The secret war between L2 and L1, who can be the winner of DApp revenue?

L2 has an operational advantage over L1 because L2 pays only for a single sequencer, while L1 pays for the security of all validators. Although L2 cannot compete with L1 on Liquidity, its potential in the dApp economy will drive the crypto industry's transformation from infrastructure to a profit-driven, long-term business model. This article is written by 0xtaetaehoho, Chief Security Officer of EclipseFND, and is compiled, compiled, and contributed by zhouzhou, BlockBeats. (Synopsis: BTC L2 Bitlayer launches Cross-Chain Interaction Bridge BitVM Bridge, using "minimal trust technology" to release BTCFi mega dollar Liquidity) (Background supplement: Vitalik long article: Ethereum L1 and L2 how to develop? First expand the blob space, L2 should be distributed to Mainnet. The following is a decision matrix from a dApp perspective, analyzing whether to deploy to L1 or L2 in the current environment, assuming that both support similar types of applications (i.e., L1/L2 is not customized for a specific application type). Apart from the relatively small MEV (maximal extractable value) due to the centralization of Block producers, L2 has not yet taken full advantage of other advantages. For example, despite L2's potential for lower transaction costs and faster throughput, Solana is still ahead of L2 in the EVM ecosystem in terms of performance and transaction cost. As Solana continues to increase throughput and advance MEV tax mechanisms such as ASS and MCP, L2 needs to explore new ways to help dApps maximize revenue and drop costs. My current view is that L2 has a structural advantage over L1 to execute dApp revenue maximization strategies more quickly. One of the key roles of the executive layer in maximizing app revenue is how fees/MEV are distributed. Currently, MEV taxation or fee sharing presupposes an "honest block proposer", i.e., a proposer willing to follow prioritization rules or share revenue with the app according to preset rules. Another way is to allocate a portion of the EIP1559's base cost to the dApp with which the user interacts, a mechanism that Canto CSR and EVMOS seem to employ. At the very least, this allows dApps to increase their ability to bid on MEV revenue and become more competitive in the deal inclusion market. In the L2 ecosystem, if the Block proposer is run by a team (i.e., a single Block Proposer), then it is inherently "honest" and can guarantee the transparency of the Block Algorithm through reputation mechanisms or TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) technology. At present, two L2s have adopted the Fee Share and Priority Block builds, and Flashbots Builder can also provide similar functions for the OP-Stack ecosystem with minor changes. In the SVM (Solana Virtual Machine) ecosystem, Jito-like infrastructure can redistribute MEV revenue to dApps proportionally (as measured by CUs, Blast uses a similar mechanism). This means that L2 can enable these features more quickly while L1 is still working on MCP and built-in ASS scenarios (Solana may advance this work, but there is no CSR-like revival plan in the EVM ecosystem). Because L2 can rely on trusted block producers or TEE technology without the need to enforce OCAproof, it is possible to adjust dApps' MRMC (revenue, cost, MEV competition) model faster. But the advantages of L2 are not just the speed of development or the ability to redistribute fees, they are also subject to fewer structural constraints. The living conditions of the L1 ecosystem (i.e., the conditions that maintain the validators network) can be described by the following equation: total number of validators × validators operating costs + stake capital requirements × capital costs < TEV (inflation + total network fees + MEV tips) From the perspective of a single validator: validators operating costs + stake capital requirements × capital costs > inflation gains + Money Laundering + MEV Earnings In other words, L1 wants to drop inflation or reduce fees (by splitting dApps) with a hard constraint – validators must remain profitable! This limitation is even more pronounced if validators have higher operating costs. For example, Helius notes in a SIMD228-related article that if inflation is reduced according to the proposed issuance curve, 3.4% of the current validators may exit due to a decline in profitability at a 70% stake rate (assuming REV maintains its 2024 Fluctuation level). REV (MEV share in stake) extreme fluctuation: ・ On the date of the TRUMP event, the REV share was as high as 66% ・On November 19, 2024, the REV share was 50% ・ Current (at the time of writing), the REV share is only 14.4% This means that in the L1 ecosystem, there is a ceiling to reduce inflation or adjust the allocation of expenses due to the pressure of validators profitability, and L2 is not subject to this, so it can explore more freely Strategies to optimize dApp revenue. Olana validators currently face higher operating costs, which directly limit "shareable profit margins," especially as inflation falls. If Solana validators have to rely on REV (the MEV share of stake revenue) to remain profitable, the total percentage that can be allocated to dApps will be severely limited. This presents an interesting trade-off: the higher the operating costs of validators, the higher the overall take-rate of the network. From the perspective of the network as a whole, the following formula must be met: Total network operating costs (including capital costs< Total network REV + issuance amount Ethereum is a similar situation, but less affected. Currently, ETH stake's APR (APR) is between 2.9%-3.6%, of which about 20% comes from REV. This also means that Ethereum's ability to optimize dApp revenue is also constrained by validators' monetization requirements. This is where L2 has a natural advantage. On L2, the total operating cost of the entire network is only the operating cost of a sequencer, and there is no capital cost because there is no stake funding requirement. Compared to L1, which has a large number of validators, L2 requires a very small profit margin to maintain breakeven. This means that L2 can allocate more value to the dApp ecosystem while maintaining the same profit margin, thereby greatly increasing the revenue space of the dApp. The network cost of L2 will always be lower than that of L1 of the same size, because L2 only needs to periodically "borrow" the security of L1 (taking up part of L1's block space), and L1 must bear the security cost of its entire block space. L1 vs L2: Who Can Dominate the dApp Economy? By definition, L2 cannot...