Arthur Breitman recently gave an interesting talk claiming that the L2s on Tezos are different from what other chains are doing because they are vertically integrated, rather than horizontal, as is the case with most others (certainly in the case of ETH).
The fork-happy, centralized nature of ETH L2s stems from Silicon Valley's libertarian outlook, where the world is imagined as a collection of sovereign fiefdoms kept in check by the "competition" of the "free market." Sounds great in theory, right?
Of course, both in history and in the real world, this always leads to one warlord amassing significant power and conquering the rest, resulting in the monopolization of power. What crypto has done is essentially recreate the mistakes of the past—what we might call "naïve decentralization." The "coin wars" we see playing out online every day are a regressive throwback to warlord-ism, reminiscent of the instability seen in less developed parts of the world today.
Modern societies and economies require a framework to operate effectively—a common set of rules agreed upon by all participating parties to ensure some semblance of fairness. This fairness serves as the foundation for "healthy competition." Without it, we’re left with yet another iteration of "trust me bro," which defeats the entire purpose of having a blockchain in the first place. If ledger records can’t be trusted or people don’t even use them, what’s the point?
For healthy competition to exist, there needs to be a mediating party that is both neutral and impartial, tasked with enforcing the rules agreed upon by the community itself. This is how most civilized societies operate—or at least how they should operate, in theory.
What makes Tezos remarkable is that it had this vision in mind from the very beginning and has continued to stick with it, despite the temptations to centralize power for quick profits, as most other platforms have chosen to do. Is there any hope for places like Ethereum in the long term? Maybe—if they get rid of their "EIP editors" (5-6 people who gatekeep all proposals—it’s right on the foundation’s website, by the way) and hand over control of protocol upgrades directly to the validators.
But that hope, I would argue, is also naïve. People don’t willingly give up power, and with so much money involved—both in assets and salaries—there’s little chance of that happening at this point. How long did it take the West to figure this out? A few hundred years? Maybe a thousand? Even at the accelerated pace of the tech industry, this will likely take at least a few generations, given that Ethereum is working with a foundation that doesn’t align with the original intent of blockchain technology. (ETH had a chance to address this during the "merge," but history will likely remember it as a failed experiment, in my opinion.)
What sets Tezos apart from the rest of the industry is that it takes inspiration from modern economies that have proven to work and strives to preserve those principles as best it can—especially during a time when institutional power is beginning to erode. It’s no coincidence that many digital artists have chosen to make Tezos their home. As a group accustomed to exploitation, their intuition tells them this is the place to be.
They’re not wrong—but, as with real democracies, these systems can be fragile and tenuous if we don’t remain vigilant. For the builders and creatives who haven’t given up, it’s our responsibility to ensure that the vision of a fairer society remains intact. When the world is ready, it will need this vision more than ever.