Thank you, so once generalized smart contracts are available on L2 and there is mobility between L2 networks, is there any reason why people would continue to transact on Mainnet? I can only think of these:
(1) legacy usage with soon-antiquated contracts
(2) create new L2 systems
(3) in an emergency to recover funds from a broken L2
(4) long-term storage of value for large amounts
(5) moving legacy or large funds to L2
(6) staking on ETH2
It seems like an important discussion because – if this is the new model – then future onramps should be built to move mainstreet into L2 with Ethereum quietly at the bottom of the pyramid. The whole notion of “gas” disappears to the regular user as they will only be paying L2 fees.
I just discovered your other thread where you are promoting standardization to allow mobility between L2s. I hope the ETH foundation leadership will clarify the roadmap along these lines so developers can plan accordingly, and branding can be optimised. I think most people have the model upside down and think that Ethereum is at the top of the pyramid…as the gateway, with the L2s underneath. At least that was my paradigm until now.
It also tells me that ETH 1.5 is the end-game. What would be the point of sharding execution if it’s all happening on L2? The contract execution of ETH2 could happen within the Beacon chain, since it would primarily be just managing L2s and the data shards.
Actually, is it even necessary to merge ETH1 with ETH2, or could the L2 networks inter-operate with both until an effective shutdown of ETH1 some 5 years down the road? It would never be completely shutdown, but the ice-age would smoothly slow it down along with the issuance.
Edit: one more thought. If the L2s can operate on both ETH1 and ETH2 simultaneously, a two-way bridge is opened for the two versions of ETH, as any DEX can exchange the two forms at near parity.