Prix de Zilliqa

$GRVT Independent “standalone” Layer 1 blockchains promised control—self-run validator sets, bespoke consensus rules, and the freedom to build infrastructure without relying on another network. But for some projects, the economics of maintaining a full security and execution stack have become harder to justify as costs rise and outside funding for smaller L1s has tightened. Last week, Zilliqa said it plans to move away from its L1 model and transition to an Ethereum-based Layer 2. In its announcement, the team pointed to a simple problem: usage never reached the level a standalone chain needs, while funding and liquidity for independent L1s have dried up—an environment made more unforgiving by recent hacks that underscored how expensive it is to secure a network on its own. Key takeaways Zilliqa is planning a shift from its independent Layer 1 to an Ethereum-based Layer 2, citing insufficient usage and limited standalone funding. Industry analysts argue that smaller L1s face structural profit challenges because they must fund both network security incentives and core protocol operations. Gnosis is pushing an “Ethereum Economic Zone” approach aimed at enabling synchronous interactions between Ethereum-based networks, including via its RollupX test network. Not all teams are converging on Ethereum settlement alone—some institutions continue to build independent L1s, suggesting no single “L1 vs L2” winner yet. Why Zilliqa is leaving the standalone L1 model Zilliqa’s decision reflects a broader trend: running an independent chain requires more than technical execution. A Layer 1 typically needs to handle multiple core functions—execution, consensus, data availability and settlement—while also funding token incentives used to secure the network through staking. According to Bitwise senior research analyst Max Shannon, the question ultimately comes down to profitability. In his view, many L2 models only need to maintain execution and do not necessarily require a token in the same way an L1 must, making the operating model potentially more attractive both financially and operationally. Shannon also highlighted a widening gap between larger networks and the rest. In CoinShares-style fee tracking summarized in the article, the top ten projects generated substantial fee revenue over the past 365 days—enough to support higher margins—while networks outside the largest cohort collectively earned far less annually. The takeaway for investors and builders is that strong community enthusiasm and ambitious roadmaps do not automatically translate into sustainable protocol economics. At the same time, moving to an Ethereum L2 doesn’t guarantee profitability by default. Shannon pointed to networks where expenses outweigh fee revenue, and noted that at least one project (Blast) has already shut down. For users, this matters because it suggests that “Ethereum integration” can reduce certain costs, but it does not eliminate the need for real demand, reliable execution, and a business model that can cover ongoing development and operational expenses. Ethereum settlement as the new default—plus the “liquidity” argument While cost savings are a major driver, the Ethereum pull goes beyond lighter infrastructure burdens. The argument for Ethereum settlement often centers on liquidity and access to an already-established ecosystem rather than building network effects from scratch. Gnosis illustrates a more ambitious version of this idea. Although the project has long been Ethereum-adjacent, it is working on a transition that targets spring 2027 to complete a move into an Ethereum-based “Ethereum Economic Zone” (EEZ). The plan would replace Gnosis Chain’s own validator-based consensus with Ethereum settlement—effectively shifting where the security anchor sits. Gnosis’s EEZ initiative, according to the article, aims to allow separate Ethereum-based networks to interact synchronously. The goal is to let smart contracts on one network call another and use the response within the same transaction, without relying on the usual bridge-and-wait process. In practical terms, this is an effort to reduce friction across chains and make composability feel more native. Ethereum supporters are watching this closely. The article cites ETH bull materkel describing the EEZ concept as a potential “black hole for liquidity,” implying that if interoperability improves, more value and activity could concentrate around Ethereum’s wider onchain liquidity. Whether that happens will depend on execution—especially the ability to coordinate different rollup or chain designs without creating new bottlenecks or complexity. Shared security without losing sovereignty—where interoperability still breaks There is also a growing view that Ethereum settlement and chain sovereignty need not be opposites. In the article, Matter Labs co-founder and chief executive Alex Gluchowski—whose company builds Ethereum L2 ZKsync—said he expects more teams to keep their own chains while using Ethereum for settlement. Gluchowski’s framing is straightforward: running an independent L1 usually means maintaining not only security but also building something users actually want. By contrast, sharing Ethereum’s security can free resources to focus on application-level value. He added that he sees few user needs that require a truly independent L1 rather than an Ethereum-based chain. But the most significant obstacle is interoperability. The article notes that today’s L2 ecosystems often feel isolated from each other and from Ethereum itself, with jumping between networks possible but far from seamless. Fragmentation becomes especially problematic when privacy is involved, because connecting private execution environments can be difficult. For applications handling sensitive information, Gluchowski argued that retaining control over transaction privacy and confidentiality may still matter. He suggested that interoperability between private environments will become increasingly important as more apps try to combine confidential activity with access to public blockchain liquidity. Not everyone is consolidating on Ethereum—and that matters Despite the momentum behind Ethereum-centric rollups and settlement, the article cautions against assuming a clean, inevitable consolidation of every chain into Ethereum’s orbit. Shannon argued that the market is not yet following a straightforward “L1 loses, L2 wins” path. He noted that some large institutions are indeed launching L2 networks, citing examples including Coinbase and Robinhood. At the same time, other institutions are continuing to build independent L1s, with the article pointing to Circle’s Arc, Stripe’s Tempo, and Hyperliquid’s purpose-specific perpetual futures blockchain. The practical implication for readers is that Ethereum’s gravitational pull is real—but competition for builders and institutional support may persist in parallel. The real battleground may be less about which architecture is “pure” and more about which designs can sustain demand, align incentives, and maintain profitability over time. Going forward, the key question for the industry is whether improved interoperability—especially synchronous interactions proposed by initiatives like Gnosis’s RollupX/EEZ—can translate into durable economic advantages for chains, not just better technical narratives. Investors and users should watch for evidence that these migrations reduce risk and increase usage, while keeping fragmentation and privacy trade-offs under control as more projects consider similar shifts. This article was originally published as Security and Cost Pressures Push Alt-L1 Projects Toward Ethereum on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

$GRVT Running an independent blockchain has always come with a particular promise: control. A standalone Layer 1 architecture allows projects to be the masters of their own destiny, set the rules of consensus, maintain their own validators and build infrastructure around their users, without relying on any other network. But with great power comes great responsibility — and considerable expense. Blockchains need enough users, developers and economic activity to support the infrastructure that secures them. For some smaller networks, keeping an entire ecosystem afloat no longer makes economic sense. Zilliqa is the latest project to confront that reality, announcing plans last week to move away from its L1 architecture and become an Ethereum-based Layer 2 (L2) instead: “We know it’s not great. For nine years we built and ran our own Layer 1. It hasn’t worked.” “Usage never reached what a standalone chain needs,” the post explained. “Funding and liquidity for standalone L1s dried up. The recent hacks showed how much it takes to secure a chain alone. The data is onchain for everyone to see.” Zilliqa is not alone. Blockchain ecosystem Gnosis (which has always been Ethereum-adjacent) is also working to transition Gnosis Chain into an Ethereum-based network through its Ethereum Economic Zone (EEZ) initiative. Its RollupX test network intends to show how participating chains can share Ethereum settlement and synchronous composability as native rollups. Gaming-focused Ronin blockchain also completed its move back to Ethereum as an L2 in May. With interest in alt L1s drying up along with the funding, will we start to see more and more chains consolidating in the Ethereum ecosystem? The cost of going it alone Independent L1s generally have to keep several core functions going, including execution, consensus, data availability and settlement. They must also fund the token incentives used to secure their networks through staking. Related: What are native rollups? Full guide to Ethereum’s latest innovation “It comes down to a chain’s profitability,” Max Shannon, senior research analyst at Bitwise, tells Magazine. ZIL becomes a Layer 2 on Ethereum. Source: Zilliqa “L2s only need to maintain execution and do not necessarily need a token, which makes them a more attractive financial and operational proposition,” he says. Shannon says the top ten largest projects are more financially sustainable. Coinbase and Robinhood’s L2 networks generated $48 million and $52 million in fees respectively over the last 365 days, with margins above 90%. The next eight largest chains each generated more than $1 million annually. From 11th place onward, however, annual fees collectively amounted to less than $1 million. So a network may have ambitious technology and a dedicated community, but those things don’t necessarily pay the bills. Ethereum is often criticized for giving away too much of its revenue to L2s, but that’s precisely what makes it attractive to set up projects there. But just becoming an Ethereum L2 doesn’t automatically make a network profitable however. Shannon points to Optimism, Katana and Linea as examples of networks whose expenses outweigh their fee revenue. Projects like Blast have already been forced to shut down. Ethereum as a liquidity ‘black hole’ Gnosis has targeted spring 2027 to complete its transition, which will see it give up its independent validator-based consensus in favor of Ethereum settlement. Gnosis Chain will relaunch as an Ethereum Economic Zone. Source: Gnosis “Two years ago I gave a talk about ‘native Rollups’ that would truly extend Ethereum instead of being isolated chains,” co-founder Martin Köppelmann said, adding that RollupX “even goes beyond what I had imagined back then!” Gnosis’s EEZ initiative aims to enable separate Ethereum-based networks interact synchronously, so a smart contract on one network can call another and use its response within the same transaction, without relying on the usual bridge-and-wait process. That’s a prospect that has some Ethereum supporters particularly bullish, with ETH bull materkel describing the EEZ as a potential “black hole for liquidity,” and saying it could allow participating networks to tap into Ethereum’s total value locked (TVL) and strengthen its position as a liquidity hub. Could network effects, and increased interoperability draw more and more chains into Ethereum’s orbit? Beyond the cost savings It isn’t only the operating cost economics that make sense. Projects can also tap into an established ecosystem of applications and developers rather than building those network effects from scratch. Related: Privacy tools are rising behind institutional adoption, says ZKsync dev Alex Gluchowski, co-founder and chief executive of Matter Labs, the company behind Ethereum L2 ZKsync, says he expects more L1 teams to maintain their own chains while using Ethereum for settlement. “Running an independent L1 means maintaining its security as well as building something people want to use,” Gluchowski tells Magazine. “Sharing Ethereum’s security gives a team more room to focus on its users. I see very few user needs that require an independent L1 rather than an Ethereum-based chain.” But Gluchowski says sovereignty and Ethereum integration are not mutually exclusive, since chains can retain control over their rules and operations while using Ethereum for shared settlement. Ronin completed migration to Ethereum in May. Source: Ronin And for applications handling sensitive financial information, maintaining a private environment under their own control can be essential, he says. Shared settlement does not have to mean exposing confidential transaction data. The biggest obstacle today is that all the L2s are effectively isolated from each other and from Ethereum. It’s certainly possible to jump between them, but its far from seamless and interoperability is poor. “Fragmentation is already happening,” Gluchowski says, pointing to the difficulty of connecting networks when transactions involve privacy. Interoperability between private environments will become more important as more applications seek to combine confidential activity with access to public blockchain liquidity, he says. Does every chain need Ethereum? Shannon cautions against describing the market as undergoing straightforward consolidation around Ethereum. Some large institutions are launching L2 networks, he says, including Coinbase and Robinhood, but others are still choosing to build independent L1s, like Circle’s Arc, Stripe’s Tempo, or Hyperliquid’s purpose-specific perpetual futures blockchain. “So there is no clear conclusion to the L1 versus L2 debate as yet,” he says. Magazine: ‘Bunker mode’ won’t protect your crypto, critics say

$ZIL Trust on the layer2

$ZIL Just chilling