How can Ethereum resolve the dilemma between internal rigidity and external evolution?

Author: Thejaswini MA

Translation: Luffy, Foresight News

Original Title: Ethereum: A "Frozen-Boned Shark" Longing for Stillness but Forced to Sprint

Ethereum is attempting to achieve a paradoxical balance: solidifying the underlying protocol (ceasing changes, locking in core rules, achieving predictability), while the entire system must maintain unprecedented operational speed. Layer 2 is scaling, Fusaka is paving the way for a tenfold increase in future data capacity, the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is being restructured, and validators are constantly adjusting the Gas limit. Everything is in motion.

The solidification theory holds that the underlying network (Layer 1) can be frozen, and innovation can occur on the upper layers. But is this really the case? Or is Ethereum simply repackaging ongoing changes as "minimalism" because it sounds more responsible?

Let’s first look at what the Fusaka upgrade actually did. It introduced the PeerDAS mechanism, fundamentally changing the way validators verify data. Validators no longer need to download the full Rollup data block, but instead randomly sample part of the data and use erasure codes to reconstruct the complete content. This is a major change in the network’s operational architecture and is being deployed as part of the "Surge" expansion phase.

In addition, there are forks that only include blob parameters. These small hard forks are designed to gradually increase data capacity. After Fusaka went live on December 3, the first BPO fork will be implemented on December 17, raising the blob target value from 6 to 10; the second fork will take place on January 7, further increasing it to 14. The ultimate goal is for each block to support 64 blobs, an eightfold increase over current capacity.

Is this solidification? Clearly not. This is iterative capacity expansion on a fixed schedule, with rules still changing, just in smaller, more predictable increments.

There’s also the EIP-7918 proposal, which sets a minimum reserve price for blob Gas fees. Essentially, Ethereum controls the data availability market, and now, even when demand is low, it will charge a minimum fee.

This reflects Ethereum’s pricing power and is a way for it to capture value as the data layer that Layer 2 depends on. This may be a wise business strategy, but it is by no means solidification; on the contrary, it is the underlying network actively managing its relationship with Layer 2 to capture more value.

So, what does solidification really mean here?

It means the protocol aims to stop modifying core rules, while continuing to adjust various parameters:

• Consensus mechanism freeze (maintaining Proof of Stake, PoS)

• Monetary policy freeze (retaining the EIP-1559 burn mechanism)

• Core opcode freeze (smart contracts from 2020 can still run normally)

But throughput, data capacity, Gas limits, and fee structures? These are still constantly changing.

It’s like claiming the "Constitution" is "frozen" because amendments are rare, but the Supreme Court reinterprets it every decade. Technically true, but in practice, it’s always in flux.

The Ingenuity of the Ethereum Interoperability Layer (EIL)

If Ethereum wants to look like a single chain, while in reality it is composed of dozens of Layer 2s, then it needs some kind of unifying layer. This is where the Ethereum Interoperability Layer (EIL) comes in.

EIL aims to make independent Layer 2s 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 (XLPs) advance the required Gas fees and funds for each chain through an atomic swap process secured by staking on the underlying network.

The key is that XLPs must lock collateral on the Ethereum base layer and set an 8-day unlock delay. This period is longer than the 7-day fraud proof window of Optimistic Rollup. This means that if an XLP tries to cheat, the fraud proof mechanism has enough time to penalize their staked assets before they can transfer funds.

This design is quite ingenious, but it also adds a layer of abstraction: users no longer need to manually bridge between Layer 2s, but instead rely on XLPs to do so. Whether the system works depends on whether XLPs are reliable and competitive; otherwise, fragmentation will reappear at a new level.

The success of EIL also depends on actual adoption by wallets and Layer 2s. The Ethereum Foundation can build the protocol, but if mainstream Layer 2s choose to keep users within their own ecosystems, EIL will ultimately become a mere ornament. 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"

Meanwhile, 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 billions USD; it subsequently filed for a staked Ethereum ETF. Institutions not only want exposure, but also want yield.

BlackRock is also using Ethereum as infrastructure: its BUIDL fund tokenizes US Treasuries and money market instruments and deploys them on Ethereum, expanding to Layer 2s such as Arbitrum and Optimism. In its eyes, Ethereum is like the TCP/IP protocol of the internet—a neutral settlement rail.

This is both recognition and control. When BlackRock designates Ethereum as the infrastructure layer for tokenized assets, it is undoubtedly an endorsement of trust, but it also means Ethereum begins to optimize itself to meet BlackRock’s needs: predictability, stability, compliance-friendly features, and a dull but reliable infrastructure profile.

Vitalik has warned of this risk. At the DevConnect conference, he mentioned the potential problems if base layer decisions are mainly made to cater to Wall Street’s "comfort": if the protocol tilts toward institutions, the community that upholds decentralization will gradually disappear; if it tilts toward the cypherpunk crowd, institutions will leave. Ethereum is trying to balance both, and this tug-of-war will only intensify.

There’s also the speed issue: some proposals advocate reducing block times to 150 milliseconds, which is extremely beneficial for high-frequency trading and arbitrage bots, but ordinary people cannot effectively participate in governance or form social consensus at such speeds. If the network runs too fast, it will become a tool for "machine-to-machine" interactions, and the political legitimacy that gives Ethereum value will gradually erode.

Quantum Computers and the Soon-to-Disappear Elliptic Curve

Another threat comes from quantum computing. At the DevConnect conference, Vitalik stated: "The elliptic curve will eventually disappear." He was referring to the elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) that secures user signatures and validator consensus. Quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm can derive private keys from public keys, thus breaking ECC.

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

In this context, solidification is meaningless.

If quantum attacks become a reality, Ethereum must survive through massive, disruptive hard forks. No matter how much the protocol pursues stability, once the cryptographic foundation collapses, everything will be lost.

Compared to Bitcoin, Ethereum is in a more favorable position:

• Public keys are hidden by address hashing and only exposed during transfers

• Validator withdrawal keys are also hidden

• The roadmap already includes replacing ECDSA with quantum-resistant schemes such as lattice-based cryptography or hash-based signatures

But implementing this migration faces huge coordination challenges: how to complete key conversion for millions of users without jeopardizing fund security? How to set a deadline for wallet upgrades? What will happen to old accounts that do not migrate? These are not only technical issues, but also social and political questions about who has the authority to decide the network’s future.

The quantum threat confirms a rule: solidification is a choice, not a law of physics. The "skeleton" of Ethereum can only remain frozen as long as the environment allows; when the environment changes, the network must adapt or perish.

In addition, Vitalik donated 760,000 USD to encrypted communication apps Session and SimpleX, stating that privacy is "crucial for protecting digital privacy," and set the next goal as permissionless account creation and metadata privacy protection.

The Ethereum Foundation has established a privacy task force dedicated to making privacy a default feature, rather than an add-on. Projects like the Kohaku wallet are developing easy-to-use privacy tools that do not require users to understand complex cryptography.

The core concept is "privacy as hygiene," as commonplace as washing hands. People do not need a special reason to pursue financial privacy; this should be the default state.

But this contrasts with the requirements of regulators, who need transparency and traceability. Stablecoins, tokenized Treasuries, BlackRock’s BUIDL fund—all of these come with compliance expectations. Ethereum cannot be both Wall Street’s infrastructure layer and realize the cypherpunk dream of "privacy first." There may be a way to have both, but it will require extremely sophisticated design.

The Shark That Longs to Freeze

Can Ethereum achieve this balance?

• Solidify the base layer while allowing Layer 2 to continue innovating?

• Meet the needs of both BlackRock and the cypherpunks?

• Complete the cryptographic upgrade before quantum computers arrive?

• Enable default privacy without alienating institutions?

Perhaps it’s possible. The modular design is quite ingenious: the base layer is responsible for security and settlement, Layer 2 is responsible for execution and experimentation, and this separation of duties may work. But this requires EIL to unify the Layer 2 experience, and also requires institutions to trust that the base layer will not make changes that break their expectations.

It also requires the Ethereum community to accept that solidification means giving up some control. If the protocol is frozen, the community will not be able to fix problems or add features through forks. This is a trade-off: the price of stability is the loss of flexibility.

Sergey believes Ethereum needs to continue evolving, and this view is not wrong; but Vitalik’s view that the protocol cannot change forever is also reasonable. The key is to let innovation happen at the edges, while the core remains stable.

The shark claims it wants to freeze, the cryptographers say the skeleton needs to be replaced, Wall Street wants a docile tool, and the cypherpunks want wild freedom.

Ethereum is trying to play all these roles at once, while blocks continue to be produced. This is Ethereum: cold bones, a moving shark.