On February 5, 2026, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin rarely directed a lengthy article towards the endless emergence of "new chains" in the current blockchain industry: in his view, an increasing number of projects remain at the low-level replication of EVM chains, which not only fails to push the technological boundaries forward but also consumes the limited innovative resources of the industry. He specifically criticized the template model characterized by “EVM chain + one-week delayed optimistic cross-chain bridge”, arguing that these new chains have neither truly broken through in security models nor introduced anything new in user experience or execution environments. This statement raised an unavoidable question: What kind of new chains and new directions does the blockchain world really need at this point in time?
The Proliferation of Copy-Paste EVM Chains: New Chains Only Change Their Skin
● The current state of the industry is that various Alt L1 and EVM-compatible chains are being launched intensively under different ecosystems, regions, and narratives, but the underlying technological paths are highly homogeneous: the same set of EVM execution environments, similar transaction fees and block generation logic, and identical token economics, mostly involving minor parameter adjustments and brand packaging. The so-called "new chains" often merely transport existing technology stacks and toolchains, adding a layer of market storytelling, presenting a collective posture of “changing the skin without changing the core.”
● In this article, Vitalik directly stated, “The industry does not need more copy-paste EVM chains and more Alt L1s,” defining this shallow trend-chasing model as a dilution of innovation. His disappointment lies in the fact that capital and project teams have chosen the easiest path to tell stories and launch quickly, locking the energy that should have been directed towards new execution models, entirely new security assumptions, and entirely new block architectures into the endless replication of the same EVM paradigm.
● The reason EVM compatibility and “standardized bridging” have become the default path for project teams is that it can greatly reduce startup costs: developers can directly reuse tools, contracts, and infrastructure from Ethereum and existing EVM chains, while cross-chain bridges use simple, reusable solutions to connect to Ethereum and other ecosystems, appearing like a “ready-made highway.” The problem is that when all new chains choose this low-cost expansion path, truly high-threshold underlying innovations are marginalized, and the entire industry is more about horizontal replication rather than vertical breakthroughs.
Template-Based Bridging Solutions: One-Week Delay Becomes Industry Default
● In this statement, Vitalik specifically criticized those new chain architectures that adopt the “EVM chain + one-week delayed optimistic cross-chain bridge” combination. Such solutions often use “security first” as a selling point, employing a challenge period of about a week to prevent cross-chain fraud while quickly accommodating applications through EVM compatibility. Over time, this combination has been regarded as the “standard template” for new chain launches, almost no longer considered a technical design space that requires serious scrutiny and modification.
● From a practical perspective, this template certainly has its rationale: optimistic bridges + long challenge periods are indeed more conservative in terms of security and facilitate the use of existing tools and auditing experiences, serving as a “default insurance” option for early projects. However, Vitalik's concern is that over-reliance on this combination will lock cross-chain innovation into the same mindset—people no longer think about more efficient state proofs or richer combinations of security assumptions, but instead take risks, delays, and user experience sacrifices as a given cost.
● From the perspective of developers and users, a one-week delay is not just a numerical wait but a hard boundary of imagination. For developers, it prevents the design of new protocol structures around high-frequency cross-chain and cross-domain liquidity management; for users, funds and assets being “stuck” in long-term flows between different chains lead to the abandonment of many potential scenarios—such as multi-chain in-game economies and cross-chain high-frequency trading—at the design stage. Vitalik's criticism points to the reverse constraints brought about by this template-based delay: bridging should liberate the application layer, rather than constrain the possibilities of the application layer.
Two Constructive Paths Recognized by Vitalik
● Rather than simply denying EVM-compatible chains, Vitalik proposed two higher-standard paths: one is deeply relying on Ethereum L1's Rollup application chains, and the other is aimed at institutional needs with L2 solutions. In his vision, if new chains are still to be closely connected with Ethereum, they must truly treat L1 as an anchor in terms of security and settlement, rather than just hanging a label of “Ethereum ecosystem” in branding and marketing.
● The so-called “deep reliance on L1” means that these Rollup application chains treat Ethereum L1 as the final arbiter in key aspects such as data availability, security settlement, and dispute resolution: transaction data is genuinely published on L1, fraud or validity proofs revert to L1 for processing, and fund security is ultimately guaranteed by L1. This reliance is not at the level of “friendly chains” or “ecological cooperation,” but rather anchors the most core trust and technical logic solidly on Ethereum.
● As for the L2 solutions aimed at institutional needs, the direction recognized by Vitalik is closer to achieving deep customization in compliance, clearing, and settlement dimensions: for example, providing a verifiable but privacy-protected environment for financial institutions, supporting complex asset settlement processes and compliance reporting requirements; building a settlement layer for large enterprises that interfaces with traditional systems, rather than simply chasing marketing numbers of “higher TPS.” Compared to ordinary Alt L1s, these L2s emphasize connecting with real-world systems and business needs, with their value proposition not in “replicating Ethereum and issuing tokens,” but in truly taking on the role of a new generation of financial and data infrastructure.
Privacy and Dedicated Execution Layers: The True New Chains in Vitalik's Eyes
● While criticizing low-level replication, Vitalik also provided the direction of “new chains worth building” in his mind: making true technological breakthroughs around privacy protection, application-specific execution layers, and ultra-low latency networks. He believes that only by making strides in these capabilities, which were previously difficult to achieve but are extremely critical for real-world applications, can new chains truly fill the gaps in the industry, rather than simply exacerbating congestion and competition.
● Taking application-specific execution layers as an example, one can imagine an execution environment tailored for high-frequency trading: matching logic, order book structure, and risk control are all optimized for millisecond-level responses, with the underlying block structure making sacrifices and trade-offs for this purpose; or a chain specifically designed for large games, capable of efficiently handling massive state updates, in-game asset changes, and complex logical branches, allowing players to interact on-chain with experiences close to traditional server games. The key value of such execution layers lies in designing the chain itself from a business perspective, rather than forcibly cramming a generic EVM into all scenarios.
● When privacy and ultra-low latency technologies are truly implemented, the boundaries of existing DeFi, social interactions, and institutional use of public chains will shift: the improvement of privacy layers will allow institutions to handle more sensitive transactions and identity data on-chain; ultra-low latency networks will enable on-chain order execution and social interactions to no longer be dragged down by “block time.” At that point, people will no longer be satisfied with “copying a traditional application on-chain,” but will seek to build product forms that can only emerge on public chains equipped with new capabilities of privacy and performance, which is also the “true meaning of new chains” in Vitalik's eyes.
Slogans Should Not Outrun Technology: Ethereum Connections Must Match Strength
● In this article, Vitalik emphasized that new chains' claims about their connection to Ethereum must match their actual technical dependencies. What he criticized were not all projects claiming to be part of the “Ethereum ecosystem,” but those that have a loose technical relationship with Ethereum yet exaggerate their “L2” or “Rollup” identities in market rhetoric solely to enjoy brand endorsement and traffic benefits.
● Currently, there are indeed some chains that are almost completely independent in terms of security, data availability, and governance structures: they independently generate blocks on-chain, maintain a separate set of validators, and key data does not reside on Ethereum L1, nor do they revert to Ethereum for dispute resolution. However, in market promotional materials and social media narratives, these chains are packaged as “close partners of Ethereum” or “the next flagship L2,” creating a false sense of intimacy for ordinary users and developers.
● If the industry continues to indulge this narrative and technical mismatch, it will not only damage the reputation of individual projects but also erode the overall credibility of the Ethereum ecosystem. As labels like “L2” and “Rollup” are repeatedly misused, users will find it increasingly difficult to distinguish what constitutes a true Ethereum layer two from mere marketing concepts that are “on the edge” technically. Once this trust is diluted to a certain extent, even new projects that genuinely adhere to Ethereum's security model and deeply rely on L1 may lose the recognition they deserve amid the noisy environment.
The Fork in the Road After Alt L1: Replication vs. Breakthrough
● From this statement on February 5, it is evident that Vitalik has ignited a long-standing core contradiction: on one side is rapid replication driven by capital, favoring EVM chains and bridging templates that are easy to replicate, finance, and tell stories quickly; on the other side is the long-term breakthroughs truly needed at the infrastructure level, including privacy, customized execution layers, and deep security binding with L1, among other high-difficulty directions. The tension between the two constitutes the most typical tension in the current public chain track.
● Looking ahead along this line, the industry is likely to see more pronounced differentiation in future cycles: on one side are short-term projects that continue to rely on EVM replication and the “one-week delayed optimistic bridge” template, adept at shaping narratives and chasing the next market trend, yet unlikely to leave a significant mark in the history of technology; on the other side are teams building around privacy technology, dedicated execution layers, and deep L1 reliance, whose early user curves and token performances may not be dazzling, but are steadily solidifying the foundation for the next generation of infrastructure.
● When the next major cycle truly unfolds, will capital and developers continue to invest more energy in easily replicable, quick-return stories, or will they be willing to temporarily slow down and participate in directions that have higher technical thresholds and slower returns, but have the potential to redefine the boundaries of blockchain capabilities? Vitalik's “angry criticism” does not provide a single answer but rather places the question before all industry participants.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
