There are still projects like Tempo that choose to redo an L1. On the surface, it is because they want technological autonomy, valuation independence, and narrative clarity, but these are not the fundamental reasons. The core external factor is only one: Ethereum, as the underlying settlement layer, has not yet fully realized the unification of liquidity.

As long as liquidity remains dispersed between L2s, and as long as there is still an "island effect" between chains, new L1s have the opportunity to enter the market in the name of "unified assets, unified experience"—even if this opportunity window is continually shrinking.

Conversely, once Ethereum truly addresses this:

Cross-L2 liquidity becomes as smooth as if it were on the same chain.

Settlement and security continue to maintain an irreplaceable cost advantage.

L1 costs drop to a level sufficient to support almost all high-value activities.

Then the entire industry's landscape will undergo a dramatic reversal—

The narrative of new L1s will evaporate instantly because they will no longer have the threshold of network effects, nor the cost-performance advantage of security, and there will be no reason for user migration.

Essentially, the reason some are still willing to create new L1s today is not that they are "more advanced" than Ethereum, but because Ethereum's network effects, especially in terms of liquidity, have not yet reached a level of "unassailable" strength.

Therefore, Ethereum's most crucial step beyond technical routes in the future is:

How to weave the liquidity, ordering, and settlement of L1 with all L2s into a unified "Ethereum super network."

As long as this is accomplished, it will not only be the strongest defense but also the strongest offense for the entire industry—

At that time, new L1s will no longer be competitors, but will become an existence questioning "why should they still exist?"