Vitalik Buterin Attacks L1s After L2s: His Argument Explained

Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, triggered renewed debate about blockchain scaling after posting a series of comments on X in early February 2026. Headlines framed the discussion as an attack on Layer-2 networks and alternative Layer-1 blockchains. 

Buterin was responding to the change in Ethereum’s scaling roadmap. Ethereum’s base layer now processes transactions at low fees, with further increases in the gas limit planned for 2026. At the same time, many Layer 2 systems have struggled to reach deeper decentralization. His argument focused on whether existing narratives about L2s and new L1s still align with current technical reality.

Why the Original L2 Vision No Longer Fits

On February 3, 2026, Buterin said the original idea of L2s as “branded shards” no longer holds. That model assumed L1 would remain expensive and cumbersome. Today, Ethereum L1 provides substantial block space at low cost, reducing the need for L2s to function solely as scaling tools.

He also pointed to slow progress toward full rollup decentralization. Many L2s still rely on centralized sequencers or multisig bridges. Some may never reach “Stage 2” decentralization due to regulatory constraints or business requirements. If an L2 connects to Ethereum only through a multisig bridge, Buterin argued, it does not inherit Ethereum’s security and should not claim to be scaling Ethereum.

A Different Role for L2s

Rather than rejecting L2s, Buterin outlined a narrower definition of what qualifies as an Ethereum-aligned rollup. L2s that handle ETH or Ethereum-issued assets should meet at least “Stage 1” rollup security. Beyond that, he said L2s should justify their existence through specialization.

Examples he listed included privacy-preserving systems using zero-knowledge proofs, app-specific execution for DeFi or games, ultra-low-latency environments, and non-EVM virtual machines. He also proposed a native rollup precompile on Ethereum L1 to verify ZK-EVM proofs, enabling tighter interoperability and composability.

Follow-Up: Criticism of Copy-Paste Chains

A February 5 follow-up expanded the critique. Buterin compared launching another EVM chain with an optimistic bridge to repeatedly forking existing governance code. He described both bridged EVM chains and standalone EVM L1s as unproductive copies that add little technical value.

Ethereum L1, he said, already supplies substantial EVM block space. While he acknowledged limits for workloads such as AI, he argued that most applications do not need new general-purpose L1s.

“Vibes Should Match Substance”

A central theme in both posts was honesty about Ethereum alignment. Systems that depend heavily on Ethereum, such as app chains in which accounts, issuance, or settlement reside on L1, can reasonably present themselves as Ethereum applications.

Other systems, such as institutional chains that publish Merkle roots and STARK proofs for algorithmic transparency, should not claim to be Ethereum. Their value lies in verifiable execution, not trustless neutrality. Buterin said both models are valid, provided that public claims reflect actual technical dependence.

Conclusion

Buterin’s comments outline a narrower definition of Ethereum alignment. L2s are expected to either deliver concrete security guarantees or offer distinct technical functions. New L1s are challenged to explain why they exist at all. 

The argument reflects Ethereum’s current state: a base layer that scales, and an ecosystem that now needs clearer technical boundaries rather than broader slogans.

Source:

X Post: Vitalik’s statement following reactions to what he said about L2s