Vitalik Buterin's vision for the future of Ethereum

In the conversation between Vitalik and the Chinese community, he not only expressed his views on the Decentralization of blockchain but also his outlook for the future of Ethereum.

• ‘Ether is the digital asset suitable for use between various applications of the world (including finance, as well as others like ENS, etc.). Ether does not need every transaction to be placed on L1, but it requires sufficient throughput so that anyone who wants to use L1 can do so occasionally. Therefore, these two directions are also compatible here: helping Ethereum achieve better world computer features and making Ether a better digital currency.’

This perspective validates my understanding of Ethereum (ETH) all along. For ETH to become a platform supporting the future on-chain world, it must take the layered architecture route, with L1 handling only a portion of transactions, while more transactions are processed in the underlying layer.

I once made an analogy to Ether and various Layer 2 extensions around Ether.

Ethereum is like the supreme court in this ecosystem, and the layer 2 expansions around it are like branches in different regions.

The Supreme Court cannot and should not handle every case, it should only deal with major issues related to the state and political system.

Its key characteristics are fairness, justice, and transparency.

In daily life, neighborhood disputes and fights can be handled by the local small courts. Even if those small courts occasionally handle civil disputes unfairly, it will not overall affect a country’s system and values. In such a situation, the parties involved can still appeal and submit the lawsuit to a higher-level adjudicating body.

Local small courts of this kind need to be efficient, inexpensive, and convenient for the people.

The core characteristics of these two types of courts are completely different.

The ETH network is no different, it requires the characteristics of Decentralization and resistance to censorship to ensure as much neutrality and security as possible.

Putting everything on the Ethereum main chain for processing is not only inefficient and costly, but also unsustainable for building an ecosystem in the long run.

In the future, with the development of the Ethereum ecosystem, I imagine that its development path will probably extend from the second layer to the third layer, and from the third layer to the fourth layer…

This is essentially similar to the judicial system and hierarchical structure of a country.

Recently, there has been a particularly loud voice in the community, suggesting sacrificing Decentralization to expand the main chain of the Ethereum for pursuing TPS. This is clearly influenced by another type of “blockchain”.

The kind of ‘blockchain’ that wants to be the global Nasdaq and exchange, but that kind of ‘blockchain’ cannot support a future on-chain world.

The two blockchains have vastly different values and core visions.

• “‘Decentralization’ does not mean ‘doing nothing’. The philosophy of subtraction of the ETH Foundation does not mean ‘reducing the foundation to 0’, but a way to maintain ecological balance. If there is an imbalance in an ecosystem (for example, part of the ecosystem is too centralized, or there is an important but neglected public good), we can help counterbalance. After solving this problem, the foundation can withdraw from that area. If a new imbalance occurs, we can move resources there, and so on.”

All along, many people have had such doubts about ‘Decentralization’:

If it’s “Decentralization,” what do teams and leaders still need to do?

I have previously shared my views on this question in the article, but I think Vitalik’s explanation is more appropriate, “Decentralization” is not “doing nothing”, and it is not about avoiding teams and leadership.

Decentralization is to ensure that the operation of the blockchain can still function normally without relying on any organization or individual. The role of teams and leadership is to be responsible for the development and advancement of the blockchain system itself, enabling it to absorb the latest technological achievements and better adapt to new environments and scenarios.

This passage reminds me of a very good metaphor in Buddhism:

The fierce eyes of Vajrapani, the lowered brows of Bodhisattva

Without using thunderous means, how can one see the heart of a Bodhisattva

When it comes to Buddhism, what immediately comes to mind is great compassion and salvation. It evokes a warm and gentle feeling. That’s why many people cannot associate ‘Vajra Wrathful Gaze’ and ‘Thunderbolt Methods’ with Buddhism.

Without ‘Vajra Wrath Eyes’, how can it confront the evil spirits? Without using ‘Thunderbolt Means’, how can it awaken the deluded?

The leadership team and leaders of the blockchain play a very important role in the development of the blockchain. However, they need to exert effort where it is needed and refrain from doing so where it is not needed in practice, striving for balance and avoiding conflicts of interest as much as possible.

Overall, many of the views and development directions Vitalik talked about in this interview are ones that I agree with, and they have also dispelled some of my previous worries and doubts.

Reference link: