A blockchain's transaction capacity is equal to the capacity of its L1 plus the capacity of all L2s under its security. https://i.imgur.com/jAyzYVi.jpg

If an L2 gains a lot of usage and TVL, what incentive does it have to keep using and paying for ETH’s security rather than forking ETH to create its own L1 that is secured by its own token. This new L1 might have worse security properties but this seems like a trade off some may choose to make

co-founder stelo.com. theoretical cs phd dropout. into math, music, ml, macro, markets, surfing, writing amandhesi.net

possible! But:

- Security isn't free! Such an L2 would have to start paying for its own security, e.g. thru inflation

- L2 clients may optimize more for performance vs decentralization, making it challenging to become an L1 again

- You might not keep your TVL if you are suddenly far less secure than every other L2

1. seems like it’s the case with every PoS L1 - you need the same amount of inflation as ETH to provide the same staking yield

2. assumption is that the L2 will keep going as is and clients would continue using it, the L1 would be brand new

Totally agree w 3.

I just don’t see how this doesn’t happen given ince