Community Defends Vitalik’s Layer 2s Stance by Addressing Misconceptions in Roadmap

The Ethereum community has recently defended Vitalik Buterin’s vision for Layer 2 (L2) solutions amid rising criticism. Detractors have claimed that L2s were misaligned with Ethereum’s core principles and diverged from the intended roadmap.

In response, Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder took to social media to refute these claims by revisiting Buterin’s 2020 rollup-centric roadmap .

Misalignment or Misunderstanding? Vitalik’s 2020 Roadmap

The debate around L2s and their role within Ethereum has been heating up, fueled by concerns that these scaling solutions are deviating from the broader vision laid out for Ethereum.

Goldfeder addressed three main criticisms leveled against L2s: that they are not indeed Ethereum because they compete with each other, that L2 tokens and the collection of fees and MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) are misaligned with Ethereum’s principles, and that L2s should not support decentralized finance (DeFi) projects, which critics argue should remain on Ethereum’s mainnet.

Goldfeder’s first rebuttal targeted the claim that L2s cannot be considered part of Ethereum because they operate as distinct entities like Arbitrum and Base. Critics argued that this competition between L2s suggests fragmentation rather than unity.

However, Goldfeder refuted this by highlighting Buterin’s own words from the 2020 roadmap, where he described Ethereum as a collection of “islands” that are unique yet interlinked.

This metaphor supports the notion that it is not only acceptable but beneficial for Ethereum to consist of multiple L2s , each contributing to the network’s overall robustness and scalability in different ways.

Goldfeder’s next focus was on the criticism that L2 tokens and revenue models, such as fee and MEV collection, contradict Ethereum’s values.

He pointed to Buterin’s explicit inclusion of these elements in the 2020 roadmap, illustrating that these features were not afterthoughts but planned components of Ethereum’s evolving ecosystem.

He clarified that Buterin envisioned a sustainable environment where L2s could thrive while still aligning with Ethereum’s broader economic architecture.

Goldfeder’s final claim was that L2s should avoid DeFi projects, which critics argue should be confined to the Ethereum mainnet to preserve its integrity.

Once again, Goldfeder turned to Buterin’s early vision, noting that DeFi was explicitly identified as an expected early adopter of L2 technology.

Far from being misaligned, L2s supporting DeFi was always intended as a key driver for Ethereum’s expansion into more scalable, efficient transaction processing.

Community Engagement: Majority Agreement?

Goldfeder’s thread quickly sparked a broader discussion within the Ethereum community, prompting responses from many passersby.

One user questioned whether building new applications within existing systems—similar to developing on L2s within Ethereum—could be truly successful.

Goldfeder cited VirtualBox, a software that runs multiple operating systems within a single machine.

Vitalik himself joined the layer 2 conversation, drawing a parallel between modern web browsers and operating systems. He noted that most applications today run within browsers, effectively functioning as mini operating systems.

This analogy bolstered the argument that L2s operating within Ethereum are not limiting but enhancing the ecosystem’s capacity to support diverse and complex applications.