Base and Arbitrum are emerging as the clearest winners from Ethereum’s layer-2 buildout, and a Foresight commentary argues that their edge comes less from technical sophistication than from ecosystem strength.
The article says many older crypto projects that are now pinning their remaining survival hopes on ecosystem migration have chosen the same destinations: Base and Arbitrum.
TVL concentration has narrowed the field
During the previous wave of L2 infrastructure expansion, the market saw a surge of new networks. Today, the piece argues, most of them have effectively turned into ghost towns.
Using total value locked as the main measure of durable traction, the article cites DefiLlama data and says Base and Arbitrum rank first and second. Even OP Mainnet, which it places third, holds only a small fraction of Arbitrum’s TVL. Most other layer-2 networks, in the author’s view, barely matter at this point.
From that, the commentary draws a blunt conclusion: among the projects launched in the last major L2 infrastructure wave, the ones that may ultimately survive are likely these two, or, at most, fewer than five if one takes a more optimistic view.
The original L2 playbook was to build first and hope users would come later
The article describes a defining trait of that earlier period in simple terms: build the nest first, then wait for the birds.
Teams could launch the underlying infrastructure, but no one knew in advance what kind of users, applications, or activity would actually arrive afterward, or whether the network would attract the ecosystem they wanted. That uncertainty shaped nearly every design decision. When teams built their own L2s, they had to decide what to optimize for: performance, security, or usability. In many cases, the author says, those choices rested heavily on subjective judgment.
That produced several distinct technical paths. Some layer-2s were built around zero-knowledge proofs, including StarkNet and zkSync. Others relied on fault-tolerant designs, including OP Mainnet and Arbitrum. A third group emphasized transaction performance, with Scroll and MegaETH listed as examples.
Years later, the market verdict has been harsh. The article says most of these “nests,” built on what were ultimately subjective assumptions, failed to attract the “birds.”
The problem was not weak technology, but a weak read on demand
The commentary’s main argument is that the biggest reason most L2s failed to become vibrant was not that their technology was behind the curve. It was that they lost touch with what the market and users actually needed. In that setting, advanced technology did not translate into lasting traction.
That is what makes the current outcome look ironic to the author. Of the approaches listed above, the easiest to implement on the technical side was the fault-tolerant route. Yet the two most prosperous networks now, Base and Arbitrum, were both built on that foundation.
Why did so many teams misread demand at the time? The article says this was more a limitation of the era than a deliberate blind spot.
Two shifts changed the equation after the first L2 boom
At the time, DeFi was the most active part of the broader crypto market. Once the conversation centered on DeFi, the focus naturally moved to fund safety and transaction speed. From there, it was easy to conclude that layer-2s should be built with the safest and highest-performance technology available.
In the author’s view, that line of thinking was not wrong in its historical context. What changed is that two developments arrived that few people had anticipated.
First, almost no one expected Ethereum mainnet to undergo large-scale scaling later on. The article says that expansion sharply lowered fees on L2s while also lifting system performance. As a result, even if many layer-2s still fall short of ideal performance levels, they are already good enough for current trading scenarios. Once that threshold is met, performance gaps driven by technology become much harder to turn into a real competitive advantage.
Second, the massive migration of high-frequency trading from the off-chain world to on-chain markets did not happen nearly as quickly as many had expected. That meant even simpler technical frameworks were enough to handle today’s transaction environment.
Under those conditions, the piece argues, the more important question became which ecosystem could pull in traffic and maintain user activity, not which L2 could claim the highest performance ceiling.
Vitalik’s roadmap could narrow L2 performance differences even more
The article adds that, under Vitalik’s roadmap, Ethereum is still expected to scale further and eventually bring ZK technology into the mainnet itself. If that happens, any edge layer-2s might hope to derive from raw transaction performance alone would weaken even more.
The author goes a step further and sketches a possible future scenario: for ordinary transactions, users may still see differences between Ethereum mainnet and L2s in fees or speed, but those gaps may no longer be severe enough to become intolerable.
MegaETH is presented as a case study in the limits of pure performance
The piece spends time on MegaETH, which the author says left a strong impression because they had read its white paper closely. MegaETH put special emphasis on the possibility of reaching TPS in the millions. If that capability were fully realized, the article says, it could support an on-chain system with performance approaching that of a centralized stock exchange.
According to the commentary, MegaETH has now been built, and official claims describe its performance as outstanding.
Still, the ecosystem outcome has not matched the technical ambition. The article says no such exchange is actually operating there. It also points to a recent withdrawal by AAVE, which it says pulled funds out of the MegaETH ecosystem and cut the chain’s TVL by 60%. For the author, that is a sign that even a high-performance L2 can slide toward ghost-town status.
A contrasting example: Robinhood chose a simpler stack and posted strong early numbers
The article contrasts MegaETH with Robinhood. It says the traditional centralized exchange opted for a relatively simple fault-tolerant tech stack for its layer-2 network, and within days of launch it posted strong results in popularity, activity, and trading volume.
The explanation offered is not technology. The author attributes that early momentum to user base, marketing methods, and market strategy.
The commentary does add a note of caution: whether those results can last still needs to be watched. But even if they do not last, the author says the problem is unlikely to be technical constraints or inadequate performance.
Put differently, the article argues that Robinhood’s stack and performance may not compare with MegaETH’s, yet those differences probably will not stop it from expanding and building out its own ecosystem.
The priority for new L2s has shifted
The final takeaway is direct. In the author’s view, the logic of building a new L2 has changed completely.
If teams launch new layer-2s in the future, the first thing they should focus on is business scenario and user activity. Technology still matters, but it may no longer sit at the top of the list. Good enough, or slightly more than enough, may already be sufficient.
The article ends with a disclaimer stating that markets involve risk, investment should be approached with caution, and the piece does not constitute investment advice. Readers are urged to judge whether any opinions, views, or conclusions fit their own circumstances and to bear responsibility for their own decisions.