1-hour withdrawal, Vitalik's L2 strategic shift

Thinking carefully about Vitalik Buterin's latest remarks on fast withdrawals for L2 is quite interesting.

In simple terms: he believes that achieving a quick withdrawal within 1 hour is more important than reaching Stage 2, and the logic behind this prioritization is worth deep consideration:

1. The one-week withdrawal waiting period has indeed become a major issue in practical applications, not only resulting in poor user experience but also significantly increasing cross-chain costs. For example, in intent-based bridging solutions like ERC-7683, liquidity providers have to bear a week's worth of capital occupation costs, which directly raises cross-chain fees. The result is that users are forced to choose multi-signature solutions that assume weaker trust, which goes against the original intention of L2.

So Vitalik proposed a 2-of-3 hybrid proof system (ZK+OP+TEE), where ZK and TEE can provide immediacy, and both TEE and OP have sufficient production verification.

In theory, any two systems can ensure security, thus avoiding the time cost of simply waiting for ZK technology to mature completely.

2. Another point is that Vitalik's new statement makes people feel that he has become more pragmatic? From the previously idealistic youth who talked about "decentralization crusade" and "anti-censorship", he has now transformed into a pragmatic faction that directly provides hard indicators: 1-hour withdrawals, 12-second finality, everything has become straightforward and blunt.

Previously, everyone was focused on the level of decentralization in Stage 2, but now Vitalik has directly stated that quick withdrawals are more important, which effectively re-prioritizes the entire L2 track.

This is actually paving the way for the ultimate form of the "Rollup-Centric" grand strategy, allowing Ethereum L1 to truly become a unified settlement layer and liquidity hub. Once fast withdrawals and cross-chain aggregation are achieved, other public chains will find it even more challenging to compete with the Ethereum ecosystem.

The reason why Little V is doing this is that the market has already voted with its feet, telling him the result. The market does not care about the slogans of decentralization; it focuses more on experience and benefits. This shift from "ideal-driven" to "result-oriented" reflects the entire Ethereum ecosystem evolving towards a more commercial and competitive direction.

3. The problem arises: to achieve the long-term goals of real-world experience and infrastructure construction, the upcoming Ethereum ecosystem will likely revolve around the maturity of ZK technology and cost control.

From the current situation, although ZK technology is advancing rapidly, costs remain a real constraint. A ZK proof with over 500k gas means that submission frequency can only achieve hourly levels in the short term. To achieve the ultimate goal of 12 seconds, breakthroughs in aggregation technology are still needed.

The logic here is very clear: the cost of a single Rollup frequently submitting proofs is too high, but if the proofs of N Rollups can be aggregated into one, it becomes economically feasible when distributed across each slot (12s).

This also presents a new technical route for the L2 competitive landscape. Those L2 projects that can take the lead in breakthroughs in ZK proof optimization may find their footing, while those still stubbornly focused on Optimism's optimistic proofs are likely to lose their direction.