The question is a false premise. Many in the space think focusing on scaling the Ethereum L1 is “anti-L2” That’s a narrative pushed by competitors and those who monetize a fractured ecosystem (bridges, oracles, etc) L2s are nothing more than smart contracts. Scaling the L1s abilities in throughput, security, and simplicity mean you can run better smart contracts of any type, including L2s. It means they will be: -more affordable -more compatible (cross chain trustless tx via native proofs) -more scalable Ethereum’s new focus is not a “pivot”, it’s just more ruthless execution of the same vision that’s always been there: -To create the most decentralized, trustless, programable network. I think seeing @tkstanczak step into his new role has helped light a fire under some folks in the space on being more focused on the execution path, but the goal is the same. Ethereum does not need to be the fastest or the most affordable. There will always be design trade-offs on trust that others will make to pursue that. Ethereum needs to be, the most decentralized and trustworthy while having manageable scale. Because when L2s that require trust want to settle their proofs, that’s where they’ll end up. When nation states and banks, want to do settlement transactions across borders and multi-jurisdictional legal frameworks, they don’t care about speed and cost, they care about trust and decentralization. Ethereum isn’t pivoting. It’s trimming fat on its execution path, and laser focused on “how do we make this the best place to run any contract trustlessly”