How Ethereum resolves the dilemma of internal rigidity and external evolution

Author: Thejaswini MA

Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News

Original Title: Ethereum: A “Frozen Bone Shark” That Yearns for Stillness but Must Run Wild

Ethereum is attempting to achieve a contradictory balance: the underlying protocol is solidifying (stopping changes, locking core rules, achieving predictability), yet the entire system needs to maintain unprecedented operational speed. Layer 2 is scaling up, Fusaka is paving the way for 10 times the data capacity in the future, the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is being restructured, and validators are continuously adjusting the Gas limit. Everything is in motion.

The solidification theory suggests that the underlying network (Layer 1) can be frozen, allowing innovation to occur above it. But is this really the case? Or is Ethereum merely repackaging continuous changes as “minimalism,” simply because this notion sounds more responsible?

First, let's take a look at what the Fusaka upgrade has done. It introduces the PeerDAS mechanism, fundamentally changing the way validators verify data. Validators no longer need to download the complete Rollup data blocks; instead, they randomly sample portions of the data and use erasure coding to reconstruct the complete content. This is a significant transformation in the network's operational architecture and is being deployed as part of the “Surge” scaling phase.

In addition, there are forks that only contain Blob parameters. These small hard forks aim to gradually increase data capacity. After Fusaka's launch on December 3, the first BPO fork will be implemented on December 17, raising the blob target value from 6 to 10; a second fork will take place on January 7, further increasing it to 14. The ultimate goal is to support 64 blobs per block, an 8-fold increase over the current capacity.

Is this considered solidification? Obviously not. This is an iterative capacity expansion carried out according to a fixed schedule, with the rules still changing, just advancing in smaller, more predictable increments.

There is also the EIP-7918 proposal, which sets a minimum reserve price for blob gas fees. Essentially, Ethereum controls the data availability market, and even in times of low demand, it will still charge a floor fee.

This reflects Ethereum's pricing power and serves as a means for value capture as its data layer dependent on Layer 2. This may be a wise business strategy, but it is by no means fixed; on the contrary, it is the underlying network that actively manages its relationship with Layer 2 to obtain more value.

So, what does solidification mean here?

It means that the protocol aims to stop modifying the core rules while continuously adjusting various parameters:

• Consensus Mechanism Freeze (Maintain Proof of Stake PoS)
• Monetary policy freeze (retain EIP-1559 burn mechanism)
• Core opcode freeze (smart contracts from 2020 can still operate normally)

But the throughput, data capacity, gas limit, and fee structure? These are still constantly changing.

It's like claiming that the Constitution is “frozen” due to the rarity of amendments, yet the Supreme Court reinterprets it every decade. Technically valid, but always in flux in practice.

The Ingenuity of the Ethereum Interoperability Layer (EIL)

If Ethereum wants to look like a single chain while actually being composed of dozens of Layer 2s, it needs some sort of unifying layer. This is where the Ethereum Interoperability Layer (EIL) comes into play.

EIL aims to allow independent Layer 2s to present a “single Ethereum” experience without introducing new trust assumptions. Its technical mechanism is: users sign a single Merkle root to authorize synchronized operations across multiple chains; cross-chain liquidity providers (XLP) advance the Gas fees and funds required by each chain through atomic swap processes secured by staking on the underlying network.

The key point is that XLP must lock collateral on the Ethereum underlying network and set an 8-day unlocking delay. This timeframe is longer than the 7-day fraud proof window of Optimistic Rollup. This means that if XLP attempts to cheat, the fraud proof mechanism has enough time to impose punitive deductions on its staked assets before it transfers funds.

This design is very clever, but it also adds a layer of abstraction: users do not need to manually cross chains between Layer 2, but rely on XLP to complete it. Whether the system can operate depends on whether XLP is reliable and competitive; otherwise, the fragmentation problem will reappear at a new level.

The success of EIL also depends on the actual adoption of wallets and Layer 2. The Ethereum Foundation can build protocols, but if mainstream Layer 2s choose to keep users confined within their own ecosystems, EIL will ultimately become just a decoration. This is the “HTTP dilemma”: even if a perfect standard is designed, if platforms refuse to implement it, the network will remain fragmented.

BlackRock and the “Comfortable Cage”

At the same time, Ethereum is attracting institutional funds on a large scale. BlackRock launched the iShares Ethereum Trust ETF in July 2024, and by mid-2025, inflows had exceeded $13 billion; subsequently, they submitted an application for a staking Ethereum ETF. Institutions not only want exposure but also seek returns.

BlackRock will also use Ethereum as infrastructure: its BUIDL fund will deploy tokenized U.S. Treasury and money market instruments on Ethereum and extend to Layer 2 solutions such as Arbitrum and Optimism. In its view, Ethereum is like the TCP/IP protocol in the internet, serving as a neutral settlement rail.

This is both recognition and control. When BlackRock designates Ethereum as the infrastructure layer for tokenized assets, it is undoubtedly a vote of confidence, but it also means that Ethereum is beginning to optimize itself to meet BlackRock's needs: predictability, stability, compliance-friendly features, and boring yet reliable infrastructure attributes.

Vitalik has warned about this risk. At the DevConnect conference, he mentioned the potential problems if the underlying network decisions primarily cater to Wall Street's “comfort”: if the protocol leans towards institutions, the community that upholds the principle of decentralization will gradually dwindle; if it leans towards the cypherpunk community, institutions will pull out. Ethereum is trying to balance both sides, but this tug-of-war will only become more intense.

There is also the issue of speed: some proposals advocate shortening the block time to 150 milliseconds, which is extremely beneficial for high-frequency trading and arbitrage bots. However, ordinary people cannot effectively participate in governance or form social consensus at such a fast pace. If the network operates too quickly, it will become a tool for “machine-to-machine” interactions, and the political legitimacy that gives Ethereum its value will gradually erode.

Quantum Computers and the Vanishing Elliptic Curves

Another threat comes from quantum computing. Vitalik stated at the DevConnect conference: “Elliptic curves will eventually become obsolete.” He was referring to elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) that secures user signatures and validator consensus. Quantum computers running Shor's algorithm can derive private keys from public keys, thereby breaking ECC.

Timeline? Possibly before the next U.S. presidential election in 2028. This means Ethereum has only about 3-4 years to migrate the entire network to quantum-resistant cryptography.

In this case, solidification is meaningless.

If quantum attacks become a reality, Ethereum must survive through a large-scale, disruptive hard fork. No matter how stable the protocol seeks to be, once the cryptographic foundation collapses, everything will turn to nothing.

Compared to Bitcoin, Ethereum's position is more favorable:

• The public key is hidden by address hashing and is only exposed during transactions.
• The validator withdrawal key is also hidden.
• The roadmap has included quantum-resistant solutions such as lattice-based cryptography or hash-based signatures to replace ECDSA.

However, implementing this migration faces enormous coordination challenges: how to complete the key conversion for millions of users without compromising the safety of funds? How to set a deadline for wallet upgrades? What will happen to old accounts that have not migrated? These are not only technical issues but also social and political questions regarding who has the authority to determine the future of the network.

Quantum threats confirm a rule: freezing is a choice, not a physical law. Ethereum's “skeleton” can only remain frozen under permissible conditions; when the environment changes, the network must either adapt or perish.

In addition, Vitalik also donated $760,000 to the encrypted communication applications Session and SimpleX, stating that privacy “is essential for protecting digital privacy,” and set the next goal for permissionless account creation and metadata privacy protection.

The Ethereum Foundation has established a privacy working group dedicated to making privacy a default feature rather than an afterthought. Projects like the Kohaku wallet are developing user-friendly privacy tools that do not require users to understand complex cryptographic knowledge.

The core idea is “privacy is hygiene,” as commonplace as washing hands. People should pursue financial privacy without needing special reasons; this should be the default state.

However, this contrasts with the requirements of regulators, who need transparency and traceability. Stablecoins, tokenized government bonds, BlackRock's BUIDL fund—all of these come with compliance expectations. Ethereum cannot simultaneously serve as the infrastructure layer for Wall Street while also realizing the crypto-punk dream of “privacy first.” Perhaps there is a way to achieve both, but it would require extremely precise design.

Desire Frozen Shark

Can Ethereum achieve this balance?

• While the underlying network is solidifying, how can Layer 2 continue to innovate?
• Meeting the needs of both BlackRock and crypto punks?
• Complete cryptographic upgrades before the arrival of quantum computers?
• How to maintain default privacy without alienating institutions?

It may be feasible. The modular design is quite ingenious: the underlying network is responsible for security and settlement, while Layer 2 is responsible for execution and experimentation. This separation of responsibilities is expected to be effective. However, this requires EIL to achieve a unified Layer 2 experience and also requires institutions to trust that the underlying network will not undergo changes that disrupt their expectations.

This also requires acceptance from the Ethereum community: hardening means relinquishing some control. If the protocol is frozen, the community will not be able to fix issues or add features through forking. This is a trade-off: the cost of stability is the loss of flexibility.

Sergey believes that Ethereum needs to continuously evolve, and this viewpoint is not wrong; however, Vitalik's assertion that the protocol cannot change forever is equally reasonable. The key is to allow innovation to occur at the edges while keeping the core stable.

The shark claims it wants to freeze, the cryptographers say the bones need to be replaced, Wall Street wants docile tools, while the cypherpunks want wild freedom.

Ethereum is trying to play all roles at the same time, while blocks are still being continuously produced. This is Ethereum: cold bones, moving sharks.