I was discussing this issue with my friends yesterday. For retail investors, public chain security is relatively less important. There is no difference between 99% and 99.99%, as retail investors have small amounts of funds and pursue higher returns that can withstand certain risks. For large investors, public chain security is very important, after all, the amount of funds is large, and what is needed is a stable and guaranteed return. Then continue to break down according to this idea. Money only creates value when it moves, otherwise it is a stagnant pool. Therefore, we often say that liquidity is very important for public chains. The money of individual investors is for use, while the money of large investors is for storage. Although the scale of individual investors' funds is not large, their liquidity is very high. They may generate 10 transactions a day with 10000 yuan of funds, while large investors have a lot of money but may not move even after half a year. This makes Ethereum a savings chain full of various staking and interest earning activities. There is a lot of money, but there is no liquidity. Ethereum is like a Swiss bank, Solana is like a rural credit union, and users on both sides don't look up to each other, but they both feel that their own is the best. Mr. Wang deposited 500 million yuan in a Swiss bank to gain a sense of security, while Xiao Wang borrowed 5000 yuan from a rural credit union to buy his own walking tractor. Mr. Wang doesn't need a walking tractor, and Xiao Wang doesn't have 500 million yuan either. Continuing to extend this question further, Qiao Wang said that the same product has gained many more users on Solana than Ethereum. Yesterday, @ WutalkWu also asked on Twitter if this viewpoint is too exaggerated. Actually, it is not an exaggeration. A project team I know has deployed on both Solana and Base. They said that after various data calculations, without any active marketing, the traffic brought by Base is only 20% of Solana's, and the reason for this result is that the number of small kings in rural credit cooperatives is indeed more than the total number of kings in Swiss banks. In fact, Ethereum's L2 strategy is really good, because when you read through the logic I mentioned above, you will find that Ethereum L1+L2 is the most perfect way to clarify the division of labor and solve the conflict between fund security and liquidity. The Ethereum mainnet fully plays its responsibility as the safest and most decentralized public chain, while the L2 teams work tirelessly to compete for users, one responsible for security and the other responsible for liquidity. Ethereum is the central Swiss bank, and the L2 teams are rural credit cooperatives. This strategy is really not a problem. If this system can really be established, it can be said to be a super empire. Therefore, Solana's competitors are actually in the market. It should also be L2, not Ethereum. The only problem is why there are so many L2, theoretically it should be a wolf pack strategy randomly punching Solana, the master, but the result is that most of them are useless ghost chains. I am not advocating or belittling anyone, I am just analyzing and exploring a current situation.