In May 2026, the Ethereum Foundation wrapped up the week-long Soldøgn Interop technical sprint in Norway’s Svalbard archipelago, marking the official completion of collaborative work by over a hundred core developers focused on hardening the Glamsterdam upgrade. The meeting not only achieved Glamsterdam’s core technical objectives but also confirmed a pivotal shift in the direction of the upcoming Hegotá upgrade—from the original scaling roadmap to a "cleanup and hardening" fork aimed at resolving technical debt. Yet, during this same period, another widely discussed community insight demands deeper reflection: Vitalik Buterin openly acknowledged that the pace of Layer 2 decentralization within Ethereum’s rollup-centric roadmap is "much slower than expected." This reality, combined with rapid scaling progress on Ethereum’s L1 itself, is fundamentally reshaping the underlying logic of Ethereum’s scaling trajectory.
Why Has Layer 2 Decentralization Progress Lagged Expectations?
In February 2026, Vitalik publicly stated that the five-year-old roadmap positioning L2 as Ethereum’s main scaling solution is no longer applicable. His assessment rests on two key facts: first, the push toward higher stages of L2 decentralization has been "much slower and more difficult than anticipated"; second, Ethereum L1’s own scaling speed has greatly surpassed initial projections.
According to the decentralization framework used by L2BEAT, rollups are categorized into three stages—Stage 0 (fully centralized), Stage 1 (limited reliance on multisig governance), and Stage 2 (fully decentralized, relying solely on code and cryptography). As of early 2026, the vast majority of leading L2s remain at Stage 0 or Stage 1, falling short of full decentralization. Even the few L2s that have advanced to Stage 1 are still far from meeting the "no backdoor control" standard required for Stage 2.
This slower-than-expected progress stems from both technical and economic factors. Some L2 teams have openly stated that regulatory constraints or business models may prevent them from ever pursuing full decentralization. Since sequencer revenue forms the core of L2 operators’ business models, decentralizing sequencers inherently means relinquishing some economic incentives, which in practice slows the pace of decentralization.
What Three Structural Issues Are Exposed by Sequencer Centralization and Multisig Bridges?
To understand the structural reasons behind L2 decentralization delays, we can focus on three interrelated issues.
The first is sequencer centralization. Most mainstream L2s currently rely on a single centralized sequencer to batch and order transactions. While this approach is efficient and cost-effective, it introduces weak censorship resistance and high single-point-of-failure risk. Sequencers control transaction ordering, enabling them to extract maximum extractable value (MEV) and potentially censor transactions—contradicting Ethereum’s core decentralization principles.
The second is delayed deployment of fraud proofs and validity proofs. Optimistic rollups depend on challenge windows (typically seven days) for fraud proofs, requiring users to trust L2 operators for extended periods. ZK rollups theoretically offer instant finality, but generating validity proofs demands highly customized circuits and complex audits. Each time Ethereum undergoes a hard fork that changes EVM behavior, all L2s must upgrade their proof systems, incurring significant overhead.
The third is fragmented cross-chain liquidity. By early 2026, leading rollup networks have surpassed 50 chains, with total value locked exceeding $45 billion. However, funds and users are scattered across multiple rollup chains and bridge interfaces, intensifying liquidity fragmentation. Most L2s connect to Ethereum L1 via multisig bridges—cross-chain asset transfer mechanisms controlled by multisig contracts. Vitalik’s direct criticism: an EVM chain with 10,000 TPS, if connected to L1 via a multisig bridge, isn’t truly scaling Ethereum but merely creating an independent trust-based platform. The widespread use of multisig bridges on L2 networks shows that most rollups haven’t inherited Ethereum’s security guarantees, relying instead on centralized control for operation.
How Glamsterdam Devnet and ePBS Address Scaling and Security Challenges
The launch of the Glamsterdam devnet stands as one of the most significant milestones in Ethereum’s 2026 roadmap. Before the Soldøgn Interop concluded in early May, glamsterdam-devnet-2 achieved stable operation, and multi-client ePBS (protocol-embedded Proposer-Builder Separation) completed end-to-end cross-client testing, covering "nearly all client implementations."
The core value of ePBS lies in separating block construction and proposal rights, embedding a standardized MEV supply chain mechanism at the protocol level. Previously, block construction relied on external relays, introducing centralization risks. ePBS brings construction and verification into the protocol rule framework, significantly reducing MEV manipulation opportunities. ePBS also restructures slot architecture, adding clear deadline windows for execution-layer block construction and proposal, providing greater buffer for future gas limit increases.
Glamsterdam has set a post-upgrade gas limit floor at 200 million units. Combined with ePBS’s time structure optimization and block-level access lists (BAL) enabling parallel verification, developers now have a more actionable engineering baseline for scaling the mainnet in 2026.
Fusaka Scaling Milestone and Structural Breakthrough in Data Availability
The Fusaka upgrade was officially activated on December 3, 2025. Its centerpiece is PeerDAS (EIP-7594), which embeds data availability sampling into the protocol layer. By allowing nodes to store only subsets of blob data rather than the entire dataset, PeerDAS theoretically achieves about an eightfold increase in blob capacity, providing Layer 2 networks with much more data availability space. This change directly reduces the hardware resources required for node operation—regular node operators’ blob bandwidth needs can drop by up to 80%.
Another key aspect of Fusaka is establishing Ethereum’s "twice-yearly hard fork" development cadence. From the Pectra upgrade in May 2025 to Fusaka in December 2025, only seven months separated the two forks, signaling a shift from lengthy development cycles to accelerated iteration.
However, Fusaka remains focused primarily on scaling. Core functions related to decentralization and enhanced censorship resistance have been deferred to future upgrades. Strategically, this means scaling comes first, while governance and decentralization follow—an ordering that continues to spark debate within the Ethereum community.
Why Has Hegotá Shifted Toward "Cleanup and Hardening" Instead of Further Scaling?
Hegotá is positioned as Ethereum’s second major upgrade in the latter half of 2026, but its focus has clearly shifted—from the initial "Scalability Roadmap" to a "cleanup and hardening" fork. Features like FOCIL (Fork-choice Inclusion Lists), account abstraction (AA), and alternative signature schemes have all been moved under Hegotá’s scope.
The deeper reason for this shift is that, following Fusaka’s data availability expansion and Glamsterdam’s throughput improvements, Ethereum’s L1 scaling capacity far exceeds the baseline set in the 2020 rollup-centric roadmap. Vitalik noted that L1’s low transaction fees and steadily rising gas limits mean "base layer scaling is progressing much faster than expected." Against this backdrop, L2’s value proposition is being recalibrated—not as Ethereum’s "official sharding," but as platforms that must offer differentiated capabilities beyond L1, such as privacy, ultra-low latency, or specialized application optimization, to justify their existence.
FOCIL, a key feature for enhancing censorship resistance, has been moved into Hegotá to give core developers more time to refine protocol-level mandatory transaction inclusion mechanisms. This is infrastructure work that users may not directly notice, but it is essential for protocol fairness.
Can Based Rollup and Preconfirmation Mechanisms Break the Deadlock?
To address L2 sequencer centralization and cross-chain interoperability challenges, Based Rollup offers an alternative: block ordering is handled by Ethereum L1 validators rather than independent L2 sequencers. The main advantage is that the decentralization level of sequencers is directly inherited from L1 validators, eliminating the need to build a separate decentralized sequencer mechanism.
However, Based Rollup faces challenges with finality delays—after ordering, blockchain blocks must be produced and confirmed, which isn’t ideal for users seeking low-latency interactions. Community proposals suggest combining preconfirmation mechanisms with Based Rollup, aiming to provide strong protocol-level confirmation signals within 15 to 30 seconds.
Additionally, native rollup precompiles are advancing. Vitalik revealed that Ethereum L1’s timeline for full ZK proof adoption now aligns with the integration of native rollup precompiles, opening the door to solving the fragmentation of custom proof systems across L2s. In the future, rollups will be able to leverage shared infrastructure for proof verification, rather than building costly audit pipelines individually.
What’s Next for Ethereum’s Upgrade Path After Glamsterdam and Hegotá?
Once Glamsterdam and Hegotá are complete, Ethereum’s roadmap will enter a new phase known as Strawmap. The Ethereum Foundation’s Protocol Cluster has undergone leadership changes, with strategic focus expanding to zkVM proofs, post-quantum cryptography coordination, zkEVM development, and protocol-level trillion-dollar security guarantees.
Strawmap is expected to continue the rhythm of roughly two hard forks per year, planning seven forks by 2029. This means Ethereum’s development cadence will shift to regular, rapid iterations—each fork will no longer require accumulating a large backlog of widely debated feature proposals, but can proceed in an orderly, manageable way, reducing engineering risks from "all-in-one" upgrades.
It’s worth noting that some EIPs in Glamsterdam have been postponed, with EIP-8237 moved to later forks. Meanwhile, upper-layer governance issues around L2 decentralization remain unresolved, and some L2s may linger at Stage 1 for business reasons. This shows that even as L1 protocol technology advances, L2 decentralization ultimately needs to find balance between business models and protocol development.
Conclusion
Ethereum’s 2026 upgrade path has reached a clear turning point: after three rounds of upgrades—data availability (Fusaka), throughput optimization and MEV governance (Glamsterdam ePBS)—L1’s scaling capacity now far exceeds the initial bounds set by the 2020 rollup-centric roadmap. Yet, progress toward full Stage 2 L2 decentralization is "slower and more difficult than expected." Sequencer centralization, delayed deployment of fraud and validity proofs, and fragmented cross-chain liquidity via multisig bridges remain the three toughest challenges. The Glamsterdam devnet has embedded ePBS at the protocol level and anchored gas limits, Hegotá has shifted to a "cleanup and hardening" fork, and Based Rollup with preconfirmation is gaining broader discussion as a lower-cost solution for interoperability and fragmentation.
Ultimately, L2 decentralization isn’t just a technical challenge—it’s about the tension between technical feasibility and economic incentives. Ethereum is pragmatically embracing this reality: in the absence of a quick path to Stage 2 for all L2s, the ecosystem accepts the coexistence of different stages and continues to drive verifiable engineering progress at the L1 protocol layer with a twice-yearly fork cadence.
FAQ
Q: What’s the current status of the Glamsterdam devnet?
glamsterdam-devnet-2 is live, multi-client ePBS is running stably, and the external builder workflow has completed end-to-end cross-client testing, covering nearly all client implementations.
Q: What did the Fusaka scaling milestone achieve?
Fusaka was activated on December 3, 2025, introducing PeerDAS (EIP-7594). Through data availability sampling, it theoretically increased Layer 2 data availability space by about eight times and significantly reduced node bandwidth requirements. The mainnet gas limit has been raised to about 60 million units.
Q: Why did Hegotá shift from scaling to "cleanup and hardening"?
After the Fusaka and Glamsterdam scaling upgrades, Ethereum L1’s scaling capacity has greatly surpassed initial expectations. Hegotá now focuses on FOCIL for censorship resistance, account abstraction, and other protocol-level cleanup and hardening work, shifting from "boosting throughput" back to "enhancing security" and "catching up on decentralization."
Q: What are Based Rollup and preconfirmation mechanisms?
Based Rollup hands block ordering back to Ethereum L1 validators instead of L2’s own sequencers. Combined with preconfirmation mechanisms, it can provide predictable fast confirmations within 15–30 seconds, aiming to solve L2 sequencer centralization and composability across rollups.
Q: How many stages currently define Layer 2 decentralization?
L2BEAT’s stage framework divides L2s into: Stage 0 (fully reliant on centralized control), Stage 1 (limited reliance on multisig governance), and Stage 2 (fully decentralized, operating solely on code and cryptography with no backdoor control). As of early 2026, most L2s remain at Stage 0 or Stage 1, with progress slower than expected.
