A reader commented:

“Can you talk about the value capture between Layer 1 and Layer 2 of Ethereum? Is it true that most of the ecological value has been captured by Layer 2?”

To analyze Ethereum's value capture, we first need to clarify Ethereum's attributes.

In previous articles, I have shared my views: Ethereum's attributes are complex and cannot be summarized by a single characteristic. However, at this moment, I think we can observe its value capture as a commodity/oil based on existing data during its use.

So today, in this article, I will share only one of its attributes (commodity/oil) to deduce the value capture this attribute generates.

This is a very one-sided perspective. This is something readers should pay attention to while reading.

Before seeing this comment, I had not studied this issue in depth.

Because my understanding has remained in the past: Ethereum's mainnet fees are too expensive, so the main activities of the Ethereum ecosystem in the future will certainly not be on the mainnet, but on Layer 2 expansions.

Therefore, Layer 2 expansions are the main source of value capture for the Ethereum ecosystem in the future.

Based on this understanding, although I often read that the community strongly reflects on the inability of Ethereum to capture the value of Layer 2 expansions, believing that Ethereum gives too much to Layer 2 expansions while receiving too little, I have always thought that these issues are not worth attention. Because this is merely a process of "quantitative change leading to qualitative change," and with the development of the Layer 2 expansion ecosystem, one day the ecosystem of Layer 2 expansions will grow to a certain extent, generating enough value, and this issue will naturally be resolved.

But recent changes in the ecosystem and the mention of this comment have piqued my interest in this issue, so I specifically used AI to organize some data.

Let’s take the two most active Layer 2 expansions, Base and Arbitrum, as examples. Their value capture relationship with Ethereum is as follows:

When they package the transaction data and state information from their system (sent by the sequencer) and send it to Ethereum, they pay a fee (ETH) to the Ethereum mainnet.

According to current on-chain data, the total transaction volume on mainstream Layer 2 expansions (including Base, Arbitrum, OP, etc.) has far exceeded that of Ethereum’s mainnet.

However, these mainstream Layer 2 expansions contribute only about 1% to 5% of the total fee revenue to the Ethereum mainnet.

In other words, Ethereum provides security and guarantees for more than half of the transactions (from Layer 2 expansions) in the entire ecosystem, but the fees received from these transactions (from Layer 2 expansions) account for at most about 5% ------------- this fee is so low that it can almost be ignored.

From an ecological perspective, this is fantastic: cheap, secure, and stable.

However, from a revenue perspective, this is terrible; it's clearly being exploited.

At the same time, Base and Arbitrum are generating huge revenue from the fees paid by users each year.

Why is this happening?

Because the fees charged to Layer 2 expansions by Ethereum have been greatly reduced after Ethereum's scaling, so from the fees users pay to Layer 2 expansions, they only need to give a small portion to the Ethereum mainnet to cover that fee, while the vast majority is retained as their net income.

This explains why the community has been calling for a more important task for Ethereum now is to "regulate" Layer 2 expansions, so they cannot benefit for free.

Currently, various solutions have been proposed by the community, among which the main ones directly related to Layer 2 expansions include:

- Forcing Layer 2 expansions to pay a certain percentage (10% to 25%) of the fees to the mainnet. These fees go to validators or are burned.

- Forcing the sequencers in Layer 2 expansions to participate in Ethereum's staking validation.

- Requiring all Layer 2 expansions to use nodes from the Ethereum mainnet as sequencers, thereby strongly binding the economic interests and security of Layer 2 expansions with the mainnet.

- Burning a portion of the profits generated by Layer 2 expansions.

Among these options, I am most inclined to the requirement that Layer 2 expansions can only use mainnet nodes as sequencers.

However, it’s easier said than done; implementing each of these solutions would involve many conflicting interests. Therefore, these proposals are still under research and have not been finalized, let alone implemented.

Moreover, I have serious doubts: after the Ethereum Foundation "cripples itself," how much influence do they still have to push for this transformation? How can such a reform involving numerous interests proceed without a strong organization to promote it?

It seems that any organization is the same:

Reform is easy to talk about, but difficult to accomplish.

And the difficulty has never been technology, but rather interests.

So I speculate: in the short term, it is probably unrealistic for Ethereum to capture value from Layer 2 expansions; in fact, for quite a long time, Ethereum may continue to be "exploited" by Layer 2 expansions.

However, there has been a new phenomenon worthy of attention in the Ethereum ecosystem over the past few years, leading me to wonder if there might be another path for Ethereum’s value capture?

Previously, I believed that if traditional banks or financial institutions used Ethereum, their most likely path would be to build their own Layer 2 expansions and create their own commercial ecosystem within their Layer 2 expansions.

Because if these large institutions build their ecosystem on the mainnet, the high transaction fees would greatly increase their trading costs. But if built on Layer 2 expansions, not only are the fees low and the efficiencies high, but they can also fully rely on the security of the mainnet.

However, after observing for several years, I seem to have seen few large banks or institutions constructing their own Layer 2 expansions; instead, I have seen them continuously deploying their businesses directly on the Ethereum mainnet or Layer 2 expansions.

In the past five years, large institutions, including JPMorgan, Société Générale, Goldman Sachs, BNY Mellon, BlackRock, and Franklin Templeton, have directly:

Issued approximately $8.5 to $9.5 billion of tokenized assets on the Ethereum mainnet;

Issued approximately $260 million of tokenized assets on Ethereum's Layer 2 expansions (like Base).

From this data, it is clear that their main battlefield is not Layer 2 expansions but the Ethereum mainnet.

Perhaps this is the result Vitalik hoped for with his push for Ethereum mainnet scaling?

If these institutions carry out RWA or on-chain activities, this will become a significant trend in the Ethereum ecosystem in the future. According to existing data, could it be that this trend of RWA and on-chain activities is not happening on Layer 2 expansions as I previously imagined, but primarily on the mainnet?

If we think even further, when many important tokenized assets are on the Ethereum mainnet, will the future on-chain settlements between AI and humans also primarily occur on the Ethereum mainnet?

And not on the Layer 2 expansions as I previously imagined?

This change is something I had not thought of before.

If these institutions have future assets worth tens of billions, hundreds of billions, or even trillions of dollars on the mainnet and force AI and humans to carry out major on-chain settlement activities on the Ethereum mainnet, could it be that the Ethereum mainnet itself becomes the primary source of future value capture for Ethereum?

In such a scenario, Ethereum would not need to worry about the exploitation from Layer 2 expansions; it simply needs to focus on maintaining the transactions on the mainnet. Layer 2 expansions continue to leverage efficient, low-cost fees to build various commercial scenarios and forms while high-frequency small transactions occur within them. Ultimately, all large settlements and clearances take place on the mainnet, contributing the majority of the fees to the mainnet.

As for how many transactions on the mainnet might lead to a significant effect on Ethereum’s value capture, it still depends on what I mentioned a couple of days ago in my article regarding April 2, 2025.

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。