If a decentralized L1 relies entirely on L2s and sidechains for everything, does that really make it “decentralized”?

Share:

One might think that this is jab at Ethereum specifically, but it really isn’t. I’m just trying to share a misconception that a lot of people seem to fall for.

Yes, a layer 1 might be completely decentralized by design which maximizes security for users. But once that L1 starts performing horribly and starts relying heavily on sidechains and L2, technically users aren’t that safe anymore and the whole idea of decentralization of said L1 is rendered obsolete.

Ethereum is a great example for this. I freaking LOVE Ethereum and use it all the time. But I’m also realistic and I recognize that Ethereum isnt really that decentralized when using scaling solutions cause I’m completely compromised.

Just cause an L1 looks cool on paper doesn’t mean it should be implemented without finding scaling solutions first. So hopefully we start seeing more L1s learning from this. I think Algorand does a great job at this. Concordium also ended up implementing built in scalability and user privacy through ZK proofs. And Cardano (to some extent) should also do a good job although I think they still need to implement more dApps to see how hard they can be pushed.

Again, this post wasn’t some form of hate or jab towards any chain. I just like to talk about these important ideas cause having discourse about these things on a daily basis helps us get closer and closer to the completely optimized market we all dream of.

submitted by /u/moheni52
[link] [comments]