Community Trust ScoreVerified
Developers are trying to make things work for all. They are trying to connect the advanced world with the developing and unbanked world. When it comes to discussions about inclusion, it is not possible to help such participants considering a 2-to-3-dollar transaction fee in DeFi Protocols.
Countries without a stable economic landscape have an average wage of 2 to 3 dollars per day. And, there are DeFi Protocols with 2 to 3 dollars in transaction fees. Thus, a DeFi protocol that works for all is still a difficult and Herculean task.
“L2 = fees go down. Alt L1s = fees go up. This is not rocket science.”
However, there are alternative claims that L1’s can ship faster updates to bring down fee. DeFi and yield farming have lot of entries and exits. It is becoming important to have a workable fee model for yield chasers.
Eric.Eth was left wondering: “With Ethereum scaling to L2 at a rapid pace, what’s the point of alt L1s?”
Emin Gun Sirer: “But moving funds from L2 back to their correct owners on L1 relies entirely on the security guarantees of the L2. And, this is where things will and can go wrong. Many “L2s” have 1 – 7 days waiting periods on the return leg, just so, humans can compensate for their tech failures.”
Thus, L1 relying on the security guarantees of L2 is being expressed as a point of concern.
Community Reaction/Clarification/Concern: Further, L1 play is extremely strong right now, but afraid it’s now evolved to a chase of low quality L1s with no adoption or tech just for the sake of cyclic rotations.
It’s becoming clear to everyone that the L2 play is headed in the wrong direction, but because there are too few credible L1’s, some utterly unusable L1’s are now getting attention from traders for the sake of cyclic rotations.
How does a monolithic L1 ever lower fees? Blocks get full eventually. Sequencers on an L2 can/will be decentralized and the sequencer being centralized is not the same as alt L1 problems.
The point of L1’s currently are for people to actually be able to use DeFi with cheaper fee’s than both L1 + L2 and more decentralised than any current L2.
Fees being cheap is a narrow point. Since L1 is meant for DeFi Fees, those who cannot afford should not be chasing returns in risky DeFi protocols on Alt L1s with a questionable long-term future. Besides people just want to make a quick buck of course.
Rollups have a 1 of the n security models. In optimistic rollups, one honest actor is enough to check your tx for fraud and to facilitate your tx from L2 to L1. In zk rollups, nobody needs to check for fraud anymore, so this one person is only required to facilitate your tx.
Since most transactions will take place on L2’s won’t that hypothetically make the demand for $ETH much lower? Seems logical due to transaction volume on L2’s vs ethL1 (?) In other words, if ethL1 is just used to rollup, isn’t that bad for the value of eth?
Consider for a moment that primary Ethereum users in the future will be L2 protocols. End users will be L2 customers and may never buy ETH directly, but will do so indirectly by providing revenue to L2 (or products that sit on top) which in turn must buy block space using ETH.
if ETH moons and transactions become expensive, what does an L2 keep from switching to a different chain? There is plenty that is faster and cheaper than ETH & EVM compatible.
Fee’s are still 10x the price on L2 with most of them running on a single sequencer which makes them more centralized than all other L1s, so much innovation and upgrades on other L1s compared to the current L2’s.
L2 = fees go down. Alt L1s = fees go up. Not rocket science.
