Opinion: Barna Kiss, CEO of Malda
The idea that has recently emerged by prominent thinkers in the Ethereum space to regain the value of the mainnet is its layer-2 taxation. The future of Ethereum does not depend on policy, but on enabling frictionless capital movements between the L2s in question. Customs rollups may seem like a neat way to regain the value of your mainnet. In reality, it fragments ecosystems, emits liquidity, forces users onto centralized platforms, and avoids decentralized finance altogether. In a system that is not permitted, capital flows into where it is most treated, and Ethereum rollups abuse it.
Fragmentation of fluidity is a real threat to Ethereum
In traditional finance, the link between liquidity and growth is well established. A lower barrier to capital inflow leads to increased investment. Join the European Union’s pre-Brexit single market. As economists tracking cross-border activity have pointed out, investment flows slowed when fragmented access to UK’s exited capital pools were fragmented. Ethereum faces decentralized parallelism.
Rollups, particularly optimistic and ZK-based rollups, impose a delay of up to a week upon withdrawal, providing only patchy cross-rollup liquidity. The result is a fragmented system that is slower and lacks capital.
Two poor choices remain for developers. They either focus on one rollup to limit audiences, or fragment liquidity between several and accept inefficiency. Neither option will serve the long-term benefits of the ecosystem. Therefore, there is an important opportunity for protocols to remove these frictions. They attract more capital, operate more efficiently, and provide a better experience.
Recently: 3 reasons why Ethereum turns the corner
Capital movements need to be abstracted away from the end users. Bridges and withdrawal queues should be a protocol-level concern, not a user issue. The fluidity deployed in one rollup is deployed in another rollup, allowing background rebalance to ensure solvency and efficiency. Today we can make things that seem complicated.
This design moves from reactive bridging to intentively based fluidity adjustments, which restores configurability and maintains decentralization. More importantly, it supports Ethereum’s core principle of building open systems without a central gatekeeper. Without it, users will continue to rely on central exchanges to bypass friction, impairing independent independence for convenience. This is not just a technical issue, it is a philosophical issue.
Designing around friction is competitive
Designing around capital efficiency is becoming more competitive. Tomorrow’s Defi protocol won’t just compete on fees or yields. They compete on how well they can access fluidity beyond fractured landscapes. Winners are able to fulfill their requests without requiring the user to manually transfer funds. The result is better UX, more productive capital, and higher network stickiness.
Several underlying technologies are beginning to address the issue. Planned after the 2026 Hard Fork, the Ethereum Native Rollup promises tighter integration and is not ready for deployment, but the base rollup provides close integrity with Ethereum by sharing and improving settlements at the expense of independence. In the meantime, optimistic rollups are competing to implement zero-knowledge proofs to speed up exits. These innovations reduce friction, but in themselves it is not enough. Scale arises from applications designed around these constraints, not just the basic layer.
ZK-Rollups is especially suitable for this. Their cryptographic structures allow for low latency and minimal reliable messaging between chains. This makes it ideal for applications such as payments, decentralized transactions, and real-time financial products. If Ethereum can make such cross-roll-up flows seamless, it doesn’t just scale. It becomes the backbone of a more efficient financial system.
The outcome is not guaranteed. Tariff rollups may serve short-term goals, but in the long run, they will weaken the network of networks that are intended to strengthen. For example, Solana already offers complexity within a single domain. Ethereum’s modular approach is undoubtedly more robust, but we can’t afford to ignore the ease of fragmentation.
Ethereum’s biggest strength is its neutrality. This should include the ability of capital to move freely within its ecosystem. The future will not be built by taxing rollups. It is built by allowing them to function as one economic engine.
Opinion: Barna Kiss, CEO of Malda.
This article is for general informational purposes and is not intended to be considered legal or investment advice, and should not be done. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or express Cointregraph’s views and opinions.
