More and more companies are attracted by the idea of launching their own Ethereum Layer 2 network. Most of them should not worry. There is already an amazing number of them – more than 150. Many of them are centralized and linked to a single company and several companies such as Robinhood have recently announced its intention to launch their own layer 2 networks.
The attractions to launch an Ethereum Layer 2 network are significant, in particular compared to the launch of your own layer 1 (Foundation layer) Blockchain. Layer 1 networks must compete with networks like Ethereum and Solana on an already intensely competitive and crowded market. The layer 2 networks that operate on Ethereum are also faced with an intense competitive market but can simultaneously rely on the force of the Ethereum ecosystem, thanks to a deep integration into Ethereum itself.
Ethereum having been 10 years old in July, he remains the blockchain of a dominant intelligent contract and it is the biggest house for digital assets, active in the real world (Rwa)Stablecoins and decentralized financial applications. Ethereum’s share of the Global Decentralized Financial Ecosystem has been stable at around 50% for three years now. When layer 2 networks are included in the total, it seems to increase modestly.
The temptation to launch your own Ethereum Layer 2 network is easy to understand – they look like a useful concept with a great economy. A layer 2 network above Ethereum offers a little “Best of the two worlds” feature: you can control your own ecosystem in your layer 2 but keep integration and access to the Ethereum Global ecosystem. The centralized networks of layer 2 can define their own price structures and have almost all the same controls as an autonomous private blockchain, such as deciding which has access to the network and what type of data will be visible for others.
This has a cost. Layer 2 networks must buy a transaction processing space on Mainnet Ethereum to finalize their transactions (known as the space blob) – But these costs are likely to be lower than those associated with the start of a network from zero and the front competition with Ethereum. In fact, according to the TOKEN terminal, the development costs of a layer 2 are remarkably low. For the basis, a layer 2 network managed by Coinbase, in June 2025, the network generated $ 4.9 million in costs and spent only $ 50,000 for layer 1 settlement fees.
Indeed, the settlement costs of the layer 1 on Ethereum are so low that they have triggered a fiery debate within the network ecosystem as to whether they are too low, and that the layer 2 networks represent a transfer of advantages of stakeholders in layer 1 to layers of layer 2. It is likely that this will result in a certain rebalancing of costs, but even an increase The fundamentally well -supplied value proposition with scaling with layer 2 networks.
In addition, Robinhood’s recent announcement that they build their own layer of layer 2 over Ethereum fundamentally validates the overall layer of the layer
And that brings us to the key question: does your business need its own layer 2 network? There is a good chance that you will not do it. The real value proposal of a blockchain ecosystem is the ability to work in cooperation with others without just one part controls the network. If you are a manufacturing company, for example, you want to work with your suppliers and customers on a level playground with your competitors. Blockchains allow everyone to join us without promoting a participant. In the long term, working together on a level playground is much cheaper and preferable to try to integrate into different systems controlled by each of your key customers or suppliers.
Although some layer 2 networks seem very profitable at the moment, this is only true if you can generate a good volume of transaction. Many layers of the layer according to L2Beat, most of these networks have less than $ 1 million in TVL sanded by Ethereum and do less than one user operation per second.
So when does a business need its own Layer 2 network? My hypothesis is that it works better for companies that can aggregate a significant transaction volume in the network and whose customers do not have the means or the individual volume to establish their own direct connection with Ethereum. Currently, this largely means financial services companies that have thousands or millions of retail customers, from Coinbase to Kraken in Robinhood. Other companies will surely follow. Having a layer of layer 2 can be seen, in the future, the way in which we have sought to have a headquarters on the New York Stock Exchange. Brokerage companies would like them, but a car manufacturer would not find any value.
Three questions would be useful to determine if a company had to launch its own Ethereum Layer 2 network: first, is the company able to aggregate a large volume of its own transactions or customers compared to other networks? Second, transaction on the chain at the center of the main business model of the company (For example, are you an intermediary, in particular an intermediary, which currently transforms on traditional financial rails). Finally, does your layer 2 approach offer a proposal for a differentiated value compared to the many other network options? If you can say yes to the three options, this is a possible path.
For most other types of businesses, they may find that the optimal value proposal connects directly to Ethereum, or one of the other open layers of layer. It will be less expensive and more private than going through an aggregator who will be able to mark your transaction costs and see your transaction flow and less expensive than executing your own network.
I suspect, however, that before having finished, a lot of companies that do not need to execute their own layer 2 will launch anyway for the same reasons, many companies have launched private channels in the past.
No matter how reliable they have failed, the attraction of private blockchains was always difficult to counter. The attraction of “controlling your destiny” and “taxing the ecosystem” was difficult to resist. Public channels, with their opening, interoperability and nature without authorization, may resemble professional users who prefer more control.
For the same buyers who wanted private channels, the centralized networks of layer 2 resemble a transition house that may seem attractive. Unlike private channels, I don’t think they are all condemned to fail, but I suspect that only a few will succeed. The story continues to repeat itself – mainly because we are not very good at paying attention. Here we go again.
Warning: These are the author’s personal views and do not represent EY’s views.
