What Vitalik is cursing at: 1/Create another EVM chain and add an optimistic bridge to Ethereum with a one week challenge period. This model has already been templated at the Infra level and is essentially no different from repeatedly forking Compound. It is secure but consumes imagination, leading to a dead end in direction. 2/EVM alt L1 without an optimistic bridge is even worse. The industry does not lack EVM chains, nor does it lack L1. Ethereum L1 is expanding and will provide a large amount of EVM blockspace, not infinite, but already sufficient. The key is not to create a new chain, but to introduce new capabilities. If the semantics, execution model, and security assumptions of EVM remain unchanged, the essential difference between calling it L2 or L1 is very small. The truly meaningful direction is to solve problems that are difficult to solve under the existing Ethereum architecture, such as privacy, application level efficiency, and extremely low latency. These are just examples, not exhaustive. The application chain itself is not a problem, provided that the dependency on L1 is structural. For example, market issuance and settlement are in L1, accounts are in L1, transactions are executed in base rollup or L2, and L1 status is directly read. 6/The architecture is almost independent, with only a bridge attached and an application chain that supplements the security level for narrative purposes. Essentially, the relationship with Ethereum is weak, and the connection is more of a posture. 7/Institutional application chain is another form of establishment, such as using Merkle root and STARK to chain database state, providing verifiable algorithm transparency, even if rules can be changed by operators, it still has practical value. 8. The external narrative should be consistent with the facts. Deep dependence on Ethereum can be directly referred to as Ethereum applications. If the rules are variable and institutions are dominant, do not rigidly label Ethereum.