Lunch meeting insights: L2 should "pay taxes," BTCFi is still missing an OP moment—

Borrowing from @_FORAB's platform, let's discuss the thoughts of Metis founder @kevinliub during the lunch meeting.

Regarding ETH, L2, and BTCFi, a lot of "must not only be discussed at the dining table" insights were shared…

I believe this perspective from the project side is somewhat representative, and everyone can refer to it:

Kevin talked about the issues and solutions within the Ethereum ecosystem:

1️⃣ L2 needs to rely on a stable L1 (Ethereum):

Ethereum should quickly shed its "social experiment" label and become a stable infrastructure. The development of Layer2 relies on a secure and stable Layer1 and should "pay taxes to the main chain," meaning it should support the destruction of ETH and value return through mechanisms.

2️⃣ Current issues:

Many mainstream L2s have not "paid taxes" to the ETH mainnet or assisted in the destruction of ETH, weakening the supply-demand model of ETH, causing price pressure and potential security risks.

3️⃣ Governance dilemma:

Although the community and project parties (like Metis) have provided feedback multiple times, the governance structure of the Ethereum Foundation is too decentralized, making it difficult to adjust direction quickly like a company, leading builders to feel powerless.

There are two points I particularly agree with: First, L2 should "pay taxes" to support L1 security: This is an increasingly voiced concern in the industry. If L2 does not "nurture" the mainnet, it will lack motivation for Ethereum's security and ETH value support. For example, the rise of EigenLayer partially illustrates that people are beginning to realize the importance of security feedback. Second, the governance of the Ethereum Foundation is not as efficient as a company: Decentralized governance is indeed slower and more prone to falling into a state of "no clear direction," which is especially frustrating in a bear market, leaving builders without motivation.

L2 and infrastructure projects should proactively change, enhance synergy with the Ethereum mainnet, and contribute to security and economic value.

The current dilemma and hope of the Bitcoin ecosystem (BTCFi):

1️⃣ Capital expectations are too high, with Babylon as a representative case:

Babylon seized the opportunity for the reuse of BTC native assets but faced two major issues:

Mismatch between financing and technical strength, leading to quick replication of the solution; economic model limitations, with the selling pressure from token issuance affecting system stability.

2️⃣ High entry barriers for BTCFi projects:

Technical, product, economic model, and market must perfectly align, making projects similar to "heavy asset operations," with an unequal input-output ratio.

3️⃣ Historical analogy and future hope:

The current state of BTCFi is similar to the stage of Ethereum Layer2 before OP emerged—lacking a unified and feasible solution. Once a widely accepted solution path appears, the BTCFi ecosystem may also mature rapidly.

Regarding this part, I believe BTCFi is different from DeFi because it lacks native support for smart contracts, requiring extensive technical modifications, and the user education cost is higher. If any link fails, the entire system becomes very fragile.

The analogy to the pre-OP L2 stage is very apt:

BTCFi now resembles the Ethereum ecosystem before the rise of OP and Arbitrum, with many attempts but no widely accepted mainstream paradigm yet.

The market is watching which model of BTCFi can succeed, and practitioners hope for positive outcomes rather than an unfruitful race.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。