Vitalik Buterin calls for Ethereum to abandon Optimistic "the appointed ZK as the orthodox", is it foresight or a dictatorship that stifles the ecosystem?

Vitalik Buterin, in order to solve user experience issues, is determined to promote ZK technology to replace OP. This is not just a technical upgrade but a political gamble for Ethereum to transition from "warring states" to "federation unification." This article deeply analyzes its grand layout and potential centralization risks. (Background: The Ethereum Foundation releases a ten-year blueprint: unlocking 1 million TPS for ETH, creating a quantum security defense line, and optimizing the protocol through three upgrades.) (Context: Is the NFT market's "happiness only lasts for a moment" a false recovery? Only blue-chip projects solidify Ethereum's position.) In the world of Ethereum, no statement can stir the nerves of the hundred billion dollar market more than a personal post from its founder Vitalik Buterin. Recently, a post from Vitalik triggered a shockwave: he believes that the future of Layer 2 scaling solutions should decisively abandon optimistic proofs (Optimistic Rollups, OP) and shift towards zero-knowledge proofs (Zero-Knowledge Rollups, ZK), aiming to reduce the time for users to withdraw assets from L2 to L1 from the currently maddening 7 days to within 1 hour. On the surface, this is a technical battle of "OP vs. ZK," but at its core, it is a profound "political appointment" initiated by the Ethereum core that deeply influences its future political and economic landscape: Vitalik is attempting to redraw the entire game's territorial map, integrating the L2 "warlord factions" with significant power into a "federal system" centered around L1. I personally completely agree with Vitalik's judgment about the future; a fast, seamless, and secure Ethereum is the ultimate goal for everyone. However, I have doubts about the "method" he advocates for change. This kind of appointed pathway, even if filled with foresight, could be a heavy blow to many teams currently surrounding the construction of Arbitrum, Optimism, and other L2 projects. I expect that after this statement, it will not only impact existing Optimistic Rollups users but will also force all developers, investors, and VCs to "see the situation clearly," essentially requiring them to gradually abandon the current route of Arbitrum and Optimism. Is this reform call a great leap forward or a catastrophe that stifles innovation? What exactly is Ethereum's path, and why can't it be determined by the market and pure community voting? When the survival of public chains cannot be determined by users but by founders, perhaps this becomes Ethereum's greatest hidden worry. Is Vitalik pursuing speed? Wanting to redefine security for user experience. It is actually easy to understand why Vitalik is so eager for "innovation"; many people focus on the "speed" of ZK technology, but the real motivation behind it is a more fundamental word: "security." This may sound contradictory; after all, the security model of OP is theoretically sound, as it ensures no fraudulent behavior through a lengthy 7-day "challenge period." However, theory is pale, and reality is stark. In the financial world, time is money, and it is extremely expensive money. Moreover, when Wall Street institutions are communicating with oracle agreements, they never understand why they need to wait seven days. For ordinary users, waiting a week to access their funds is not only a terrible experience but also an unbearable shackle. For liquidity providers who require high-frequency turnover, the capital cost of these 7 days is astronomical. It's like we have built a bank that is theoretically as solid as a fortress but requires a week's wait for every withdrawal. As a result, customers go to the nearby unregulated underground moneylender for emergency needs. So, what does the bank's "safety" mean? The answer may vary for different people, but Vitalik is clearly dissatisfied with the current situation. Therefore, this call is not merely a technical upgrade but a profound "security model revision." He expands the definition of security from "theoretical decentralization of protocols" to "minimizing risks based on actual user behaviors." The proposed 2-of-3 mixed solution (ZK + OP + TEE) precisely proves that this is not just a decision made by pure technical purists but a comprehensive safety upgrade consideration that compromises with the harsh reality. However, on the other hand, whether security is also just a perception by developers is not enough. In fact, facing such delays from Optimistic Rollups, the market has found its own "solution"; a large number of users flock to various third-party "cross-chain bridges," which provide immediate liquidity for users at the cost of sacrificing security through centralized methods. This creates an extremely ironic but reasonable and widespread situation: users, in order to escape the L2 withdrawal delays, turn to solutions filled with centralized risks and frequent hacking incidents. The trading bridge agreements of Arbitrum and Optimism may prioritize certain users, allowing them to withdraw small assets that have already passed the seven-day verification period first, but larger users may not be able to because Optimistic Rollups inherently limit liquidity. In principle, this erodes the core value of L2's original promise of inheriting L1's security, but honestly, this logic has been running very successfully in Arbitrum and Optimism, even extending to successful cases like Base. So, is the security Vitalik is pursuing the same as the security needed by the market? This might be a question worth pondering. From the Warring States to federal unification: The endgame of L2's power struggle. If revising the security model is Vitalik's "technique," then his true "way" is to end the "Warring States period" of L2 and open a unified "federal system." In recent years, with Arbitrum and Optimism at the forefront, L2 has flourished, each governing independently, forming isolated ecosystems, liquidity islands, and user groups. During the development phase of Layer 2, this kind of "barbaric growth" may have been necessary; it stimulated innovation and accommodated many different tracks. However, now, the "Balkanization" problem of L2 has become increasingly serious. Liquidity is severely fragmented, and users' experiences of traversing between different L2s are extremely disjointed. More importantly, many other chains and DA layers are increasingly drifting away from Ethereum's center, eroding Ethereum's network effect and its authority as an absolute core. The endgame blueprint Vitalik describes in the article, that phrase "achieving nearly instantaneous native cross-L2 asset transfers through L1," is key to understanding this grand strategy. The implication is that future communications between L2s should no longer rely on chaotic third-party bridges but must be unified and natively settled through the "mother ship" L1. This is a redistribution of the political landscape of Ethereum. Vitalik's goal is not to support a particular ZK team to defeat the OP team but to redefine the roles of all L2s—from "independent kingdoms" to "federal members." In this future, L1 will serve as the supreme "global settlement layer," responsible for unified asset issuance and final security confirmation. All L2s, whether you are ZK or OP, will focus on "execution" as small city-states. You may have different local characteristics (such as optimization for gaming or social interaction), but your "currency" and "laws" (assets and security) must be determined by the federal central authority.