Compared with SOL, it actually makes more sense for China to build L2s on Ethereum and participate in capturing value from some of the underlying infrastructure assets.
SOL is more like a highly integrated public blockchain ecosystem, while Ethereum’s strengths lie in its modularity, openness, and established financial infrastructure and developer network.
For China, independently developing an entire public blockchain means having to build a developer ecosystem, liquidity, use cases, and market consensus from scratch. Even if its performance is excellent, that does not mean it will achieve genuine network effects.
But L2s offer a different approach.
By relying on Ethereum’s security and settlement capabilities at the base layer, the layer above can be designed around actual needs, including the execution environment, permission management, compliance mechanisms, and use cases.
Whether it’s enterprise-grade stablecoins, RWA, supply chain finance, or cross-border settlement, there are opportunities to explore within this kind of architecture.
More importantly, participation need not be limited to issuing tokens or building a blockchain.
Sequencers, data availability, cross-chain interoperability, wallets, oracles, and asset issuance and settlement protocols could all become valuable infrastructure over the long term.
What is truly worth striving for is not creating another closed digital world, but building irreplaceable infrastructure and gateways to assets within an open global network.
Of course, L2s are not inherently secure, nor do they automatically inherit all of Ethereum’s security guarantees. Sequencer centralization, cross-chain bridge risks, upgrade permissions, and regulatory compliance still need to be addressed one by one.
But from an industrial strategy perspective, rather than starting from scratch to compete for market consensus around an entire public blockchain, it makes more sense to leverage a mature, open network and take part in building the next generation of financial infrastructure.
Technology can be developed independently, businesses can operate compliantly, and infrastructure can be brought under control gradually.
A more advanced form of self-reliance is not refusing to connect to the global network, but retaining irreplaceable technical capabilities, products, and assets even while connected to it.
I believe government-level L2s will emerge in the future, and this approach is suitable for other countries as well. It requires less capital investment and offers a controllable development strategy.
$BTC $ETH #btc #eth
SOL is more like a highly integrated public blockchain ecosystem, while Ethereum’s strengths lie in its modularity, openness, and established financial infrastructure and developer network.
For China, independently developing an entire public blockchain means having to build a developer ecosystem, liquidity, use cases, and market consensus from scratch. Even if its performance is excellent, that does not mean it will achieve genuine network effects.
But L2s offer a different approach.
By relying on Ethereum’s security and settlement capabilities at the base layer, the layer above can be designed around actual needs, including the execution environment, permission management, compliance mechanisms, and use cases.
Whether it’s enterprise-grade stablecoins, RWA, supply chain finance, or cross-border settlement, there are opportunities to explore within this kind of architecture.
More importantly, participation need not be limited to issuing tokens or building a blockchain.
Sequencers, data availability, cross-chain interoperability, wallets, oracles, and asset issuance and settlement protocols could all become valuable infrastructure over the long term.
What is truly worth striving for is not creating another closed digital world, but building irreplaceable infrastructure and gateways to assets within an open global network.
Of course, L2s are not inherently secure, nor do they automatically inherit all of Ethereum’s security guarantees. Sequencer centralization, cross-chain bridge risks, upgrade permissions, and regulatory compliance still need to be addressed one by one.
But from an industrial strategy perspective, rather than starting from scratch to compete for market consensus around an entire public blockchain, it makes more sense to leverage a mature, open network and take part in building the next generation of financial infrastructure.
Technology can be developed independently, businesses can operate compliantly, and infrastructure can be brought under control gradually.
A more advanced form of self-reliance is not refusing to connect to the global network, but retaining irreplaceable technical capabilities, products, and assets even while connected to it.
I believe government-level L2s will emerge in the future, and this approach is suitable for other countries as well. It requires less capital investment and offers a controllable development strategy.
$BTC $ETH #btc #eth