Physics doesn't bend to our wishes—you simply cannot run the entire world's financial infrastructure on a single blockchain. That's not pessimism, it's just how reality works.
Here's the catch with L2 solutions though. An asset living on one Layer 2 chain isn't naturally composable with an asset on another L2. They exist in silos. To move value between them, you need intermediaries—solvers to execute transactions, bridges to ferry assets across.
But here's where it gets tricky. Solvers and bridges introduce their own bottlenecks. They add latency, complexity, and potential failure points. The more dependent your ecosystem becomes on these tools, the more you're rebuilding the very centralized infrastructure you were trying to escape.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
16 Likes
Reward
16
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
zkProofInThePudding
· 3h ago
Honestly, the cross-chain bridging problem of L2 is a vicious cycle... I originally wanted to escape centralized systems, but I still have to rely on solvers, and I can't change this setup.
View OriginalReply0
PrivateKeyParanoia
· 9h ago
Basically, it's just a change of packaging without changing the medicine. The L2 approach still ultimately relies on intermediaries. Isn't this just going back to the traditional financial model?
View OriginalReply0
HappyMinerUncle
· 17h ago
Basically, it's about trying to bypass centralization but ending up creating new centralization. Bridges and solvers are the new "banks."
View OriginalReply0
UnluckyMiner
· 01-12 22:56
To be honest, L2 now is just centralized with a different disguise. Bridges and solvers are just new intermediaries. In the end, you still have to trust certain nodes. Isn't that a joke?
View OriginalReply0
PretendingSerious
· 01-12 22:56
Basically, it's just a change of superficial appearance without changing the substance. In the end, you still have to rely on intermediaries. So what's the point of decentralization?
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeSobber
· 01-12 22:52
That really hits home... I thought L2 was the savior, but it turns out we're just going in circles.
With more bridges and solvers, aren't we just returning to the centralized way? It's hilarious.
There's no escape; we're all trapped here.
View OriginalReply0
GameFiCritic
· 01-12 22:47
To be honest, this "L2万能论" is just like the "Public Chain Savior" in mobile games back in the day—numbers speak for themselves. The failure rate of cross-chain bridging, solver delays, and other fundamental issues are unavoidable. Discretization ends up recreating centralization—what a irony.
View OriginalReply0
BlindBoxVictim
· 01-12 22:38
Basically, it's just a change of superficial appearance without real change. The L2 multi-chain ecosystem ultimately still relies on middlemen to profit from the spread, which is no different in essence from traditional finance...
View OriginalReply0
TokenTherapist
· 01-12 22:38
ngl, this is the eternal paradox of Web3: the more you want decentralization, the more you rely on intermediaries.
Physics doesn't bend to our wishes—you simply cannot run the entire world's financial infrastructure on a single blockchain. That's not pessimism, it's just how reality works.
Here's the catch with L2 solutions though. An asset living on one Layer 2 chain isn't naturally composable with an asset on another L2. They exist in silos. To move value between them, you need intermediaries—solvers to execute transactions, bridges to ferry assets across.
But here's where it gets tricky. Solvers and bridges introduce their own bottlenecks. They add latency, complexity, and potential failure points. The more dependent your ecosystem becomes on these tools, the more you're rebuilding the very centralized infrastructure you were trying to escape.