Chainfeeds Briefing:
After careful consideration, Vitalik Buterin's latest statement about L2 rapid withdrawal is quite interesting. Simply put: he believes achieving rapid withdrawal within 1 hour is more important than reaching Stage 2, and the logic behind this priority adjustment is worth in-depth thinking.
Article Source:
https://x.com/tmel0211/status/1953366253395165667
Article Author:
Haotian
Perspective:
Haotian: A one-week withdrawal waiting period is indeed a significant problem in practical applications, not only providing a poor user experience but more critically raising cross-chain costs. For example, in intent-based bridging solutions like ERC-7683, liquidity providers must bear a week's capital occupation cost, directly increasing cross-chain fees. The result is users being forced to choose multi-signature solutions with weaker trust assumptions, which goes against the original intention of L2. Therefore, Vitalik proposed a 2-of-3 hybrid proof system (ZK+OP+TEE), where ZK and TEE can provide immediacy, and TEE and OP both have sufficient production verification. Theoretically, any two systems can ensure security, thus avoiding the time cost of waiting for ZK technology to fully mature. Additionally, Vitalik's new statement makes one feel he's becoming more pragmatic? From a previously idealistic youth focused on decentralization and anti-censorship battles, he's now directly providing hard indicators: 1-hour withdrawal, 12-second finality, everything becoming simple and direct. Previously, everyone was competing on Stage 2's degree of decentralization, but now V has directly stated that rapid withdrawal is more important, effectively reprioritizing the entire L2 track. This is actually paving the way for the ultimate form of the "Rollup-Centric" strategy, allowing Ethereum L1 to truly become a unified settlement layer and liquidity center. Once rapid withdrawal and cross-chain aggregation are achieved, the difficulty for other public chains to challenge the Ethereum ecosystem will rise another level. From the current situation, while ZK technology is rapidly progressing, cost remains a practical constraint. 500k+ gas ZK proofs mean only hourly submission frequency is possible in the short term, and achieving the ultimate 12-second goal still depends on aggregation technology breakthroughs. The logic is clear: frequent proof submissions from individual Rollups are too costly, but if proofs from N Rollups can be aggregated into one, spreading across each slot (12s) becomes economically feasible. This also presents a new technical route for the L2 competitive landscape, and L2 projects that can first break through in ZK proof optimization might find their footing, while companions still struggling with Optimism's optimistic proofs will likely lose direction.
Content Source
