Solana Sounds the "Expansion" Charge: Has the Term Layer 2 Been Abandoned?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Solana Sounds the "Expansion" Charge: Has the Term Layer 2 Been Abandoned?
The biggest success of Layer 2 is eliminating the competition from "Ethereum killer" Layer 1 narratives.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy Haotian
Recently, the Solana Foundation has sounded the call for "network extension." Interestingly, it has dropped the term "Layer 2," instead naming its scaling solution "Network Extension." This raises a question: Has Ethereum's Layer 2 become public enemy number one? According to Solana’s logic, can transforming all general-purpose Layer 2s into Specific-Purpose chains resolve the current Layer 2 crisis? Here are my thoughts:
1) Over the past two years, Layer 2 has been the hottest narrative—no other contender comes close. In theory, it should have carried the expectations of this bull market, becoming Ethereum’s next “DeFi Summer.” Yet in reality, the dismal token prices fail to support that expectation, leading to strong negative sentiment across the sector.
Setting aside emotional bias, I’ve always believed that Layer 2 has been relatively successful. On the surface, success means Layer 2 has diverted some traffic from Ethereum’s mainnet, alleviating high gas fees and network congestion—aligning perfectly with Layer 2’s original vision (despite criticisms about vampirism or parasitism...).
But more fundamentally, Layer 2’s greatest achievement lies in eliminating the narrative of “Ethereum Killers”—alternative Layer 1 blockchains. To date, Ethereum remains the undisputed second pillar of the blockchain world after Bitcoin. Every new narrative—high-performance Layer 1s, parallel EVMs, modular architectures, chain abstraction—still assumes Ethereum as the central reference point. Regardless of token prices, this is precisely where the Rollup-Centric roadmap has succeeded.
2) Whether called Layer 2 or Network Extension, both represent outward scalability built upon a base chain. Ethereum’s Layer 2 constructs an off-chain state network optimized for dense computation, lower gas fees, and faster transaction speeds—focused on functional expansion. Solana’s network extension emphasizes more specific solutions to targeted problems, such as new execution environments and specialized capabilities: State Compression, Neon (an EVM-compatible environment), cNFTs for mass processing, privacy transactions, and more.
I don’t see a fundamental difference between the two. If forced to highlight distinctions, I’d offer two points:
1. Ethereum, constrained by inherent performance limitations, has pursued scaling somewhat “passively,” whereas Solana was born high-performance; its extensions are “proactive” moves to embrace compatibility and broaden its reach.
2. Ethereum’s Layer 2 infrastructure is already mature—even overdeveloped compared to application demand. The underutilization of recent Blob space is clear evidence. In contrast, Solana’s extension ecosystem remains largely uncharted blue ocean. Initiatives like SOON (Solana’s OP Stack-inspired commercial stack) and the broader Network Extension concept aim to drive B2B commercial narratives forward.
In essence, the difference boils down to timing—not superiority. After all, if you don’t believe Ethereum’s Layer 2 strategy has succeeded, how do you explain Solana’s active replication of Ethereum’s commercial playbook?
3) As for the debate between General-Purpose and Specific-Purpose chains: There’s a growing claim that Ethereum’s general-purpose Layer 2s act like vampires, draining liquidity from the mainnet, while Specific-Purpose chains—better tailored to address core deficiencies—are the preferable path forward. At first glance, this sounds convincing, making general-purpose chains seem like the root of all evil—as if Ethereum took a wrong turn with its Layer 2 strategy.
But in reality, Ethereum’s earliest Layer 2 solutions—including Loopring, StarkEx, DeGate—all started within Specific-Purpose use cases. Ethereum has always advanced Layer 2 through both General and Specific tracks, alongside various other models like Validium, Plasma, and Parallel systems.
The issue isn't that general-purpose chains are inherently flawed—it's that Specific-Purpose chains haven’t developed effectively either.
Moreover, there’s no clear boundary between Specific and General chains. Take Starknet: Initially seen as a specialized chain due to its Cairo language, parallel execution model, and STARK-based compute-intensive design, it later evolved into one of the four major L2s and naturally became expected to serve as a general-purpose platform.
Whether a chain becomes general or specific ultimately depends on market expectations and real-world adoption—not on whether a Layer 2 strategy is superior or not.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Haotian | CryptoInsight
