Ry如意

In the past two years, I’ve also been taken by friends to see various memes. It’s fun, but I’m more interested in knowing: which chain is paving the way for the next round of genuine demand? I’ve invested my time in Linea because its ambition isn’t to 'create a few lively pools', but to rearrange the value flow of Ethereum, allowing developers and funds to stay and get to work.
First, the development threshold is lowered significantly. EVM equivalence means I don’t have to change my mindset; existing contracts, auditing systems, and script pipelines can be used directly. For project parties, this isn’t just 'convenient', but a time dividend: doing half the work means going online three months earlier, which could lead to an additional cycle. Secondly, the ZK route allows for more stable risk control. You can understand it as 'calculate first, then prove': execution happens on L2, correctness is given to mathematics, and disputes are resolved by L1. For institutions and brands that don’t want to gamble, this is the most communicable rhetoric.

Honestly, I used to have a "passing interest" in Layer2: cheap? fast? I've heard of it, but always felt it was a bit off from the true Ethereum vision. It wasn't until I moved the contract to Linea that I realized this thing is more like a preview of the new Ethereum, not a side branch, but an extended artery.
Let me first share my feelings rather than the parameters. The first time I deployed on Linea, I hardly changed any code: the toolchain remained the same, the debugging experience was consistent, and even the error messages felt very "Ethereum." This is the so-called meaning of "Ethereum equivalence"—it's not just a slogan, but it drives the migration costs to rock-bottom prices. For developers, this alone is enough to make me join the ranks: a non-exclusionary threshold fosters ecological compounding.

I originally thought 'TVL growth = noisy concept'. Until I went through the data from Uniswap on Linea and the on-chain details one by one, I had to admit: this wave is not just empty hype, it is structural. The reason is very simple and practical.
First, the cost-experience inflection point has really arrived.
Linea ties together costs, confirmation speed, and Ethereum security: transactions are executed on L2, proofs return to Ethereum for settlement, users receive low fees plus predictable finality. The application side is more straightforward—operations like market making, rebalancing, and reinvestment, which are 'high-frequency small amounts', lower costs lead to increased strategy density, and TVL naturally accumulates faster. Looking at the public dashboard, Linea's DEX transactions, on-chain fees, and application fee revenues are all continuously active; this is not 'running in place'.

I admit, I used to be swayed by the 'lively narrative'. Whichever chain had high popularity, soaring TVL, and a string of hot projects, I would follow along. Until I calmed down and switched my perspective on Linea's on-chain data from 'feeling' to 'facts'. At that moment, I realized: this thing appears low-key on the surface, but fundamentally it is a heavy hitter.
First, let me express my most intuitive feeling: retention. Many new public chains/side chains experience a 'one-time volume' fireworks effect, with active wallets surging up and then quickly turning back. Linea is more like slowly digging deep into the foundation—active addresses don't surge dramatically, but the frequency of return visits and the continuity of transactions from the same address are healthier. After observing for a while, what impressed me most wasn't a peak value on a certain day, but the continuity: developers have weekly updates, protocol versions are iterating rapidly, and users 'just end up sticking around'.

Let me set the context: I am not just 'talking on-chain'. I have genuinely written contracts in both ecosystems; I have dabbled in Cairo, but I am more familiar with Solidity. Ultimately, when making investment decisions, I placed more of my chips on Linea. The reason is quite simple: it is worry-free, time-saving, can run smoothly, and has controllable costs.
First, the cost of migration is a hard truth.
I moved a strategy contract that has been running on Ethereum L1 for two years to Linea, using the same original toolchain: Foundry/Hardhat, the same set of tests, and the same audit report, with almost 'zero changes' to the core logic. This is not metaphysics; it is the practical benefit of 'Ethereum equivalence': aligned at the bytecode level with L1, precompiled, events, and debugging stack are all straightforward. On the day of launch, my front-end colleagues switched the RPC to Linea, and the application came to life. The savings were not just in development time, but also in audit budget and the manpower for cross-chain debugging.

Honestly, I used to think L2s were all the same: cheap, fast, and then what? It wasn't until I moved a few small products to Linea, went on-chain, debugged, and ran user data that I realized this chain is a bit 'unorthodox'—it doesn't rely on slogans but directly addresses Ethereum's old challenges one by one.
First, let me share my most intuitive feeling: Ethereum's equivalence is definitely not just a facade. I took contracts that were running perfectly on Ethereum and moved them unchanged to Linea, without switching the toolchain, altering the scripts, or changing the monitoring. The development pace became smoother. Previously, migrating to certain chains required accommodating a bunch of 'features'; now I only need to focus on the business itself. For developers, this means reducing costs and increasing efficiency; for users, it means a more stable experience.

I have always admitted that Solana is fast, like a supercar pushed to its limits; but what truly impressed me was the 'sense of order' brought by Linea. This isn't about being slow, but about arranging speed, cost, security, and Ethereum's lineage into a logical queue. I have participated in the deployment of several chains, stepping into countless compatibility and cross-chain pitfalls, and ultimately realized: only those who can orchestrate 'speed and stability' and 'new and old' together are truly long-term oriented.
First, let me talk about what matters most to me—Ethereum equivalence. In the past, when I migrated contracts to certain 'EVM-compatible' chains, I was often tormented by strange gas behaviors and tool discrepancies: test scripts failing, inconsistent precompiles, and libraries needing extensive modifications. Switching to Linea, I hardly changed a line of core logic; Hardhat/Foundry works seamlessly, and wallet signing and event listening are smooth. This sense of order comes from respecting the EVM: developers are not burdened by 'compatibility details,' reducing mental load, which truly accelerates innovation.

To be honest, I used to be a 'token design pessimist'. I have read countless white papers, filled with arrows in diagrams, only to find that once launched, it became 'air to air'. It wasn't until I pulled down the contract and ran a few rounds of scripts on the mainnet for several weeks that I discovered that Linea's approach has some real substance— it is not just talk, but rather it writes the value flow into the chain process according to rules.
First, let me mention the point I respect the most: anchoring usage and value together. Linea's temperament is very 'Ethereum native': Gas is paid with ETH, and the experience is not fragmented; however, it does not rely on the word 'compatibility' to rest on its laurels, but instead, it has restructured the fee path and created a dual burn mechanism— the hotter the network runs, the more ETH is actually destroyed, and Linea itself also 'gets thinner'. This is not the kind of slogan that 'announces deflation' in a blog, but rather a hard logic that writes 'more usage of the network = bilateral reduction in supply'. You may not like its distribution rhythm, but it is hard to deny that this design, which directly maps usage to the supply side, is indeed very ruthless. atomicwallet.io+1

To be honest, I initially regarded Layer2 as a 'bypass blood vessel': it's lively, but always separated from the Ethereum main body by a layer of membrane. It wasn't until I migrated the contract to Linea and went live that I realized — this thing is more like directly reconnecting a new blood vessel back to the Ethereum heart, with stable blood pressure, fast flow, and no irregular beats.
Let me share my feelings first: I can transfer the contracts that originally ran on Ethereum to Linea almost without changing the code. The toolchain is still the same, with a seamless process for compiling, deploying, and verifying; developers are not forced to learn new syntax or navigate new pitfalls. For someone like me who is sensitive to time costs, this is called 'true equivalence,' not just talking about 'compatibility' as a fancy promise.

To be honest, I used to be biased against Layer2: the fees are cheap, but the experience is fragmented, bridging is troublesome, and the ecosystem feels pieced together. It wasn't until I seriously used Linea for a while that I admitted my old perceptions were outdated.
How was I 'taken down'? On the first day, I deployed the original contracts from Ethereum directly using the same toolchain to Linea, and I ran it without changing a single business logic. At that moment, I realized that 'Ethereum equivalence' is not just a slogan, but a reality where developer costs are halved: Hardhat/Foundry works seamlessly, just set up the RPC. After a few interactions, confirming transactions almost had 'instant results and graded finality', I finally understood the significance of the zk route—execute first, then convince the whole network with proofs, rather than relying on optimistic rollups and waiting for messages to land slowly.

To be honest, I used to be an old stubborn who believed that 'only L1 is safe'. However, after running a business on Ethereum for the past two years and paying a lot of 'intelligence tax', I found the answer to be quite unglamorous: during peak times, a single interaction could cost dozens of dollars, users were slow, projects were hard to iterate, and developers felt like they were climbing stairs. It wasn't until I moved the contract to Linea that I first felt, 'Oh, blockchain can actually be this smooth.'
How was I convinced? Let's first discuss three of the most realistic pain points.
First, performance and cost. It's quite awkward to do small-scale scenarios on L1, as the transaction fees are higher than the transaction amounts. I deployed the same Solidity contract directly to Linea with almost no code changes (it is EVM equivalent zkL2), and the packaging, execution, and confirmation were much quicker, significantly lowering interaction costs. For front-end colleagues, the calling experience feels more like 'Web' rather than 'queueing on-chain.'

Honestly, I was fatigued by the 'ZK narrative' before. The white paper looks good, but the implementation looks difficult—until I moved an old project from the Ethereum mainnet to Linea. It was at that moment I realized: some people are not just telling a story; they are writing the story as code.
Let me first express the most intuitive feeling: worry-free. Linea pursues 'Ethereum equivalence'; the Solidity, Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask I originally used on L1 can be taken over with almost zero changes. Developers understand that migration costs are the first hurdle that determines whether you are willing to try, and Linea has smoothed out this hurdle. Previously, when I made a small upgrade, I had to repeatedly negotiate with contracts, RPC, and toolchains; on Linea, it feels like moving a table from the living room to the study—nothing has changed, but the flow is much smoother.

To be honest, I was also captivated by the story of 'some public chain killing Ethereum.' But when I actually invested money and time, I realized that the biggest problem wasn't whether it 'killed or not,' but whether it was compatible, whether it was secure, and whether the costs were stable. It wasn't until I moved the contract to Linea that I understood: what ends the 'myth of alternative chains' is not a louder slogan, but a smoother implementation.
How was I moved? First, Ethereum equivalence. I was able to deploy contracts and tools that were originally on L1 to Linea with almost no modifications: Hardhat, Foundry, wallets, monitoring scripts, all in one set. By eliminating 'migration costs' and 'learning a new dialect,' my team immediately saved a chunk of trial and error time. Second, the determinism of zk proofs. Transaction submission, proof on-chain, mainnet verification, the path is clear. What users want is 'I send a sum of money over, and the state doesn't jump around or roll back,' rather than the convoluted terms found in white papers. Linea uses zk to turn this verifiability into everyday reality.

To be honest, I wasn't very interested in Layer2 before: cumbersome, fragmented, and bridges were not reassuring. It wasn't until I took a small contract that had been running on the mainnet for two years and tossed it onto Linea unchanged—that moment I realized: if you truly understand Ethereum, you would know where the value of Ethereum-equivalent zkEVM lies.
First, the migration cost is nearly zero. I'm still using the familiar Hardhat/Foundry process, without needing to change opcodes or write strange adapters; once I switch the wallet network, the contract comes alive. In the past, my biggest fear was 'compatible but not fully compatible,' but now on Linea, the calling behaviors, event logs, and toolchains are as smooth as on L1.

I always thought that 'core assets' could only be high-priced tokens with strong consensus on L1. It wasn't until the last two years, with frequent interactions on Ethereum, deploying several small contracts, and being repeatedly educated by gas prices during peak periods, that I began to seriously look at Linea. As I watched, I realized the question had changed: core assets may not be a single token; they can be a 'pipeline' that reorganizes value. And that pipeline, in my eyes, is Linea.
First, let's talk about user experience. In the past, when I performed simple operations on L1, I had to time it perfectly to hit the low points; switching to Linea, with the same contracts and the same wallet, the costs suddenly flowed smoothly. It adheres to the 'Ethereum-equivalent' zkEVM route, allowing migration with almost no code changes, which is a game-changer for developers: no need to adapt to a bunch of strange opcodes, no need to rewrite the toolchain, and the team can refocus on the product itself. In short, Linea does not force you to change yourself to accommodate it, but rather makes itself as much like 'Ethereum's accelerator' as possible.

To be honest, I once felt like I had 'missed the boat.' Whenever friends around me mentioned Layer2, they always referred to Arbitrum, and I sighed along: if only I had tried the ecosystem more back then. It wasn't until I migrated a small contract to Linea that I realized what I really missed was actually an Ethereum that was more 'like Ethereum'—the zkEVM equivalent of Ethereum.
Why do I say 'like Ethereum'? Because I directly deployed the code that originally ran on L1 to Linea using the same toolchain, without changing syntax or going through strange compatibility layers; the muscle memory from Hardhat and Foundry didn't need to be relearned. The first time I clicked 'deploy,' the wallet didn't experience a 'heart-stopping' gas extraction, but rather a relaxed 'Hmm? Is that it?' The equivalence benefits are not just slogans; they reduce migration costs to almost zero, allowing developers to focus their efforts on the product rather than 'adaptation gymnastics.'

Let me make my stance clear: I am not a 'new public chain enthusiast'; I am just an ordinary builder who has been tempered by high gas fees, congestion, and slow confirmations on L1. It wasn't until I moved an old project to Linea that I truly felt: Ethereum's future may very well thrive within the veins of this L2.
This is my first time deploying a contract on Linea, and I hardly changed any code; Hardhat worked flawlessly. That kind of 'Ethereum equivalent' smoothness felt like inserting an old key into a new lock, and it just clicked open the door. More importantly, the user experience is directly reflected in the data: transaction fees have dropped to a range that my team can accept, and the confirmation speed is so fast that I don't have to repeatedly explain 'just wait a bit longer' in the community group. The underlying system uses zero-knowledge proofs to package the execution onto L1, and the security anchor is still Ethereum, which gives me the confidence to keep large amounts of funds within the ecosystem.

I have always thought of Ethereum as a giant reservoir: value, flow, and returns are all trapped inside; when the market is good, the water level rises, and when the market is poor, it dries up. It wasn't until I delved into Linea that I realized: this thing isn't about 'drawing water,' but about opening the floodgates—allowing the value that was originally blocked on the mainnet to flow out through smoother pipes and then flow back, creating a larger cycle.
Let me first explain why my perspective has changed. I used to have a bias against Layer 2, feeling that it was all about 'moving transactions to the second layer and then trying to stuff them back,' quick as it may be, but either the compatibility was poor, or the experience was fragmented, developers had to change code, users had to install new wallets, and cross-chain bridges had to be worrisome. What surprised me about Linea is that it offers an almost Ethereum-equivalent development experience—I can deploy my existing contracts with minimal changes, and the debugging tools, wallets, and frameworks are all convenient. For a lazy developer like me, this is the first opening of the floodgates: the barrier to migration has been lifted.