Solana’s Yakovenko Challenges Ethereum Narrative: “L2s Don’t Inherit ETH Security”

68

By CoinEpigraph Editorial Desk

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko has sparked a new round of debate in the blockchain world, asserting that Ethereum’s Layer-2 (L2) networks do not automatically inherit the base layer’s security. His remarks strike at the heart of Ethereum’s scalability narrative and question whether its expanding ecosystem of L2s truly shares the same trust model as the mainnet.

A Fault Line in the Security Assumption

Speaking on social channels earlier this week, Yakovenko called the long-standing claim that “L2s inherit ETH security” “erroneous.”
He argued that while Ethereum’s base layer remains robust, each L2 introduces independent code paths, multisig structures, and bridge mechanisms that expand the overall attack surface.

“Every L2 is its own blockchain,” Yakovenko noted. “It can fail in ways that have nothing to do with Ethereum’s consensus.”

His point: an L2’s rollup proofs or bridge custodians may connect to Ethereum, but the security of user assets ultimately depends on the quality of the L2’s internal design — not merely its anchoring contract on mainnet.

Layer-2 Boom, Fragmented Trust

Ethereum’s scaling roadmap hinges on L2 networks that batch transactions off-chain before settling to mainnet. Yet, with over 120 verified L2s now in operation, Yakovenko’s critique raises practical questions: how many of them genuinely provide mainnet-level assurance?

Analysts note that many rollups and sidechains rely on trusted sequencers or multisignature bridges — central points of failure that could undermine decentralization. The claim of “inherited security,” Yakovenko suggests, glosses over these operational differences.

By contrast, Solana’s model focuses on high-throughput execution directly on a single base layer, avoiding the fragmentation of rollups. While the two philosophies aim at similar goals — scalability and cost reduction — they approach trust and verification from opposite directions.

Implications for Builders and Users

Yakovenko’s warning isn’t an attack on Ethereum, but a call for precision in how security is communicated to the public. Developers building on L2s must understand the independent risk models; users should verify how assets are bridged, sequenced, and finalized.

If his critique gains traction, it may influence how institutions assess the systemic risk of multi-chain ecosystems — especially as more value migrates to L2s. For investors, the debate underscores that “Ethereum compatibility” does not necessarily equal “Ethereum security.”

👉 “The CoinEpigraph Bottom Line”

In the arms race to scale blockchains, the strongest claim may not be who processes the most transactions — but who proves they can secure them.

---

At CoinEpigraph, we are committed to delivering digital-asset journalism with clarity, accuracy, and uncompromising integrity. Our editorial team works daily to provide readers with reliable, insight-driven coverage across an ever-shifting crypto and macro-financial landscape. As we continue to broaden our reporting and introduce new sections and in-depth op-eds, our mission remains unchanged: to be your trusted, authoritative source for the world of crypto and emerging finance.
— Ian Mayzberg, Editor-in-Chief

COINEPIGRAPH does not offer investment advice. Always conduct thorough research before making any market decisions regarding cryptocurrency or other asset classes. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future outcomes. All rights reserved ™ © 2024-2028.