Fresh comments from Vitalik Buterin have reignited debate across the crypto space, with headlines framing his remarks as a broad attack on both layer-2 networks and alternative layer-1 blockchains. The reality is more nuanced. What Buterin is challenging is not the existence of L2s or L1s themselves, but the stories many of them still tell about their role in the Ethereum ecosystem.
His posts on X in early February 2026 followed a deeper shift in how Ethereum now approaches scaling. With Ethereum’s base layer processing transactions cheaply and further gas limit increases planned for 2026, Buterin questioned whether old narratives still match today’s technical reality.
Why the Original L2 Narrative No Longer Fits
On February 3, Buterin argued that the early vision of layer-2s as “branded shards” has effectively expired. That model assumed Ethereum L1 would remain expensive and congested, forcing users and applications onto L2s for basic usability. Today, Ethereum offers substantial block space at relatively low cost, weakening the case for L2s that exist purely to relieve fee pressure.
He also highlighted the slow and uneven progress toward full rollup decentralization. Many L2s continue to rely on centralized sequencers or multisig-controlled bridges. Some teams have acknowledged they may never reach full “Stage 2” decentralization, often due to regulatory constraints or business realities. In Buterin’s view, an L2 that connects to Ethereum only through a multisig bridge does not truly inherit Ethereum’s security and should not claim to be “scaling Ethereum.”
A Narrower, Clearer Role for L2s
Rather than rejecting L2s outright, Buterin outlined a tighter definition of what it means to be Ethereum-aligned. Any L2 that handles ETH or Ethereum-issued assets, he argued, should meet at least Stage 1 rollup security standards. Beyond that baseline, L2s should justify their existence through specialization, not generic scaling claims.
He pointed to examples such as privacy-preserving systems built with zero-knowledge proofs, application-specific execution environments for DeFi or gaming, ultra-low-latency designs, and non-EVM virtual machines. He also floated the idea of a native rollup precompile on Ethereum L1 that could verify ZK-EVM proofs directly, enabling deeper interoperability and safer composability.
Extending the Critique to Copy-Paste L1s
A follow-up post on February 5 widened the scope. Buterin compared launching yet another EVM chain connected by an optimistic bridge to endlessly forking the same governance code. In his framing, both bridged EVM chains and standalone EVM-based L1s often add little technical value beyond what Ethereum already provides.
Ethereum L1, he argued, already offers ample EVM block space for most applications. While he acknowledged that certain workloads, such as AI-heavy computation, may eventually hit genuine limits, he suggested that the majority of use cases do not require new general-purpose L1s.
“Vibes Should Match Substance”
One of the strongest themes across both posts was honesty. Buterin emphasized that how a network presents itself should reflect its actual technical dependence on Ethereum.
Systems that rely heavily on Ethereum, such as app chains where accounts, issuance, or settlement live on L1, can reasonably describe themselves as Ethereum applications. Other systems, including institutional chains that publish Merkle roots or STARK proofs for transparency, should not market themselves as Ethereum-native if they do not inherit Ethereum’s trust model. Their value lies in verifiable execution, not in trustless neutrality.
Both approaches, Buterin stressed, are valid — as long as the messaging matches the substance.
The Bigger Picture
Taken together, Buterin’s comments point to a more mature Ethereum ecosystem. The base layer now scales. As a result, the bar is higher for everything built around it. Layer-2s are expected to offer real security guarantees or clearly differentiated functionality. New L1s are challenged to explain why they exist at all.
This is less an attack than a recalibration. Ethereum no longer needs broad slogans about “scaling at all costs.” What it needs, according to Buterin, are clearer technical boundaries and more honest narratives about where each network truly fits.