Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news editorial staff.
Over the past two years, the Bitcoin (BTC) ecosystem has seen the rise of “layer 2s” who claim to bring decentralized funds to the world’s oldest network. Despite the high hopes Bitcoin enthusiasts had for these deals, their results have fallen disastrously.
Summary
- Many “Bitcoin L2s” are not L2s at all: they are bridged sidechains, new tokens, and weak security models that do not inherit Bitcoin’s foundational guarantees.
- Token-first design is a real red flag: Where speculation leads, and security legacy lags, it’s marketing – not scaling.
- Real Bitcoin scaling must maintain L1 guarantees: No bridges, no new guesses, no security dilution of Bitcoin’s proof of work.
This pattern reveals the main reason for frequent failure, and it’s not what you think. Instead of selling a Bitcoin scaling solution, they were selling speculative tokens for Bitcoin. The difference is significant, and is revealed by one important test. Do they meet the architecture standards for real layer 2?
What the real layer 2 looks like
Ethereum’s (ETH) mature layer-2 ecosystem provides the gold standard for what scaling solutions should accomplish. A real layer 2 requires three non-negotiable elements: availability of data from layer 1 (the base layer must hold the data needed to reconstruct the country), an execution that can be verified by fraud or proof of authentication, and an unauthorized exit based only on layer-1 data.
By this definition, which focuses on security legacy rather than marketing claims, almost nothing in the Bitcoin ecosystem meets the criteria. Despite the 73 Bitcoin scaling solutions in development, the majority are side chains that act as L2s, working alongside Bitcoin rather than on top of it.
Judge the difference and risk reward of using any Bitcoin L2 to use just Ethereum. Any so-called Bitcoin L2 that fails to meet this standard asks you to accept its novel security model, while using real Ethereum L2s allows you to simply inherit Ethereum.
Three fatal mistakes
Every major Bitcoin L2 shares the same structural failure that destroys it from the start. First, each project relies on bridges or associations to facilitate the movement of BTC in and out of the network. This creates a central chokepoint and a high risk of retention. He reintroduced the “trusted third party” that Bitcoin was created to eliminate.
Second, these projects are “brand first.” They earn with tokens that have no function required for the core functionality of the protocol. This creates perverse incentives and turns the project into a speculative go-to-market strategy instead of an original resource measurement strategy.
Third, users must sacrifice the security of Bitcoin to use these networks. They must abandon Bitcoin’s independent, proof-of-work security model and move to a new consensus, often a proof-of-stake created by a small group of validators. You trade a very strong and decentralized security for a weak, novel one.
Taken together, these three flaws kill the “Bitcoin layer 2s.” They turn the claim of Bitcoin scalability into a mere marketing ploy. If it doesn’t maintain L1 credentials, it doesn’t actually measure Bitcoin.
The graves are full
The numbers tell the story better than any technical argument. Merlin Chain was once at the top of Bitcoin L2 levels of locked value (TVL), but now it is bleeding value every day. Babylon promised a “Bitcoin staking revolution” and delivered an 84% loss. These projects raised millions, were started with enthusiasm, and collapsed within months.
Meanwhile, legitimate developments like Tether (USDT) on the Lightning Network show what real Bitcoin scaling looks like. Lightning makes the actual payments, while these L2 processes come out of purchases. The pattern is clear for new pumps and disposals. Announce Bitcoin L2, launch a token, pump in the “Bitcoin scaling” story, and abandon when the truth comes that you have to build another sidechain with more steps.
Build with Bitcoin, not alongside it
As research shows, projects like BitVM are working on implementing virtual rollups that benefit from Bitcoin’s security legacy. Others are exploring metaprotocol approaches, systems that use Bitcoin’s base layer as an immutable data ledger and settlement layer, where all work is ultimately based on standard Bitcoin transactions.
Start at layer 1, prove product-market fit, and scale with strategies that keep users within Bitcoin’s domain of trust. There is no bridge maintenance, and users retain their L1 egress credentials.
The benefit of “SlowFi” directly addresses the criticism of speed. With primary financial startups, stablecoins, lending, and extended exchanges, Bitcoin’s intentional fate and security creates sticky liquidity and sustainable growth, avoiding cycles of farm abandonment and high-speed chain abandonment. Speed is the enemy of stability.
The future of Bitcoin scaling is not creating fast, decentralized systems; it’s about using the finitude and security of Bitcoin to create a more stable and independent form of finance.
Back to basics
The potential of Bitcoin DeFi is real, and institutions are becoming more and more interested in the production possibilities of Bitcoin. The current L2 boom is a distraction, creating separate, high-risk sidechains instead of consolidating and strengthening the Bitcoin network.
The future of Bitcoin is about making the foundation layer itself stronger and more organized. Any solution that requires a bridge, a new token, or a new consensus mechanism is considered a legacy mechanism.
As VCs pour hundreds of millions into Bitcoin sidechains, let’s remember that funding does not equal innovation. The projects that will define the next decade of Bitcoin are those that build true L1 enhancements and a true security legacy, not sidechains repackaged with the Bitcoin token.
The practice of L2 solution must end. Bitcoin is better suited than a hidden issue like a new one. Builders who understand this difference will inherit the future. Others will join the growing graveyard of failed tokens that promise to “unlock Bitcoin” and instead only open at a loss.
