Ethereum researcher Dankrad proposed EIP-7938, which aims to significantly increase the gas limit of Ethereum L1 and achieve 10 times or even 100 times or more expansion of L1 in the next few years. Technically speaking, the Fulu Osaka upgrade that Ethereum plans to launch at the end of this year includes two important deployments: PeerDAS and Verkle Trees. PeerDAS can significantly increase Blob capacity (allowing nodes to confirm the availability of large chunks of data by only verifying partial data, which is beneficial for reducing L2 costs); Verkle Trees can optimize state storage (significantly reducing the size of state proofs, making stateless clients possible, facilitating more nodes to participate in the network, while also increasing gas limits or block sizes, and improving L1 throughput while ensuring decentralization, which may take longer to deploy). These two upgrades provide a partial technical foundation for the increase of gas restrictions on Ethereum. Of course, there will be controversies regarding household user participation here. In Dankrad's view, most Ethereum users interact through the default RPC of their wallets. The most important aspects here are transaction neutrality (i.e., anti censorship, where any submitted transaction will be included without being rejected) and verifiability (tamper proof and non falsifiable). Subsequent ZK technology will make verifiability easier. This type of proposal indicates that Ethereum researchers currently have a strong sense of crisis and urgency. Ethereum's past Pectra upgrade and the planned Fulu Osaka upgrade at the end of the year are both increasing L2 TPS or transaction costs. However, based on the current development trend, Ethereum needs to fundamentally consider its future competitive strategy. Strategy guides technology, not technology guides strategy. If there is no competition, then you can play slowly. But the current situation is obviously different from four years ago. Ethereum not only needs to consider improving the performance of L1, but also how to solve the liquidity fragmentation problem of L2 in a short period of time, and regain the dominant power of sorting value and other aspects to L1. The architecture of Ethereum L1/L2 itself is not a problem, the problem is that L2 lacks a deep binding relationship with L1, and L1 needs L2 to provide more value returns for its security services, forming a positive cycle relationship between both parties. The current state is more like Ethereum L1 serving L2 rather than ecological collaboration. Therefore, in the current situation, Ethereum L1 scaling is indeed important. However, higher priority than Ethereum L1 scaling is how to capture higher value/regain dominance within the Ethereum ecosystem, and thus form synergies and network effects. Simply improving the performance of L1, pushing L2 to the opposite side; What is more conducive to the development of Ethereum is to truly integrate L2 into the L1 system, rather than creating competitors again. Similar to L1 based shared sorting protocols (such as Jvranek's Signal boost, which utilizes L1 consensus mechanism to provide sorting services for L2), EIP-7762 (an L1 based sorting mechanism that provides decentralized sorting for L2 through L1 validator committee), EIP-7683 (an intent based cross chain transaction framework that allows users to submit cross L2 transaction intentions on L1, coordinated and executed by L1), FOCIL mechanism (which ensures fair inclusion of L2 transactions through L1's anti censorship mechanism to prevent L2 transactions from being maliciously excluded by L1 validators), Blob fee sharing (a portion of the Blob fee paid by L2 is returned to L1 validators or burned), etc. @VitalikButerin @tkstanczak @dankrad @ethereum @sassal0x @RyanSAdams @TrustlessState @ethereumfndn