Ronin's return to the Ethereum ecosystem and Ethereum's future ecological trends

Recently, the well-known blockchain gaming platform Ronin officially announced a major shift, returning to the Ethereum ecosystem. This transition is crucial for Ronin itself, the Ethereum ecosystem, and the development of the Layer 1 (L1) blockchain ecosystem. Before exploring this significance, let's first understand the difference between sidechains and Layer 2 extensions. The distinction between the two can be compared to the distinction between real-world entities. Currently, Ronin is an Ethereum sidechain. This relationship can be likened to an alliance between two countries, similar to the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. While the United Kingdom closely follows the United States in most positions and ideologies, each country maintains its own sovereignty and relative independence. In the future, when Ronin becomes a Layer 2 extension of Ethereum, the relationship between them can be likened to that between the US state and federal governments, such as California and the federal government. California enjoys considerable discretion and freedom in many areas, but no matter how free it is, it is still part of the United States and subject to the federal government in certain key areas. California's security, in particular, is completely dependent on the federal government. In the future, Ronin will be like a state, and Ethereum will be the federal government. Why is Ronin making this transition? The official announcement clearly states: For example, Ethereum has significantly improved in efficiency and performance, enabling it to meet the future development of the Ronin ecosystem. Ethereum also boasts a more complete and richer ecosystem... Furthermore, there's another crucial aspect that the official announcement hasn't fully addressed: blockchain security maintenance is more appropriately and reliably entrusted to Ethereum. Ronin isn't the first sidechain to return to Ethereum. Over the years, former layer-one blockchains like Celo and Cronos have all returned to Ethereum, transitioning from layer-one blockchains to layer-two. However, due to their less robust ecosystems and limited influence, their impact on the broader ecosystem hasn't been as significant as Ronin's. The fundamental reasons these projects returned to Ethereum are similar to Ronin's: leveraging Ethereum's rich ecosystem and leveraging its security mechanisms. Leveraging Ethereum's security mechanisms is particularly crucial for many blockchains. However, this is precisely the point many projects fail to fully consider when building their own layer-one blockchains. They oversimplify the process, mistakenly believing they can simply choose a consensus mechanism, add a few customized algorithms, claim it's "better suited to their needs," and then launch a few nodes and run the whole thing. In reality, as a chain's ecosystem grows stronger and its economic benefits become increasingly attractive, the consensus mechanisms of typical blockchains are completely unable to resist hacker attacks and can't even guarantee their own downtime. Currently, the only two blockchains with an advantage in this regard, and proven by history, are Bitcoin and Ethereum. Of course, they experienced various mishaps in their early days, but they were fortunate to quickly resolve those issues during those early days and quickly cross this threshold. It's nearly impossible for later entrants to catch up. I believe that in the future, as more and more projects reach a certain scale and demand ever-higher security and ecosystem diversity, they will undergo a similar transition, moving from existing sidechains or layer-one blockchains to Layer-2 extensions of Ethereum. This brings me to my point: In my opinion, with the exception of a very small number of projects that may (just may) need to build a separate layer of blockchain/sidechain, 99% of projects (including the new batch of projects that are now preparing to build their own layer of blockchain) have absolutely no need to do so. For them, building a second-layer extension of Ethereum is the most suitable solution.

Over the years, when I wrote articles, readers often asked me in the comment section: What do you think of XXX blockchain (the vast majority of which are layer-one blockchains)? I used to respond to these questions in the past, but my words were more forthright. Now, I rarely do. The reason is the same as above. To explain this, I think it's more vivid to use a national analogy. We all know that American imperialism is evil. That country is plagued by guns and drugs, with decadent ideologies pervasive in society, certain ethnic minorities suffering from low social status, irreconcilable racial conflict and opposition, homeless people starving and starving, and a huge gap between the rich and the poor... We also know that there are other kinds of countries on this planet—for example, our neighbor to the northeast. There, we have the meticulous care of a benevolent leader, the boundless gratitude and virtue of the people, and the endless free education, free healthcare, and free housing that the people enjoy... However, if forced to choose between these two countries, I believe many would still think the United States is better. Ethereum is the America of the crypto ecosystem. Many people are extremely dissatisfied with it, believing that it has problems here, that it's wrong there, that it doesn't meet my needs here, that it doesn't meet my efficiency requirements there... Are these views correct? Of course they are. So, these people then say, since Ethereum doesn't meet my ideals or my needs, why not build another layer of blockchain? It's better, more applicable, more efficient, and so on. And so, new layer blockchains have emerged endlessly in the crypto ecosystem. It's like many people are dissatisfied with the United States, saying it's too evil and too weak, and they want to build a new country, a new paradise on earth. But in reality, they've built nothing but the same kind of neighbors to our northeast. In this situation, is the world getting better or worse? Actually, there are two approaches to this situation: One is to say that the United States is bad, and I'm going to build a new country, even if it's just like our neighbors to the northeast. The other is to reform within the United States itself—we rebuild a new state and territory, identify with the values of the founding fathers, identify with its constitution, rely on its national defense capabilities, join that great federation, and create a vibrant, hopeful new entity within it, attracting entrepreneurs from the federation and other countries to start businesses and realize their dreams here. In the crypto ecosystem, the first approach can be likened to the continuous construction of a new layer of blockchain; the second approach can be likened to building a new second-layer extension based on Ethereum. I believe the second approach is the more ideal and ultimately feasible approach in the crypto ecosystem.