Et Ethereum L2s Loading... : Investor Sentiment and Bull/Bear Views

Ethereum L2s are unlikely winners because most were single-threaded without localized fee markets, their aggregate throughput remains below a single high-throughput chain, and they do not solve the execution/trading requirements for a global exchange.

Clay chose to focus Colosseum primarily on Solana and does not see that changing soon. He argues Solana's higher performance, higher throughput, and lower fees make it the right infrastructure if crypto is moving from the infrastructure era to the application era, where apps need to scale to millions of users. He also points to Solana's resilient developer culture after FTX and says building on a monolithic chain avoids the developer apprehension, counterparty risk, and technical overhead of choosing among Ethereum L2s such as Base, Optimism, and Arbitrum.

The rise of Tron for Tether transfers shows Ethereum is too slow and expensive for stablecoins, and Ethereum L2s are not getting the job done. This makes ETH/L2s structurally vulnerable as stablecoin and tokenization activity migrates to purpose-built chains like Plasma.

The Sui/Avalanche comparison shows users do not want subnets or L2s; they want one fast base-layer chain because interoperability across many chains is confusing and no one has solved the UI. Ethereum's fracturing reinforces this preference, making L2/subnet exposure unattractive.