Ethereum’s recent decision to increase the L1 gas limit from 30 million to 36 million has sparked a heated debate. Some say it’s a no-brainer, while others worry it’s a slippery slope. But here’s the kicker: even in a world dominated by Layer 2 (L2) solutions, scaling Ethereum’s L1 is not just important—it’s essential. Let’s break it down, layer by layer (pun intended).
The Unsung Hero of Ethereum
One of Ethereum’s core superpowers is censorship resistance. If your transaction is valid and you’ve got the funds to pay the fee, you should be able to get it on-chain, no questions asked. This is especially critical in high-stakes scenarios, like when you’re trying to avoid liquidation in a volatile DeFi market.
L1’s staker set is highly decentralized, making it nearly impossible to censor transactions for long. L2s, on the other hand, often rely on centralized sequencers or a smaller set of block producers. Sure, some L2s like Optimism and Arbitrum have force-inclusion mechanisms, but these only work if L1 fees are low enough and there’s enough space to process bypass transactions.
The math? Right now, bypassing censorship costs around 4.50.Tobringthatdowntoamoreuser−friendly1, we’d need to scale L1 by about 4.5x.
Cross-L2 Asset Movements: The Hidden Cost of Fragmentation
Moving assets between L2s is like trying to catch a connecting flight in a snowstorm—it’s doable, but it’s not cheap or easy. For high-volume assets, intent protocols like ERC-7683 can help, but for low-volume assets or NFTs, you’re stuck going through L1.
Today, moving an NFT from one L2 to another costs around 13.87.Withoptimizeddesigns,thiscoulddropto0.28. But to hit our ideal target of $0.05, we’d need to scale L1 by 5.5x.
And let’s not forget capacity. If Ethereum wants to serve 3.1 billion users (Facebook’s user count), it would need to expand capacity by about 6x—just to handle cross-L2 transfers.
L2 Mass Exits: When Things Go South
L2s have a unique safety net: the ability to exit to L1 if things go wrong. But what happens if everyone tries to exit at once?
Take Sony’s hypothetical L2, for example. If all 116 million PlayStation users needed to exit simultaneously, Ethereum’s current capacity wouldn’t cut it. Even with clever mass-exit protocols, we’d still need to scale L1 by up to 9x to handle such scenarios affordably.
And let’s talk gas costs. In a mass exit, gas prices could skyrocket. At 100 gwei, a withdrawal could cost 1.88—wayaboveour1 target. Scaling L1 by 1.9x would help keep costs manageable.
ERC20s on L1: The Security Trade-Off
Launching tokens on L2s is all the rage, but it comes with a hidden risk: if an L2 goes rogue, the token’s integrity is toast. Issuing tokens on L1, while more expensive, offers a much higher level of security.
Right now, deploying an ERC20 on L1 costs around 61.76.Evenwithoptimizations,we’relookingat4.50. To make this a viable option for micro-markets (think Polymarket), we’d need to scale L1 by up to 18x.
Keystore Wallet Operations
Keystore wallets—wallets with modifiable verification logic—are a game-changer for user security. But they rely on L1 for key changes and upgrades.
If every user performs one key change per year, Ethereum’s current capacity would need to scale by 3.3x. With optimizations, we could bring that down to 0.5x. But to keep costs affordable (around $0.28 per operation), we’d still need a 1.1x increase.
L2 Proof Submission: The Cost of Interoperability
For L2s to communicate seamlessly, they need to post proofs to L1 frequently—ideally, every slot. But with today’s tech, this costs around $49 million per year per L2.
Aggregation protocols could drop this to $1 million per year, but even that’s steep. To make frequent submissions a no-brainer, we’d need to scale L1 by about 10x.
Why 10x Scaling Makes Sense
Here’s the TL;DR:
- Censorship resistance: 4.5x scaling needed.
- Cross-L2 asset movements: 5.5x scaling needed.
- L2 mass exits: Up to 16.8x scaling needed.
- ERC20 issuance: Up to 18x scaling needed.
- Keystore wallets: 1.1x scaling needed.
- L2 proof submission: 10x scaling needed.
Even in an L2-heavy world, scaling L1 by ~10x is a no-brainer. It’s not just about capacity—it’s about security, affordability, and future-proofing Ethereum for billions of users.
FAQ
Q: Why not just rely on L2s for everything?
A: L2s are great for scaling, but they lack the censorship resistance and security guarantees of L1. Scaling L1 ensures these benefits remain accessible.
Q: Won’t higher gas limits lead to centralization?
A: While there are risks, recent tech improvements (like stateless clients) make higher gas limits safer than ever.
Q: How soon can we expect these changes?
A: Some optimizations are already in the works, but full-scale implementation could take 1-2 years.
Q: What about gas fees? Won’t they go up?
A: Scaling L1 should actually lower fees by increasing capacity and reducing competition for block space.
So, there you have it. Scaling Ethereum’s L1 isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s a must-have. Whether you’re a DeFi degen, an NFT collector, or just a curious onlooker, this is one upgrade you’ll want to keep an eye on.
While Ethereum’s L1 scaling debate takes center stage, another quiet revolution is unfolding: the rise of AI agents in blockchain ecosystems. These autonomous programs, powered by advanced machine learning, are increasingly being used to optimize gas fees, predict network congestion, and even automate complex DeFi strategies. Imagine an AI agent that can dynamically adjust transaction timing based on real-time gas prices or one that can detect and exploit arbitrage opportunities across L2s in milliseconds. As Ethereum scales, these AI agents will play a pivotal role in ensuring efficiency and accessibility, especially for everyday users who might not have the time or expertise to navigate the blockchain’s intricacies. In a world where speed and precision are paramount, AI agents are becoming the unsung heroes of the crypto space.
