Which Layer 1 & 2 would be the Final Player?

Instead of asking “Which Layer 1 or Layer 2 will be the final winner?”, it’s often more interesting (and useful) to step back and ask the “macro” questions first—the kind that frame the entire competi

---

⚡ The Wrong Question: “Who Will Be The Final Player?”

• The assumption baked in here is that there will be one chain to rule them all, like how TCP/IP became the protocol of the internet.

• But crypto may not be “winner-take-all.” Blockchains are social + political + economic systems, not just protocols.

• Network effects exist, but so do fragmentation forces: different regulatory regimes, different user bases (DeFi vs gaming vs social), different trust models.

So if you just ask “which chain wins?”, you risk missing the deeper structural forces shaping the field.

---

🌍 The Macro Questions That Really Matter

Here are some macro-level questions I’d argue are more fundamental than “which L1/L2 wins”:

1. Will blockchains converge or specialize?

   • Do we end up with one global settlement layer (like Ethereum), with everything else as rollups?

   • Or do we see domain-specific sovereign chains: one for payments (TON), one for DeFi (Ethereum + rollups), one for gaming (Solana), one for data availability (Celestia)?

2. What is the real bottleneck for mass adoption—tech, regulation, or UX?

   • If tech is the bottleneck → the best scaling solution (validiums, modular DA, sharding) wins.

   • If regulation is the bottleneck → the most compliant, enterprise-friendly chain wins (e.g. Hedera, Polkadot parachains, permissioned L2s).

   • If UX is the bottleneck → the chain most deeply integrated into existing apps (TON with Telegram, Base with Coinbase, maybe PayPal’s stablecoin infra) wins.

3. What is the final “unit of trust”?

   • Do users trust Ethereum security (decentralization > all)?

   • Or do they trust distribution channels (Telegram, Coinbase, Binance)?

   • Or do they trust regulators & states (CBDCs, permissioned chains)? → The answer defines whether L1 sovereignty really matters, or whether L2s and custodial rails dominate.

4. How modular vs monolithic will the stack be?

   • Monolithic thesis (Solana): vertical integration → speed & UX.

   • Modular thesis (Ethereum rollup world, Celestia): horizontal specialization → flexibility & resilience.

   • Macro question: which system architecture will “win user mindshare” 5–10 years out?

5. Do users even care which chain they’re on?

   • If chains become commoditized infra (users don’t see L1, only app), then the “final player” may not be a chain at all—it could be an aggregator of blockspace, or a super-wallet.

   • Then the real macro question is: Who controls the entry point to users? (Telegram? Coinbase? MetaMask? Apple?)

---

🔑 My Take

So the macro-interesting question is not:

“Which L1/L2 survives as the final player?”

But rather:

“What layer of the stack will capture the ultimate source of value—blockspace, distribution, or user attention?”

That’s the first-principle question.

• If blockspace commoditizes, the “final player” isn’t an L1/L2—it’s whoever aggregates liquidity and attention.

• If security/decentralization is the scarce good, Ethereum (and its rollup ecosystem) probably persists as the base layer.

• If UX and distribution are decisive, then TON (Telegram), Base (Coinbase), or even non-crypto tech giants could emerge as the effective “winners.”

---

Solana vs Ethereum: Everything you need to knowphantom.com