Opinion of: Barna Kiss, CEO or Malda
An idea recently floated by some prominent thinkers in the Ethereum space to recover the value for the main one is the tax of its layer 2. The future of Ethereum does not do so in politics, but in allowing the capital movement without friction between the L2 in question. Drawn rates may seem an orderly way to recover the value for the Netnet. In practice, it would fragment the ecosystem, drain the liquidity, push users to centralized platforms and completely avoid decentralized finances. In a system without permission, capital flows to where it is better, and Ethereum’s rollups mistreat it.
The liquidity fragmentation is the true threat of Ethereum
It has been established in traditional finances, the link between fluidity and growth. The lowest barriers to capital tickets lead to greater investment. Take the single market before Brexit of the European Union. Investment flows slowed when the United Kingdom’s exit fragmented access to capital groups, as stated by economists that track cross -border activity. Ethereum faces a decentralized parallel.
Rollups, particularly those that are optimistic and ZK based, impose delays of up to a week in retreats and sacrifice only irregular liquidity. The result is a fragmented system in which adoption slows down, and capital is underlined.
The developers stay with two bad options. Or they focus on a role and limit their audience, or fragment liquefiness on several and accept inefficiencies. The Neinder option serves the long -term interest of the ecosystem. A significant opportunity lies, therefore, with protocols that eliminate thesis frictions. They will attract more capital, operate more efficiently and offer better experiences.
Recently: 3 reasons why Ethereum could fold a corner
The capital movement must be abstracted away from the end user. Bridges and retirement tails must be Beecome protocol level groups, not user problems. It is feasible for the liquidity deployed in a Rollup to meet the demand of another, with a background rebalancing ensuring solvency and efficiency. What seems complex today can be invisible.
This design changes reactive bridge to the coordination of liquidity based on the intention would restore composibility and preserve decentralization. More importantly, I would maintain the central principles of Ethereum to build open systems without central guardians. Without it, users will continue to be based on centralized exchanges to avoid friction, compromising self -ocustody for convenience. This is not just a technical challenge, it is philosophical.
Design around friction is the competitive advantage
Designing around capital efficiency is becoming a competitive advantage. Tomorrow’s Defi protocols will not simply compete in rates or performance. They will compete how well they can access liquidity in a fractured landscape. The winners will be those who can comply with the request of a user wherever the user is the site that requires them to move funds manually. The result will be better UX, more productive capital and greater sticky on the network.
Some underlying technologies are beginning to address the problem. Ethereum native rollups, planned after a hard fork in 2026, promise closer integration, and although they are not ready for deployment, based on the narrowest alignment of the Rollup sacrifier with Ethereum by sharing shields and improving while sacrificing. Meanwhile, optimistic rollups are running to implement zero knowledge tests to accelerate outputs. These innovations reduce friction, but they are not enough on their own. The scale will come from applications designed around the thesis limitations, not just the base layers.
ZK Rollups are particularly well adapted for this. Its cryptographic structure allows low latency and minimized messaging of trust between chains. This makes them ideal for applications such as payments, decentralized trade and financial products in real time, all of which demand speed and certainty. If Ethereum can make such cross rolls not perfect, not only will it be climbed. It will become the backbone of a more efficient financial system.
That result is not guaranteed. Pilot rates can meet short -term objectives, but in the long run, they would weaken the same Ethereum network to strengthen themselves. Solana, for example, already sacrifices composability within a single domain. While Ethereum’s modular approach is possibly more robust, it cannot be allowed to ignore the cost of usability of fragmentation.
Ethereum’s greatest force is his neutrality. That should include the capacity of capital to move freely within its ecosystem. The future will not be built by taxing the accumulations. It will be built allowing them to function as an economic engine.
Opinion of: Barna Kiss, CEO or Malda.
This article is for general information purposes and does not intend to be and should not be tasks such as legal or investment advice. The views, the thoughts and opinions expressed here are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the opinions and opinions of Cointelegraph.
