What do you think of Solana’s launch of the Network Extention plan?

Author: haotian

Recently, @solana Foundation also blew the horn of "network expansion". Interestingly, it abolished the name "layer2" and named its network expansion plan Network Extention. I can't help but ask, has Ethereum layer2 really become the target of public criticism? According to Solana, can the general layer2 be fully transformed into a specific-purpose chain to solve the layer2 dilemma? Next, let me talk about my views:

1) Layer2 has been the hottest narrative in the past two years, without a doubt. It stands to reason that it should take on the expectations of this round of bull market and become another summer for Ethereum outside of DeFi Summer. However, the bleak currency price in reality cannot support this expectation, resulting in the entire track experiencing emotional backlash and strong bearish sentiment.

But aside from the emotional entanglement, I have always believed that layer2 is relatively successful. The success is that layer2 has diverted part of the main network traffic, so that the main network no longer bears the high gas congestion pressure, which is consistent with the original goal and vision of layer2 (although it has been criticized for bloodsucking, parasitism, etc.);

But in essence, I think the biggest success of layer2 is to eliminate the Alt-layer1 narrative of Ethereum Killer. At least so far, Ethereum is still the only choice besides Bitcoin in the blockchain world. Other high-performance layer1, parallel EVM, modularization, chain abstraction, etc. are all supplemented by the assumption that Ethereum is the "center". Putting aside the currency price, this is the success of the Rollup-Centric strategy.

2) Whether it is layer2 or Network Extention, they are all based on the outward expansion of the main network. Ethereum's layer2 builds an off-chain state network with more intensive computing, high and low gas, and faster transaction rates, focusing on "functional" extension; Solana's network expansion emphasizes more specific solutions to specific problems, such as a variety of solutions including new execution environments and specialized processing capabilities: State Compression, Neon compatible with EVM environment, cNFT for large-scale processing, privacy transactions, etc.

I don't think there is any difference between the two. If you have to say that the differences can be barely summarized in two points:

1. Ethereum's own performance is inherently limited, and it has no choice but to "passively" seek expansion, while Solana's own chain focuses on high performance, and expansion is actually "actively" embracing other solutions that try to be compatible to expand the radiation front.

2. The infra foundation of Ethereum layer2 track is already very mature, and it has even reached the point where infra development is far ahead of the application market. The recently criticized Blobs space has not been fully utilized, which illustrates this point. In contrast, Solana's expansion plan is still a blue ocean. Recently, Solana has promoted SOON, a business stacking paradigm similar to OP Stack, and proposed Network Extention, all of which are aimed at promoting the prosperity of this B-side business narrative.

In the final analysis, it is just a matter of first come, and we cannot favor one over the other. After all, if you don't think Ethereum's layer2 strategy is successful, how should you view the Ethereum business story that Solana is trying to replicate?

3) As for the controversy between General-Purpose chains and Specific-Purpose chains. I heard that Ethereum's general chain sucks liquidity from the main network like a vampire, and some more targeted Specific chains that can make up for the shortcomings of the main network are worth promoting. At first glance, it makes sense, and it makes people feel that Ethereum's "general chain" has become the original sin, as if the layer2 strategic path has gone wrong.

But in fact, Ethereum's initial layer2 solutions include: @loopringorg, StarkEX, @DeGateDex, etc. Early layer2 projects are all in the category of specific use cases. Ethereum layer2 has always been developed in two legs, General and Specific. In addition, there are many layer2 categories such as Validium, Plasma, Parallel, etc.

So, the problem is not that the general chain has become the original sin, but that the specific chain has not been effectively developed.

Moreover, there is no clear boundary between the specific chain and the general chain. For example, Starknet can be regarded as a specific chain at the beginning. Its Cario programming language, its parallel execution capabilities, its STARKs algorithm-intensive computing, etc. are all unique.

However, after further development in the later period, Starknet sat on the throne of the four kings and unconsciously became the expected general chain. Therefore, whether it is a specific chain or a general chain is entirely a matter of market expectations and application scenarios, and is not the key to distinguishing the pros and cons of layer2 strategies.