The Ethereum scalability solution Layer-2 (L2) ecosystem is becoming increasingly complex, with some raising concerns about centralization. Against this backdrop, the Ethereum R1 solution, which emphasizes no native tokens and relies on donations, was born to challenge the existing model and aims to return to the decentralized spirit of Ethereum, drawing attention to its pros and cons and the impact on the ecosystem. (Background: Is the Ethereum community suggesting to abandon EVM with the removal of EOF in the scheduled Ethereum Fusaka upgrade by the end of 2025?) (Supplementary background: Is Ethereum openly outperforming Solana? The community proposal to 'increase gas limits by a hundred times' theoretically boosts TPS to over 2000) Ethereum scalability has always been a core challenge in the blockchain field. To address the issues of mainnet congestion and high transaction fees, Layer-2 (L2) is seen as the key pathway for Ethereum to achieve large-scale applications. However, with the emergence of other high TPS public chains and alternative products recently, along with the decline in ETH prices, voices of concern have begun to emerge within the Ethereum community, worrying whether the development direction of these L2s aligns with the interests of Ethereum's base layer and its decentralized spirit. Today (2), a group of independent Ethereum developers launched 'Ethereum R1,' a concept-driven L2 solution that does not include a native Layer2 token ETH, relies entirely on user-donated ETH for operational funds, and emphasizes decentralization and censorship resistance. Can the distinctive Ethereum R1 bring a true demonstration of decentralization to L2? The launch of Ethereum R1 in the current environment represents the community's feedback on the recent disputes within the Ethereum foundation. The Principles of Ethereum R1 The core feature of Ethereum R1 lies in its 'no native token' economic model. The Ethereum R1 team believes that a universal L2 should be a commoditized infrastructure that is simple, interchangeable, and avoids reliance on any centralized entities or introducing governance risk. They emphasize the core principles of 'trustworthy neutrality,' 'decentralization,' and 'censorship resistance.' As highlighted by the Ethereum R1 team in their official statement, their launch is a response to internal concerns within the Ethereum community regarding the over-commercialization of many current L2 solutions, the introduction of complex governance tokens, and a tendency toward independent blockchains (similar to new L1s). These concerns mainly focus on the potential inconsistency of privately distributed tokens with the interests of Ethereum's base layer, opaque or centralized governance mechanisms, and the risks of potential centralized control. The no-native-token model of Ethereum R1 has potential advantages. Firstly, it reduces the likelihood of speculation, making its value more closely tied to Ethereum's own ETH. Secondly, this simple design may facilitate future interoperability between different L2 networks. It aims to establish a neutral, minimalist, universal Rollup layer to reduce reliance on specific decentralized application (dApp) providers and serve as a purely transaction processing layer, countering the trend of some L2s increasingly resembling independent L1s. Challenges of Ethereum R1 and Outlook for L2 Ecosystem Although Ethereum R1's philosophy aligns more closely with the original spirit of Ethereum, its unique operational model faces significant challenges. The first challenge is the sustainability of funding; relying entirely on donations presents greater uncertainty in long-term development and operational funding compared to L2 solutions that have venture capital support and possess independent tokens for financing and incentives. The lack of a native token as an incentive mechanism raises a practical question of how to attract enough developers to build applications on its platform and draw in enough users for transactions in a competitive L2 ecosystem, especially given the complexities of zero-knowledge proof technology (ZK-Rollup), where tokens typically play an important role in financing and incentives. This may hinder the no-token L2 model's capabilities in ecological construction, developer incentives, and investment in cutting-edge technology compared to token-based competitors. Nevertheless, the emergence of Ethereum R1 injects a mindset emphasizing the value of decentralization into the current distracted Ethereum Layer-2, directly criticizing that current Layer2s may not have sufficient Ethereum value. It reminds the entire community that there is not just one way to scale, and returning to and upholding the core values of blockchain is equally important. Whether Ethereum R1 can survive may be a significant question, but its emergence and the thoughtful reminders it brings serve as a wake-up call for increasingly homogenized Layer2 solutions that have lost the value of their native cryptocurrencies. Whether the Ethereum community can accommodate the existence of idealism and maintain the value of its existence will also test the future funding operations of the Ethereum foundation. Related Reports: Jesse, the head of the Base chain, responds to the Chinese community: How does it differ from Solana's positioning? Can it help Ethereum out of its predicament? Ethereum proposes 'Square Root Dynamic Fee Rate' reform! Balancing users and rewarding builders, can it restore community confidence? After ten years of trials and tribulations, can Ethereum welcome a 'great surge'? "The Ethereum community protests against 'over-commercialization of L2', and an independent team promotes Ethereum R1's insistence on not issuing tokens and relying on decentralized fundraising." This article was first published on BlockTempo (BlockTempo - the most influential blockchain news media).

#ETH