The Ethereum ecosystem has undergone significant transformation with the rise of Layer 2 (L2) solutions, designed to enhance scalability by processing transactions off-chain while leveraging Ethereum’s (Layer 1) security. However, recently I’ve noticed an X post by zak.eth on March 14, 2025 (zak.eth’s X post), have raised concerns about L2s capturing substantial economic value—through fees, Maximal Extractable Value (MEV), and liquidity—while Ethereum stakers receive minimal benefits. These analysis explores the issue, its implications, and proposed solutions, providing a comprehensive overview for stakeholders.
Don't miss out on more posts like this—subscribe now!
What Are Layer 2 Solutions?
L2 solutions, such as rollups (Optimistic and zk-Rollups), are secondary networks built on Ethereum to handle transaction processing off-chain, then settle on Layer 1. This reduces congestion on Ethereum, lowering fees and increasing throughput, with recent reports noting Ethereum’s capacity now at 1,000 transactions per second (Ethereum Layer 2 benefits). For example, L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism batch transactions, posting data to Ethereum for security, inheriting its decentralization while offering faster, cheaper transactions. This model has driven adoption, with L2s like Base, built on the OP Stack, seeing significant activity.
The Value Capture Disparity
The core issue, as highlighted by zak.eth, is that L2s are extracting significant value while contributing minimally to Ethereum stakers. Fees collected by L2s, such as Base reportedly pulling $2.5M in February 2025 while paying Ethereum less than $11,000, illustrate a stark imbalance. This data, while specific to zak.eth’s claim, aligns with broader observations that L2 operators retain most user fees, with only gas costs for L1 transactions (e.g., posting batches) flowing back to Ethereum. For instance, L2Fees.info shows L2 transaction fees can be as low as $0.04 for sending ETH on Metis Network, compared to $1.10 on Ethereum, yet the proportion paid back is minimal (L2Fees.info data).
MEV, the value from transaction ordering, is another area where L2s capture value, with operators or sequencers benefiting rather than Ethereum stakers. This shift risks reducing Ethereum to a “dumb security layer,” as zak.eth warns, potentially diminishing staker incentives and network security over time.
Data and Analysis
To quantify, consider the fee structure: L2s incur L2 execution fees (kept by operators) and L1 data fees (paid to Ethereum). For Base, an Optimistic Rollup, L1 data fees are the cost of posting transaction batches to Ethereum, but zak.eth’s figures suggest this is a small fraction of L2 revenue. For example, a Grayscale report notes L2s keep around 24% of fees, with 76% going to Ethereum, but this seems contradicted by zak.eth’s example, where Base’s contribution is negligible (Grayscale L2 report). This discrepancy highlights the need for better data, though zak.eth’s claim underscores the perceived inequity.
Proposed Solutions
Zak.eth’s X thread proposes three solutions to align L2 and L1 interests:
- ETH Staking Deposits for L2 Sequencers:
- Require L2 sequencers to stake ETH as collateral, similar to Ethereum validators. This could align operators with network security, with staked ETH at risk for misbehavior. However, it’s unclear how this directly benefits existing stakers, as rewards would likely accrue to the stakers themselves, not the broader pool. This proposal, while innovative, lacks detailed implementation and could face resistance from L2 operators.
- Settlement Fees to Ethereum Stakers:
- Mandate L2s pay a portion of their fees to Ethereum stakers, potentially through a smart contract distributing funds proportionally. This direct approach could ensure stakers benefit from L2 activity, but mechanics (e.g., fee percentage, distribution method) are debated. It could enhance staker incentives but might increase L2 operational costs, affecting user fees.
- MEV Redistribution:
- Route L2-generated MEV back to Ethereum stakers, ensuring value from transaction ordering benefits the security layer. This requires L2 operators to capture and transfer MEV, possibly via a shared protocol, but implementation details are complex. It aligns with efforts like EigenLayer’s shared security model, though not specifically for L2s according to EigenLayer’s discussion on reddit.
These proposals, while promising, are not yet implemented, and their feasibility depends on community consensus and technical integration. The controversy lies in balancing L2 profitability with L1 sustainability, with stakeholders debating economic alignment versus innovation freedom.
Implications and Future Considerations
If unresolved, the value capture disparity could weaken Ethereum’s economic model, reducing staker participation and network security. Recent discussions, like Multicoin Capital’s 2019 analysis, suggest L2s must store valuable state to capture value, but current models favor L2 operators (Multicoin Capital L1/L2 value capture). With Ethereum’s transition to Proof of Stake and scaling via rollups, ensuring staker benefits is critical, especially given L2 profitability challenges noted in recent web resources.