. This should also apply to zk applications, wallets, etc.

Non-Financial ZK Use Cases and Technical Exploration

I am very interested in many non-financial zk use cases, such as:

• Anti-sybil verification. Many services require you to log in with KYC not because they really want to know who you are, but because they just want to know you are not a bot, or if you are banned, you cannot reopen an account 100,000 times. Implementing this use case only requires zk proof of personhood, or proof of reputation; sometimes proof of tokens is sufficient, such as in Anonworld.
• Using cryptographic methods to protect privacy in AI applications. Here, zk may not necessarily be the most suitable technology; FHE might be, and FHE has made significant progress recently. If we can further reduce the overhead of FHE, there may be opportunities.
• Wrapping any Web2 account with zk-snark to use it in Web3. zkemail, anon aadhaar, zkpassport, zktls, etc., are good examples.

I believe this technology has many opportunities to address various social and other issues related to security, governance, and more by protecting individual freedom and privacy.

d/acc Philosophy and Decentralized Technology Strategy

Here, I need to make an important correction: d/acc is not de-acceleration; it is decentralized defensive acceleration.

This is important because there are indeed people in this world who support deceleration, degrowth, etc., but I believe this direction is wrong. In a peaceful world, it would delay important medical and infrastructure improvements, causing more harm. In today's more dangerous world, if we do not accelerate, we will be eaten by those who are willing to accelerate.

Decentralized and defensive technology needs to compete with other technologies. If the sword advances quickly but the shield does not, the world will become increasingly dangerous. If centralized technology advances rapidly but decentralized technology does not, the world will become more centralized. Therefore, we need to counterbalance these trends. Blockchain is part of this story, but only a part; there is also decentralization outside of blockchain (such as P2P networks), as well as software and hardware security (the "shield" of the digital world), and many things in the biological field, etc.

Practical Challenges of Decentralized Infrastructure

This is also a concern of mine. Personally, over the past two years, I have been trying to move most of my conversations from Telegram to Signal. However, Signal is not perfect; although it is confidential, it is still centralized, lacks interoperability, requires a phone number to log in, and the server sees a lot of your metadata, etc.

However, creating a higher-quality messenger is difficult. I try Status every year; they are working hard to be fully decentralized, and they are doing well, but they still have some reliability issues. In fact, there are various small teams creating their own messengers, but they are not united, so each one tends to be insufficiently good.

I recently started using Fileverse for my various documents, and I found that the user experience is already good enough, and many people in the foundation are using it. If a decentralized, encrypted, etc., messenger can achieve this quality, I will definitely work hard to help the community transition to that messenger.

The Essence of the Ethereum Ecosystem and the Boundaries of Corporatization

I believe Ethereum is a decentralized ecosystem, not a company. If Ethereum becomes a company, we will lose most of the meaning of its existence. The role of a company is to operate as a company. In fact, there are many large companies within the Ethereum ecosystem: ConsenSys, various client teams (such as Nethermind, Nimbus, etc.), Coinbase, and L2 teams (including, for example, Aztec and Intmax, whose privacy technologies are very interesting and often underestimated).

The best approach is to find ways to give these companies more opportunities to realize the advantages of being a company, with the foundation serving as a coordinating role.

Diverse Narratives in the Community and Future Directions

There are many different people with different stories.

For example, many people in the blockchain space ten years ago would say that the goal of blockchain is to create a globally neutral system that protects individual freedom and counterbalances government hegemony. Now, if a president launches a memecoin, they would say, "Wow, this is real-world adoption!" That's great, but why is it happening on other chains? If we could be a bit friendlier to those politicians, it might happen on our chain next time! Personally, I feel that these people have gone astray. Of course, they would say I am too purely idealistic and unrealistic, etc. Each side has its own story.

There are also some who say that the Ethereum ecosystem is overly controlled by OGs and does not provide enough space for newcomers. However, this criticism comes from a different direction, with various groups voicing these arguments.

I believe there is only one suitable path to help us emerge from these dilemmas: we need to have some updated narratives explaining why Ethereum exists, what the ETH token is for, what L1 and L2 are for, and so on. We are no longer in the era of infrastructure; we are in the era of applications. Therefore, these narratives cannot be abstract concepts like "freedom, openness, anti-censorship, sunpunk public goods, etc." We need clear answers at the application layer. I plan to support more initiatives in the near future: info finance (which also aligns with the AI + crypto direction), privacy protection, high-quality public goods financing methods, and continuing to build a world open financial platform, which must also include real-world assets. There are many initiatives that are valuable to many users and align with the values we have always held. We need to re-support this direction, which will also provide more opportunities for newcomers to enter.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。