Author: Blue Fox Notes

A few days ago, LayerZero announced the launch of the heterogeneous L1 chain Zero, in collaboration with Wall Street giants (Citadel Securities, DTCC, ICE, etc.). The goal for the Zero chain is to achieve 2 million TPS and reduce transaction fees to 1/10000 of a cent. If it can truly achieve this goal, it will surpass all current L1s.

Is the Zero chain good or bad for Ethereum? Is it a new "Ethereum killer"?

To conclude: Zero is not an Ethereum killer, but an amplifier of its ecosystem. It addresses expansion pain points and does not exclude ETH’s security anchoring; in the long run, it may push Ethereum to evolve from a "single machine" to a "multi-core hub".

Discussing from three aspects:

Firstly, from a technical perspective, Zero’s core technologies include: QMDB (quantum storage/100X write speed), FAFO (scheduling algorithm/parallel execution), and "infinite partition execution" (Zone independence, 2 million TPS), and it is compatible with EVM, allowing developers to migrate high-load DApps without rewriting Solidity code.

However, a closer examination of Zero's white paper reveals that it is not an "independent kingdom". It adopts a "compute-proof-verify" paradigm: execution is completed on Zero's heterogeneous multi-core, but ZK proofs (Jolt Pro zkVM, gigahertz-level speed) can bridge to Ethereum L1/L2 settlement layers, utilizing the decentralized security of over 1 million Ethereum validators. This is similar to L2's Rollup model but more flexible: instead of requiring mandatory calldata submission, it allows optional "hot-plug" bridging (LayerZero OFT standard, 100ms delay). DApp migration to Zero typically transfers 30-50% of the high-load execution portion (like NFT minting), while core governance and state synchronization can anchor ETH through OFT bridging, supporting optional hybrid deployment.

Why is it not a killer? If Zero truly wanted to disrupt, it would not need EVM compatibility (for example, Solana is self-sufficient with Rust); on the contrary, its design strikes at L2 pain points—read amplification and centralized orderers. Vitalik Buterin recently mentioned in a tweet that this kind of "external interoperability" can strengthen ETH's role as a "trust anchor" (though this does not refer to Zero, it has a similar effect). Technically, Zero can be akin to Ethereum's "execution external brain", rather than a substitute.

Thus, on a technical level, Zero is complementary to Ethereum, rather than disrupting in a zero-sum manner.

Secondly, in terms of ETH value capture, this is a concern for many ETH holders.

Zero's prompting of DApp migration may temporarily lead to ETH value outflow, such as a 5-10% drop in gas fees or a 2-3% diversion of TVL (based on historical simulations of L2). However, its economic model attracts traffic through low fees and can route a portion of cross-chain value back to ETH via OFT bridging, indirectly benefiting Ethereum's security anchoring and burning mechanism—especially in RWA DvP settlements, where the routing rate may be even higher.

Zero’s gas fee design is extremely user-friendly (0.0001 USD/Tx), optimized for RWA high-frequency settlements (such as DTCC's trillion-dollar clearing), but LayerZero protocol’s OFT standard requires cross-chain message/asset transfers, which can be verified by ETH, generating a 0.2-0.5% bridging fee.

RWA is a key leverage: Zero's collaboration with Citadel/ICE targets the tokenization of TradFi assets, but DvP (Delivery vs Payment) settlements can rely on ETH's security (accounting for over 60% of RWA TVL). BlackRock’s BUIDL fund has already invested in ETH, and Zero merely expands its execution end, facilitating significant value routing.

Assuming a scenario where Zero achieves 1 million TPS (baseline assumption), with annual bridging revenue of 3 billion USD, a substantial portion of that value would likely be captured by ETH (visibly exceeding L2 calldata capture by 2x). ETH, as a "currency cornerstone", benefits from Metcalfe's Law: the value of the network increases with the number of users across multiple chains.

Counterintuitively, Zero may be even more beneficial for Ethereum’s value capture compared to L2.

In summary, economically, Zero is not a "thief", but more likely a "traffic pump"—after DApps migrate, ETH gains more compound benefits rather than losses.

Thirdly, from an ecosystem perspective, the ecosystem is the lifeline of a blockchain. The Ethereum developer community accounts for about 70% (GitHub activity), and L2 ecosystems lock in 80% of DApps; if Zero were a "killer", it would need to rebuild its ecosystem from scratch. But the reality is that its interoperable DNA transforms ETH from an "island" into a "hub".

LayerZero has connected with over 150 chains (including Solana/BNB), and once Zero launches, multiple DApps may choose "hybrid deployment" (Zero execution + ETH governance). Most developers will view Zero as a "cure"—addressing L2 internal competition while promoting ETH toward Stage 2 decentralization.

By 2026, as cryptocurrency enters the "RWA era", Zero’s TradFi entry will attract non-crypto users, which is favorable for the expansion of the Ethereum ecosystem and will push Ethereum toward the role of a crypto hub.

In conclusion, Zero and ETH can collaborate in the RWA space; they do not have a typical L1-L2 relationship, but in terms of value and ecosystem, there may be opportunities to collaborate even better than with L2. The emergence of Zero does not signal a crisis for Ethereum, but rather an opportunity.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。