kryptokhalifa 🐉 $MON $XTER retweeted
Everyone is arguing about which L2 is fastest.
That's the wrong argument.
The real question isn't how many transactions fit inside one chain.
It's how many chains can exist in parallel without breaking each other.
2/ For years, blockchain scaling has been treated as a vertical problem.
Take one chain.
Make it process more.
Compress transactions.
Improve execution.
Add blobs.
Reduce costs.
Keep squeezing more throughput out of the same system.
It works, until it doesn't.
3/ Eventually, every shared environment runs into the same problem:
Competition.
When every application shares the same blockspace, they also share the same congestion.
One app's success becomes everyone else's bottleneck.
Shared blockspace is shared risk.
4/ A gaming launch shouldn't slow down a DeFi trade.
An AI agent swarm shouldn't affect an RWA marketplace.
A consumer app shouldn't compete with infrastructure protocols for execution.
Yet that's exactly what happens when everything lives on the same chain.
1
4
6
51
kryptokhalifa 🐉 $MON $XTER retweeted
Jun 10
Onchain, Unlimited.
1
5
7
69
Tristan retweeted
Jun 12
Deploying a chain should be as easy as deploying a container.
With Validium's modular stack, it is.
Launch app-specific chains in minutes.
High-performance execution.
Your rules.
Ethereum security.
Infrastructure built for AI, gaming, and the next generation of onchain applications.
1
4
6
52
kryptokhalifa 🐉 $MON $XTER retweeted
This is the most important line in the whole thread: "much of what gets called tokenization today is actually closer to digitization."
A token that just mirrors an offchain ledger is a receipt. A token that can be used as collateral, remixed, and settled atomically is infrastructure.
The 10x growth is real, but the next 100x won't come from putting more receipts onchain. It comes from making those assets actually do something. Composability isn't a feature of tokenization; it's the entire point.
The bottleneck was never demand. It's scalable, low-cost rails that institutions can trust. That's the layer being built now.
2
5
6
218
Most L2s are built to scale everything.
That usually means they're optimized for nothing.
ValidiumNetwork takes a different approach:
A zkValidium L2 purpose-built for workloads that actually demand scalable performance.
→ DeAI - AI-native applications and autonomous coordination
→ RWAs - low-cost, compliant asset tokenization
→ Gaming - sub-second interactions without fee friction
Instead of forcing all data onto L1:
→ Execution scales off-chain
→ ZK proofs preserve security
→ Modular DA keeps costs efficient
High throughput without unnecessary overhead.
Not one chain trying to do everything.
One architecture optimized for specific workloads.
What are you building?
3
6
70
1 /
Speed isn’t what will break blockchain scaling.
Data availability will.
And most people aren’t paying attention to it.
Here’s why it matters, and how @ValidiumNetwork is solving it 🧵
2 /
Every off-chain transaction still depends on one thing:
the data being available.
Why?
→ To verify state
→ To audit the system
→ To reconstruct history
If users can’t access the data, the system isn’t trustless.
It’s just trust-based with better branding.
3 /
The default approach today:
Post everything on-chain.
Every transaction. Every state update. Stored by thousands of nodes.
Secure? Yes.
Efficient? Not even close.
This is why costs rise, and why scaling hits a wall.
1
4
7
60
Apr 20
7/
This is exactly what ValidiumNetwork does.
→ Execution runs off-chain via ZK-rollup tech (ZKSync)
→ ZK proofs posted on-chain — cryptographic guarantees, not trust
→ Raw data goes to Avail — accessible but not chain-congesting
The chain only holds what it needs to hold.
8/
The security model is the key insight.
ZK (Zero-Knowledge) Proofs mean the on-chain verifier doesn't need to re-run every computation.
It just checks the proof. If the proof is valid, the transactions are valid.
Mathematically. No exceptions.
9/
So what does this unlock?
→ Sub-second transaction finality
→ Fees that don't spike when the network is busy
→ Privacy-preserving transactions
→ Horizontal scalability — more users doesn't mean slower chain
/10
Modular isn't a gimmick. It's the architecture the industry is converging on.
@ValidiumNetwork is building the infrastructure layer for this modular future, and we're on Testnet now.
1
17
1,289
Apr 13
A very compelling direction. Reach out through messages for collaboration 💎
7
Mar 27
The L1 ↔️ L2 relationship only works when L2s genuinely extend Ethereum to new users & use cases.
That’s been our north star at @validiumnetwork, bringing Ethereum security to builders who need scale without compromise.
Modular. ZK-secured. Built for new onchain economies.
Testnet live → validium.network
Mar 23
1/ How L1 and L2s can build the strongest possible Ethereum
tldr: we should continue to lean into the unique capabilities of each layer, and make sure all users have a clear path to securely and seamlessly benefit from the core properties of Ethereum
3
6
8
1,992
I think the point of this is that L2 must find a way to scale Ethereum beyond reducing gas fee and all that………I see why @ValidiumNetwork would make sense
Feb 3
There have recently been some discussions on the ongoing role of L2s in the Ethereum ecosystem, especially in the face of two facts:
* L2s' progress to stage 2 (and, secondarily, on interop) has been far slower and more difficult than originally expected
* L1 itself is scaling, fees are very low, and gaslimits are projected to increase greatly in 2026
Both of these facts, for their own separate reasons, mean that the original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path.
First, let us recap the original vision. Ethereum needs to scale. The definition of "Ethereum scaling" is the existence of large quantities of block space that is backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum - that is, block space where, if you do things (including with ETH) inside that block space, your activities are guaranteed to be valid, uncensored, unreverted, untouched, as long as Ethereum itself functions. If you create a 10000 TPS EVM where its connection to L1 is mediated by a multisig bridge, then you are not scaling Ethereum.
This vision no longer makes sense. L1 does not need L2s to be "branded shards", because L1 is itself scaling. And L2s are not able or willing to satisfy the properties that a true "branded shard" would require. I've even seen at least one explicitly saying that they may never want to go beyond stage 1, not just for technical reasons around ZK-EVM safety, but also because their customers' regulatory needs require them to have ultimate control. This may be doing the right thing for your customers. But it should be obvious that if you are doing this, then you are not "scaling Ethereum" in the sense meant by the rollup-centric roadmap. But that's fine! it's fine because Ethereum itself is now scaling directly on L1, with large planned increases to its gas limit this year and the years ahead.
We should stop thinking about L2s as literally being "branded shards" of Ethereum, with the social status and responsibilities that this entails. Instead, we can think of L2s as being a full spectrum, which includes both chains backed by the full faith and credit of Ethereum with various unique properties (eg. not just EVM), as well as a whole array of options at different levels of connection to Ethereum, that each person (or bot) is free to care about or not care about depending on their needs.
What would I do today if I were an L2?
* Identify a value add other than "scaling". Examples: (i) non-EVM specialized features/VMs around privacy, (ii) efficiency specialized around a particular application, (iii) truly extreme levels of scaling that even a greatly expanded L1 will not do, (iv) a totally different design for non-financial applications, eg. social, identity, AI, (v) ultra-low-latency and other sequencing properties, (vi) maybe built-in oracles or decentralized dispute resolution or other "non-computationally-verifiable" features
* Be stage 1 at the minimum (otherwise you really are just a separate L1 with a bridge, and you should just call yourself that) if you're doing things with ETH or other ethereum-issued assets
* Support maximum interoperability with Ethereum, though this will differ for each one (eg. what if you're not EVM, or even not financial?)
From Ethereum's side, over the past few months I've become more convinced of the value of the native rollup precompile, particuarly once we have enshrined ZK-EVM proofs that we need anyway to scale L1. This is a precompile that verifies a ZK-EVM proof, and it's "part of Ethereum", so (i) it auto-upgrades along with Ethereum, and (ii) if the precompile has a bug, Ethereum will hard-fork to fix the bug.
The native rollup precompile would make full, security-council-free, EVM verification accessible. We should spend much more time working out how to design it in such a way that if your L2 is "EVM plus other stuff", then the native rollup precompile would verify the EVM, and you only have to bring your own prover for the "other stuff" (eg. Stylus). This might involve a canonical way of exposing a lookup table between contract call inputs and outputs, and letting you provide your own values to the lookup table (that you would prove separately).
This would make it easy to have safe, strong, trustless interoperability with Ethereum. It also enables synchronous composability (see: ethresear.ch/t/combining-pre… and ethresear.ch/t/synchronous-c… ). And from there, it's each L2's choice exactly what they want to build. Don't just "extend L1", figure out something new to add.
This of course means that some will add things that are trust-dependent, or backdoored, or otherwise insecure; this is unavoidable in a permissionless ecosystem where developers have freedom. Our job should make to make it clear to users what guarantees they have, and to build up the strongest Ethereum that we can.
1
2
67