Cyber Capital Founder Accuses Ethereum Layer 2 of Stealing User Funds

Justin Bons, founder of Cyber Capital, sparked controversy by leveling serious accusations against Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solutions. Bons claimed that L2s, which are designed to enhance Ether’s scalability and transaction throughput, are fundamentally dangerous due to their centralized nature. He argued that these solutions not only betray the cypherpunk principles of decentralization but also pose a significant risk to users’ funds.

Justin Bons’ Case Against Ethereum Layer 2 Networks

Bons’ critique centers around the centralized control that L2 operators hold over their networks, which he claims allows them to pause or shut down services at will. This, Bons argues, directly contradicts the ethos of decentralization that Ether. Moreover, he accused these L2 networks of “steal user funds.” This comes amid debut of Sony’s Ethereum Layer 2 project, Soneium.

To support his argument, Bons listed eight incidents where major Ethereum Layer 2 networks experienced outages or downtime, allegedly exposing the vulnerabilities of these systems. For instance, he pointed to a 90-minute pause in the Linea network on June 2, 2024, as evidence of the centralized control that operators have over these networks. The halt was caused by a bug in the smart contract, which was seen in other networks as well.

He also cited similar incidents involving Starknet, Optimism, ZkSync, Arbitrum, and Polygon, each resulting in downtime ranging from one to five hours. According to Bons, these incidents reveal a dangerous trend in which L2 networks.

Bons noted that in their current centralized state, Ethereum L2s can potentially steal user funds or even go offline permanently. He further warned of the possibility of a hostile takeover of centralized sequencers. This could hold entire networks hostage, leading to catastrophic outcomes for users.

Debate On Scalability

Bons’ criticism extends beyond specific incidents to question the overall direction of Ethereum’s scaling strategy. He argues that the Ethereum community has made a “Faustian bargain” by sacrificing decentralization and security in favor of scalability through L2 solutions. In his view, this trade-off undermines the fundamental principles of blockchain technology and poses a significant risk to users.

Bons also dismissed the concept of “progressive decentralization,” which many L2 developers advocate. This approach involves gradually decentralizing the control and operations of Ethereum Layer 2 networks over time. Whilst, the end goal is to achieving trust minimization similar to that of Ether’s mainnet. However, Bons argued that this promise of future decentralization is insufficient and does not justify the current centralized state of these networks.

A Counter Perspective

Bons’ thread quickly attracted responses from supporters of L2 solutions, who challenged his views. One user argued that Bons was overlooking the concept of progressive decentralization and the fact that L2s, in their end-state, would derive most of their security from the underlying Ethereum mainnet. The user emphasized that while L2s are not perfect, they offer a more viable path to scalability than building entirely new L1 blockchains. They noted that this may never achieve the same level of security and decentralization as Ethereum.

In response, Bons conceded some of the points raised but maintained his stance against the “promise” of future decentralization. He argued that this approach is a weak excuse for not adopting truly decentralized technologies that exist today. Bons further asserted that scalable L1s, in the long run, would be able to generate more revenue and achieve greater decentralization and security than Ethereum Layer 2 solutions.