More and more companies are attracted to the idea of launching their own Network Ethereum Layer 2. Most of them should not bother. There is already an amazing number of them: more than 150. Many of these are centralized and linked to a single company and several companies such as Robinhood have recently announced plans to launch their own layer networks 2.
The attractions to launch an Ethereum Layer 2 network are significant, especially compared to the launch of its own layer 1 (Base layer) Blockchain. Capa 1 networks must compete with networks such as Ethereum and Solana in an already intensely competitive and full of people. The networks of the layer 2 that are executed on Ethereum also face an intensely competitive market, but can simultaneously take advantage of the strength of the Ethereum ecosystem, thanks to the deep integration in Ethereum.
With Ethereum that turned 10 in July, it is still the dominant smart contract block chain and is the largest individual house for digital assets, active world assets (RWA)ESTABLISHES AND APPLICATIONS OF DECENTRALIZED FINANCE. Ethereum’s participation in the general decentralized financial ecosystem has been stable at approximately 50% for three years. When layer 2 networks are included in the total, it seems to be increasing modestly.
The temptation to launch its own Ethereum Layer 2 network is easy to understand: they seem like a useful concept with a great economy. A layer 2 network at the upper part of Ethereum offers a bit of functionality of “the best of both worlds”: it can control its own ecosystem within its layer 2, but retains the integration and access to the Ethereum general ecosystem. Centralized networks of layer 2 can establish their own price structures and have almost all the same controls as an independent private block chain, such as deciding who has access to the network and what type of data will be visible to others.
This comes with a cost. Capa 2 networks must buy transaction processing space at Ethereum Mainnet to finish their transactions (known as BLOB space) -But it is likely that these costs are lower than those associated with the beginning of a network from scratch and compete in front with Ethereum. In fact, according to Token Terminal, the costs of developing a layer 2 are remarkably low. For the base, a layer 2 directed by Coinbase, during June 2025, the network generated $ 4.9 million in tariff revenues and spent only $ 50,000 in the liquidation rates of layer 1.
In fact, the liquidation rates of layer 1 in Ethereum are so low that they have tried a burning debate within the network ecosystem on whether they are too low, and the networks of the layer 2 represent a transfer of benefits of the interested parties of the layer 1 to the networks of layer 2. It is likely that this is in a recession of the tariffs, but even a 10x increase in the tariff Fundamentally good value proposal that comes with the scale with the networks of layer 2.
In addition, Robinhood’s recent announcement will build their own layer 2 network in Ethereum validates fundamentally the general thesis of layer 2 within Ethereum: the networks of layer 2 are not only a good scale option, they also allow a variety of commercial models that will attract a wide range of companies to join the network. The ecosystem of layer 2 is likely to have a range of participants from the participants of the participants.
And this leads us to the key question: Does your company need your own layer 2? Most likely, no. The real value proposal of a blockchain ecosystem is the ability to work in cooperation with others without any part to control the network. If you are a manufacturing company, for example, you want to work with your suppliers and customers on a leveling playing field with your competitors. Blockchains let everyone join without favoring any participant. In the long run, working together on a level game field is much cheaper and preferable to try to integrate into different systems controlled by each of its clients or key suppliers.
While some layer 2 networks are very profitable at this time, this is only true if it can generate a good volume of transactions. Many of the networks of Capa 2 that operate are doing little or no business, since they fight to differentiate themselves in a market full of people. According to L2Beat, most of these networks have less than $ 1 mm on TVL a bridge in Ethereum and averance less than a user operation per second.
So when does a company need its own layer 2? My hypothesis is that this works better for companies that can add a volume of significant transactions to the network and whose clients do not have the individual media or volume to make their own direct connection with Ethereum. At this time, that greatly means financial services companies that have thousands or millions of retail customers, from coinbase to Kraken and Robinhood. More companies will surely continue. Having a layer 2 can see, in the future, the way we look at a seat in the New York Stock Exchange. The brokerage companies would like them, but a car manufacturer would not find value in it.
Three questions would be useful to determine if a company should launch its own Ethereum Layer 2 network: First, can the company add a significant volume of its own transactions or customers compared to other networks? Second, it is transacting in the central chain for the company’s main business model (For example, is it an intermediary, especially a financial one that currently makes transactions in traditional financial rails)). Finally, does your layer 2 approach do a differentiated value proposal compared to the many other network options that exist? If you can say yes to the three options, this is a possible way forward.
For most other types of companies, you can find that the proposition of optimal value is directly connected to Ethereum, or one of the other open layers of layer 2. It will be less expensive and more private than going through an aggregator that can mark its transaction costs and see its transactions flow and less expensive than executing its own network.
I suspect, however, that before finishing, many companies that do not need to execute their own layer 2 will launch one anyway for the same reasons why many companies launched private chains in the past.
No matter how reliably they have failed, the attraction of private blockchains was always difficult to counteract. The charm of “controlling your destiny” and “taxing the ecosystem” was difficult to resist. Public chains, with their openness, interoperability and nature without permission may seem terrifying for commercial users who prefer more control.
For the same buyers who wanted private chains, centralized layer networks look like a house halfway that may seem attractive. Unlike private chains, I don’t think everyone is condemned to failure, but I suspect that only a few will succeed. The story continues to be repeated, mainly because we are not very good to pay attention. Here we go again.
Discharge of responsibility: These are the author’s personal opinions and do not represent EY’s opinions.
