Solana founder blasts Ethereum L2: not only does it fail to inherit Ethereum's security, but it also erodes L1 mainnet revenue.

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko slammed Ethereum Layer-2 (L2) solutions on the X platform, claiming that the assertion that they “inherit L1 security” is erroneous and criticized L2 for undermining the Ethereum economy. (Background: Solana founder warns Bitcoin is about to crack: it will collapse without quantum resistance upgrades before 2030) (Additional context: Solana founder blasts meme coins NFTs as “digital garbage”, community in conflict: but revenue accounts for 62%) On October 26, Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko posted on the community platform X, sharply criticizing Ethereum's Layer-2 (L2) scaling solutions, stating that the claim of “inheriting the security of the Ethereum base layer” is “erroneous.” This debate not only ignited discussions in the blockchain community regarding L1 and L2 security but also expanded the focus to the impact of L2 on Ethereum's economic model, highlighting the fundamental divergence in scaling strategies between the two major public chains. It’s not more nuanced. Can a set of keys not your own spend your funds or not? L2 multisig can spend all the bridged funds. Wormhole multisig can spend all the bridged funds. That's it. Sui validators on their own cannot do anything. If overnight in secret they… — toly (@aeyakovenko) October 26, 2025 Intense debate: Yakovenko's wild output This debate occurred on October 26, with Yakovenko engaging in a heated discussion with legal scholar Gabriel Shapiro, and Helius CEO @0xMert_ also participating. The debate revolved around the security and economic implications of Ethereum L2, quickly sparking enthusiastic discussions in the community about L1 (base layer) versus L2 models. Yakovenko's security criticism: Centralization and vulnerability risks in L2 Yakovenko raised several questions about the security issues of Ethereum L2. First, he pointed out that L2 networks (such as Base, Optimism, zkSync) rely on multisignature custody, which introduces significant centralization risks. If multisig members collude, user funds could be transferred without consent, while Ethereum L1 cannot intervene immediately, failing to deliver the so-called “security.” Secondly, Yakovenko criticized L2's codebase as being too large, making it difficult to conduct comprehensive audits, which could hide undiscovered vulnerabilities. The fragmentation caused by the excessive number of L2s further amplifies security risks. He questioned, “L2's roadmap has been in place for five years; why has it not achieved the expected security standards?” Additionally, he compared L2 to Solana's bridging solutions, emphasizing that the risk of ETH bridged through Wormhole on Solana is comparable to that on Base, indicating that L2 does not offer unique security advantages. He concluded, “The claim that L2 inherits Ethereum’s security is incorrect from any perspective.” Yakovenko's economic criticism: L2 erodes L1 revenue Besides security issues, Yakovenko further criticized L2's economic impact on Ethereum L1. He pointed out that L2 networks direct high-value transactions toward themselves, leading to a significant drop in revenue for the Ethereum mainchain. The low transaction fees of L2 attract users, undermining the earnings of L1 validators. Yakovenko emphasized that although L2's Total Value Locked (TVL) exceeds $35 billion, its fragmented liquidity dilutes the overall effectiveness of the Ethereum ecosystem. In contrast, Solana operates on a single L1 model, achieving 65,000 transactions per second (TPS) without relying on bridging or sharding, with annual revenue reaching $2.85 billion in 2025, far exceeding Ethereum's early performance. He believes that the economic model of L2 not only fails to strengthen Ethereum but actually undermines the long-term sustainability of its base layer. Community response: Mixed support and opposition Yakovenko's views have sparked polarized reactions within the blockchain community. Supporters argue that the number of L2s far exceeds actual demand, and indeed as Yakovenko claims, they cannot match the security of the Ethereum mainnet and have economic impacts on Ethereum; opponents defend L2, stating that the surge in the number of L2s reflects the diversity and healthy development of the Ethereum ecosystem, and that the emergence of L2 does provide solutions to Ethereum's scaling problems and accelerates transaction speed. Notably, this is not Yakovenko's first criticism. In March 2025, he referred to L2 as “parasites,” criticized its centralized sequencers in June, and on October 17 playfully stated, “Ethereum has become Solana's L2.” Related reports: Is Ethereum L2 network MegaETH about to have its TGE? It's rumored to plan an ICO on the Sonar platform; what preparations can be made? The fog and lighthouse of Bitcoin L2, GOAT Network's positioning in the new order Base chain embroiled in controversy: heated debate on whether L2 counts as an exchange and the centralization of sequencers. This article was first published by BlockTempo, the most influential blockchain news media.