Justin Bons, founder and chief funding officer of Cyber Capital, has sparked a polarizing debate within the crypto group with a scathing critique of the present Layer-2 (L2) options on Ethereum. The founding father of the oldest crypto fund in Europe described networks like Arbitrum, Base and Optimism, designed to enhance Ethereum’s scalability by offloading transactions from the principle chain, as a “dystopian nightmare of centralization.”

Why Most L2’s Are A “Dystopian Nightmare”

Bons’ evaluation targets a number of high L2 options like Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Blast, ZKSync, Linea and Mantle, amongst others. He argues that each one of them are stricken by centralization dangers that might doubtlessly enable community operators to obtain management over consumer funds. This centralization comes within the type of “multi-sig” controls and centralized sequencers, which may, in concept, manipulate transaction order for revenue or freeze funds.

In his evaluation, Bons factors out particular options inside these networks that heighten these dangers. As an example, he famous that networks like Arbitrum and Base have structural vulnerabilities as a consequence of their reliance on multi-sig controls and permissioned proposers, which might result in eventualities the place consumer funds are immediately accessible by a centralized authority.

“Arbitrum – Can steal all consumer funds immediately with a multi-sig, has permissioned proposers, centralized operator can exploit MEV & centralized sequencer can censor,” he acknowledged and continued that “Base an steal all consumer funds immediately with a multi-sig, permissioned proposer may steal all consumer funds, the centralized validator can freeze all funds, a centralized operator can exploit MEV & the centralized sequencer can censor.”

Equally, Optimism and different networks undergo from potential centralization, with Bons highlighting the power of centralized operators to use maximal extractable worth (MEV) and censor transactions. In response to him, Optimism “can steal all consumer funds immediately with a multi-sig, the centralized operator can exploit MEV & centralized sequencer can censor.”

He additional criticized networks like Blast for having mechanisms that might doubtlessly freeze consumer funds below particular situations like inadequate liquidity on the bridge, alongside points associated to censorship by centralized sequencers.

Improper Incentives?

The assertion by Bons led to blended reactions throughout the trade. Crypto pundit DBCrypto (@DBCrypt0) supported Bons’ claims and accused Ethereum maximalists as blind in the event that they consider within the decentralization of those platforms regardless of present “proof” on the contrary.

DBCrypto questioned the financial incentives for such L2s to undertake a shared sequencer mannequin, given the numerous earnings at stake, stating, “Coinbase presently makes what number of thousands and thousands a month off Base? OP and ARB maintain round 50% L2 market share presently? Will they select to hitch a shared sequencer and quit a lot of their earnings?”

Responding to such feedback, Bons expressed his considerations in regards to the broader implications of those design selections, emphasizing a scarcity of consideration for social and financial impacts. “A few of it may be defined by the naivety of engineers solely occupied with technical issues, not social ones,” Bons mentioned.

He additionally identified the position of misaligned incentives, significantly inside enterprise capital investments, which favor short-term positive aspects over long-term sustainable and decentralized growth. “ VCs make rather more cash off ETH within the brief time period if it continues with L2 scaling,” he concluded.

At press time, ETH traded at $3,049.

Featured picture created with DALL·E, chart from TradingView.com