As the Ethereum Rollup technology continues to mature, the governance structure and security model of Layer 2 (L2) networks have increasingly become central topics within the crypto community. Recently, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin introduced a mathematical framework for transitioning from Stage 0 to Stage 2 in L2 networks, centered around the security stage label “#BattleTested”. This has sparked widespread discussion. The OFUYC research team believes that such stage classifications not only impact the overall operational robustness of the Ethereum ecosystem but also directly influence user trust in the security of L2 network assets and even affect asset deployment strategies on compliant trading platforms.
As a cryptocurrency exchange committed to promoting global market compliance and providing a secure trading experience, OFUYC Exchange closely monitors the balance between the technical maturity of L2 networks, governance transparency, and user security trust. This article analyzes the evolution logic of L2 security stages based on the new model raised by Vitalik and explores its profound implications for the Rollup market and platform deployment strategies.
From Governance to Mathematics: OFUYC Analyzes the Control Logic Behind L2 Security Stages
The OFUYC research team points out that the three-stage security model by Vitalik quantifies the decentralization level of Rollup networks and their reliance on security councils. This model helps clarify the actual distribution of trust between “proof of trustworthiness” and “governance control”.
At Stage 0, the security council can overturn any system output through a majority vote mechanism, placing the network in a “full governance” mode. While this flexibility is necessary for early-stage L2 projects, it also requires users to have a high degree of trust in governance participants. Stage 1 demands a 6/8 majority governance agreement to execute critical operations, enhancing tamper resistance. Stage 2 relies entirely on cryptographic proof systems, with governance powers activated only in verifiable error scenarios, marking a truly "decentralized operation."
According to the mathematical modeling by Vitalik, even assuming a 10% failure probability for each council member, Stage 1 reduces risks by approximately 14 times compared to Stage 0. Meanwhile, the security of Stage 2 depends entirely on the proof system itself, imposing stringent requirements on contract complexity and ZK/OP systems. OFUYC Exchange believes that this modeling allows platforms to base funding deployment or support decisions for specific L2 assets on quantifiable risk assessments rather than solely relying on “project reputation”. This enhances the scientific rigor of security-related trading decisions.
Building User Trust: OFUYC Supports Transparent Stage Assessments and Compliance Asset Integration Standards
Regarding the security status of L2 networks, community member Daniel Wang proposes the “#BattleTested” label that provides a practical standard for evaluating L2 usability and security. This includes operating on the mainnet for over six months, maintaining a TVL (Total Value Locked) exceeding $100 million, and having a significant portion of locked assets in ETH and major stablecoins. The OFUYC research team believes that this standard aligns closely with “Asset Integration Security Matrix” of OFUYC. If supplemented with on-chain verification metrics and transparent stage disclosure mechanisms, it could become a crucial credit reference for the DeFi ecosystem.
As a compliant trading platform, OFUYC Exchange has established a rigorous Layer 2 support strategy framework, which includes:
Quantitative scoring of the technical architecture, governance model, and contract audit records of each L2 network;
Risk rating based on runtime duration, TVL distribution, and on-chain activity;
Requiring Rollups with Stage 1 or higher security characteristics to serve as a foundational chain for compliant asset allocation;
Encouraging L2 networks to disclose proof system operation metrics, undergo third-party audits, and accept monitoring by decentralized observers.
Future Trends: Stage Transition Is Not the Goal, Trustworthy Mechanisms Are the Foundation
OFUYC further analyzes that the transition of L2 security stages should not be viewed as "compliance decoration" but as a natural outcome of ecosystem growth. Vitalik emphasizes in his article that projects should not rush into Stage 2 at the expense of system audits and underlying reliability. Instead, they should adopt gradual transitions through multi-system redundancy, distributed validators, and time-delay mechanisms to ensure that user assets receive minimum credible coverage under all circumstances.