Ethereum is entering a major redesign of how its main network and layer 2 systems work together, shifting away from a simple “main chain plus scaling networks” model toward a more unified structure built around shared security, faster settlement, easier cross-chain use and specialized execution environments.
The change is part of the Ethereum Foundation’s 2026 unified “scale” roadmap, which brings together several previously separate technical efforts. These include raising the gas limit, improving data availability, optimizing execution clients, advancing zkEVM attester clients and moving toward statelessness. Together, these upgrades are aimed at increasing Ethereum’s total capacity while making the relationship between the base layer and layer 2 networks less fragmented.
For traders, the shift matters because Ethereum’s growth is no longer only about cheaper transactions on secondary networks. The broader question is how value, activity and liquidity move across a network where the base layer becomes a stronger settlement and verification hub, while layer 2 networks take on more specific roles in privacy, governance, gaming, finance, compliance and application design.
Recent ecosystem figures show why the debate has become more urgent. Layer 2 networks linked to Ethereum now hold roughly $48.8 billion across 118 chains, according to recent community-tracked data. Daily transfers across these networks have moved above 27 million, while Ethereum base-layer fees have hovered near historic lows, around 0.15 gwei. Daily active users across the broader Ethereum environment have also recently reached about 2 million, showing that usage has expanded even as market pricing has not always reflected that growth.
The result is a turning point for Ethereum’s architecture. Layer 2 networks are not being pushed aside, but their role is being redefined.
A new role for layer 2 networks
Ethereum’s original scaling plan gave rollups a clear job. They would process transactions away from the base chain, compress the results and send the data back to Ethereum for settlement. This allowed Ethereum to support more activity without forcing every transaction to be executed directly on the main network.
That model worked because Ethereum’s base layer was expensive and limited in capacity. Rollups became the main way to make transactions cheaper and faster while still relying on Ethereum’s security.
But the technical picture is changing. If Ethereum’s own base layer becomes cheaper, faster and more capable, layer 2 networks need to provide more than lower fees. They are now expected to become specialized environments with features that may not be suitable for the main chain itself.
That could include private transfers, high-speed gaming systems, application-specific financial markets, customized governance models, enterprise compliance tools or isolated execution spaces for particular user groups.
In this new structure, Ethereum’s base layer acts more like a global settlement and verification hub. Layer 2 networks become parallel execution environments that connect to that hub, share its security and liquidity, and give applications more flexibility.
This is not a retreat from layer 2 scaling. It is a move toward a more complex and integrated design.
Why the roadmap changed
The Ethereum Foundation’s 2026 “scale” roadmap marks an important shift because it combines several technical workstreams into one capacity plan.
Instead of treating base-layer scaling and data expansion as separate tracks, the roadmap pulls them together. The goal is to increase how much Ethereum can process, how cheaply it can make data available and how efficiently clients can verify the state of the network.
That means higher gas limits are only one part of the plan. The roadmap also includes better execution clients, more efficient data availability systems, zkEVM attester clients and statelessness research.
Statelessness is especially important because it could reduce the burden on nodes that verify the chain. Today, nodes normally need access to large amounts of state data to check transactions and blocks. A more stateless design would allow verification with less local storage, making it easier for more participants to help secure the network.
The zkEVM attester work is equally important. If Ethereum validators can verify cryptographic proofs of execution instead of replaying every transaction themselves, the network could support more computation while keeping verification costs manageable.
That idea is central to the latest debate about whether Ethereum’s base layer could eventually behave in some ways like a rollup.
The debate over Ethereum as its own rollup
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently sparked discussion by noting that a self-expanding base layer could make parts of the original layer 2 scaling vision less central than before. Researcher Barnabé Monnot later said the long-term relationship between Ethereum’s layer 1 and layer 2 systems may need to be reassessed as proof systems improve.
The core idea is that if Ethereum itself can use zero-knowledge proofs to verify state changes more efficiently, then the boundary between base-layer execution and rollup-style execution becomes less sharp.
In a traditional rollup, one set of nodes executes transactions and produces results, while Ethereum verifies the proofs or data that show those results are valid. If similar proof systems become part of Ethereum’s own base layer, some nodes could perform heavier execution and generate proofs, while other nodes could verify those proofs at much lower cost.
That would make Ethereum’s base layer more scalable without requiring every validator to replay every transaction in full.
Monnot’s suggestion that Ethereum could act as “its own rollup” does not mean the main chain would become identical to today’s layer 2 networks. Rather, it points to a future where proof-based verification allows the base chain to expand while preserving decentralization and security.
This could also influence the next generation of layer 2 systems, sometimes described as native rollups.
Native rollups and shared verification
Native rollups would be more closely integrated with Ethereum’s own verification process than many current layer 2 systems. Today, different rollups may rely on different proof systems, upgrade controls, security councils or finality assumptions. That creates uneven trust models across the ecosystem.
If future rollups can connect directly into Ethereum’s native verification protocol, they may depend less on independent committees or separate security structures. Their confirmations could become more closely tied to Ethereum’s own consensus.
That would reduce fragmentation and make it easier for applications to operate across multiple execution environments.
In practical terms, a finance application on one layer 2, a gaming system on another and a private payment tool on a third could all settle back to the same Ethereum security base. If proofs and finality are synchronized, these environments could feel less like separate islands and more like different districts within one network.
This is one of the main goals of Ethereum’s current design shift: to preserve diversity at the execution layer while restoring unity at the settlement, liquidity and verification layers.
Interoperability becomes a priority
As Ethereum has grown, fragmentation has become one of its biggest problems. Users often need to move assets between layer 2 networks through bridges, manage liquidity across several chains and understand different fee systems. This has created friction for ordinary users and operational risk for active traders.
The 2026 roadmap places more focus on interoperability through account abstraction, the open intents framework and the Ethereum interop layer.
The open intents framework is aimed at making cross-chain actions easier by allowing users to express what they want to do, rather than manually choosing every technical step. For example, instead of separately bridging assets, swapping tokens and paying fees on different networks, a user could submit an intent and allow the system to find the best route.
The Ethereum interop layer is meant to reduce the separation between layer 2 networks by improving how they communicate and settle activity. If successful, it could make Ethereum’s broader ecosystem easier to use without forcing every application onto one chain.
For traders, this could change how liquidity is managed. A smoother interop layer may reduce the importance of isolated bridges and increase the value of systems that support shared liquidity, fast settlement and direct compatibility with Ethereum’s security model.
Account abstraction changes the user experience
Ethereum’s account model is also changing. One recent update, EIP-7702, allows externally owned accounts to temporarily behave like smart contracts. This gives regular wallets more advanced features without requiring users to fully migrate to a separate smart contract wallet.
The practical effect is that wallets can support more automation. Transactions can be bundled. Fees can be paid in more flexible ways. Approvals can become safer. Some actions that once required several manual steps can be handled through temporary smart contract logic.
A future proposal, EIP-8141, would go further by embedding smart account logic into the base protocol. That could make account abstraction a deeper part of Ethereum itself rather than an extra layer built on top.
These changes matter because Ethereum’s future is not only about throughput. It is also about making the network easier to use. If users can move across layer 2 networks without managing bridges, gas tokens and repeated approvals, Ethereum could regain the seamless feel that many users expected before the ecosystem spread across dozens of chains.
Faster finality could reshape cross-chain activity
Another major area of research is finality. Ethereum finality currently takes minutes, which can slow down cross-chain systems that need certainty before releasing assets or confirming positions.
Researchers are studying ways to reduce finality from minutes to seconds. This work includes refining validator sets, improving voting aggregation and separating parts of the consensus process so confirmations can happen more quickly.
Faster finality would be especially important for assets that move across multiple execution environments. Lending markets, tokenized real-world assets, decentralized finance applications and payment systems all benefit when state changes can be trusted quickly.
If one layer 2 network can rely on near-instant confirmation from Ethereum, it becomes easier for another layer 2 to accept that information without waiting through long security delays. This could make the ecosystem more composable, meaning applications can interact with each other more naturally.
A cheaper and faster state confirmation process would also reduce the need for slow liquidity pools or isolated bridge designs. That could pressure older projects that depend on fragmented liquidity and reward newer systems built around shared settlement.
Market implications for traders
The technical shift comes at a time when Ethereum activity and market pricing are sending mixed signals. Usage across layer 2 networks has expanded sharply, with daily transfers above 27 million and active users near 2 million. At the same time, base-layer fees remain extremely low, suggesting that capacity improvements and migration to secondary networks have changed the cost structure of Ethereum activity.
For traders, the key issue is not simply whether layer 2 activity is rising. It is which parts of the ecosystem are positioned to benefit from a more unified Ethereum design.
Older bridge tokens and isolated liquidity systems may face pressure if Ethereum’s interoperability roadmap succeeds. Systems that depend on users manually moving assets across fragmented networks could become less important over time.
By contrast, protocols tied to shared liquidity, native scaling, proof-based verification and account abstraction may become more relevant. Projects aligned with Ethereum’s planned upgrades, including the expected Glamsterdam update, could draw more attention if they help improve shared computing, verification or execution efficiency.
That does not mean all zero-knowledge or scaling tokens will benefit equally. The market is likely to distinguish between projects with real integration, working demand and useful infrastructure, and projects that rely mainly on broad narratives.
Tokens built around zero-knowledge systems may still attract attention because zkEVM proofs are becoming more central to Ethereum’s roadmap. If the base network increasingly uses proofs to verify execution, tools that make proving cheaper, faster or easier may become strategically important. But traders will still need to examine adoption, revenue, security assumptions and actual protocol usage rather than relying on the label alone.
A move away from isolated hubs
The long-term goal is to make Ethereum feel less like a messy collection of separate hubs and more like one connected network. Today, many users experience Ethereum through disconnected layer 2 systems, each with its own bridge, rules, liquidity and user interface.
The roadmap aims to change that by improving the technical links between those systems. If it works, Ethereum could support many execution environments while keeping one settlement base, one liquidity foundation and one broad security layer.
This would allow different applications to choose the execution environment that fits their needs. A game may want high throughput and low fees. A private payments app may need strong confidentiality. A financial market may need fast finality and deep liquidity. A regulated product may need specific compliance controls. Each could operate in a specialized environment while still connecting back to Ethereum.
That is the main difference between the old and new vision. Layer 2 networks are no longer just pressure valves for congestion. They are becoming specialized parts of a broader system.
What comes next
Ethereum’s next phase will depend on whether its research program can become reliable production infrastructure. Higher gas limits, better clients, data availability improvements, zkEVM attesters, statelessness, account abstraction and interoperability tools all need to work together.
The challenge is coordination. Ethereum is not a company with a single product roadmap. It is an open ecosystem of developers, researchers, validators, applications, wallets and traders. Changes need broad support and careful implementation.
Still, the direction is becoming clearer. Ethereum is trying to bring its scattered execution environments under a more unified framework without removing the flexibility that made layer 2 networks useful in the first place.
If successful, the network could combine several goals that once seemed difficult to balance: more capacity, lower costs, stronger verification, faster finality, better privacy options and simpler cross-chain use.
For traders, the coming months will likely bring closer attention to fee trends, layer 2 activity, open interest, bridge flows, proof-system progress and roadmap milestones. The most important signals may come from whether users actually experience Ethereum as one connected system rather than a collection of separate chains.
Ethereum’s redesign is not about replacing layer 1 with layer 2 or replacing layer 2 with a stronger layer 1. It is about merging both into a more coherent structure. The base layer is becoming a secure settlement and verification hub, while layer 2 networks are being pushed toward specialized execution and better interoperability.
The outcome could be a version of Ethereum that feels, once again, like a single network, even as it runs across many environments.
Deep dive into rollups, sharding, and L2s in our detailed guide: learn more about Ethereum scalability.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
