Vitalik bets on Ethereum L1: Rollup steps back, the settlement layer returns to the center stage

L1 Moving Toward Self-Sufficiency, L2 Falling Into Identity Crisis

Vitalik’s tweet on February 3 is more than criticism—it’s a direct rejection of Ethereum’s long-standing “rollup-centric” scaling approach. His view is straightforward: L1 fees are decreasing, gas limits may exceed 200 million by the end of 2026, and the “brand sharding” vision is no longer tenable. He also explicitly criticizes the stagnation of L2—most are still stuck at Stage 1, held back by compliance or technical issues. This isn’t academic debate; it’s a reshuffling of asset pricing and narrative dominance.

On-chain data and market prices partly confirm this. ETH dipped with the market to $1820 on February 6, then rebounded 15% to $2104 by February 10, with daily trading volume remaining at $2-6 billion. The market “heard” Vitalik’s stance but didn’t panic sell. Public opinion supporters emphasize L1’s “settlement sovereignty,” while L2 advocates try to shift token narratives toward dedicated tools. Media outlets like CoinDesk and The Block position Glamsterdam and ePBS as L1 accelerators, implicitly downgrading L2 to a supporting role. The core message: ETH is becoming the default benchmark asset, capturing value through composability synchronization rather than dispersing liquidity across multiple rollups.

On-chain data shows uneven absorption. Ethereum L1’s TVL remains stable around $3 trillion, with daily fees between $300K and $3M. Arbitrum’s TVL is about $10 billion, ecosystem fees range from $0.8M to $2.5M, and DEX daily peak trading surpasses $1 billion; usage metrics show about 3,470 UOPS, but according to L2Beat, value carrying capacity has declined by 13% year-over-year. This indicates L2 is being “environmentalized”—users pursue low-cost interactions but are reluctant to lock in capital long-term. Consistent with this, Justin Drake’s Strawmap draft aims for zkEVM as a path, targeting 10K TPS on L1 by 2029, directly compressing the narrative premium of L2 tokens like ARB and OP (all tweets subsequently retraced 5-10%).

• TPS figures are a smokescreen: Vitalik explicitly dismisses “scaling” as the main value proposition of L2. Data also shows no clear correlation between TPS claims and TVL growth; interoperability and composability are the true value drivers.
• Macro noise masks signals: Bitcoin’s volatility disrupted early observations, but ETH has shown relative strength after the tweet, hinting that institutions are quietly returning to L1 exposure.
• What to watch next: If the Glamsterdam fork in mid-2026 materializes, it could anchor L1 dominance and trigger L2 integration.

Combining price resilience, on-chain steady states, and diverging narratives, Ethereum is gradually shifting from L2 hype back to steady L1 evolution: active transactions but value flowing back to the base layer, with media and research narratives adjusting accordingly. If this path continues, increasing ETH positions on dips remains attractive; the “federated” L1 structure is an undervalued mid-term variable.

Conclusion: The market’s re-pricing of the L1 narrative is still in early stages. The true beneficiaries are long-term holders and patient funds—prioritize increasing ETH holdings, waiting for on-chain and protocol upgrades to realize settlement premiums. Short-term traders chasing L2 rebounds are mostly on the wrong side.