In recent literature exploring the differences between Layer 1 and Layer 2 scaling strategies, I have come to a core point after careful consideration: the fundamental difference between the two is not limited to the technical level, but more reflected in the organizational level (here, the word "organization" is given the deeper meaning of "industrial architecture"). The core issue is not what can be built technically, but deciding what to build, how to define the boundaries of different components of the ecosystem, and how these definitions affect people's motivation and ability to act. It is particularly noteworthy that the ecosystem centered on Layer 2 is more diverse in nature, which naturally promotes diverse approaches to scaling, virtual machine design, and other technical functions.
One of the key points I emphasized in the previous article is:
Given the nature of Ethereum’s ecosystem built around Layer 2, developers have full freedom to build their own unique functional sub-ecosystems while integrating into the broader Ethereum ecosystem network.
In this article, I argue that this view applies not only to technology, but also to culture. Blockchain technology not only involves unique technical trade-offs, but also carries unique cultural characteristics. For example, Ethereum and Ethereum Classic were technically identical in the early days after the fork, but the cultural differences became increasingly prominent in the years that followed, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of their focus, user base, and even technical architecture eight years later. Similarly, Ethereum's initial similarities to Bitcoin have also shown profound differences over time, although Ethereum could initially be seen as "Bitcoin with smart contract capabilities."
What are some examples of how culture profoundly influences things?
Culture plays a similar role in shaping things as incentives, and it can even be said that culture is one of the intrinsic drivers of incentives. It determines which people or groups are attracted to the ecosystem and which are excluded. Culture affects people's motivations for behavior and what behaviors they are encouraged to try. In addition, it has a profound impact on the legitimacy of protocol design, ecosystems, and application layers.
In the blockchain field, the impact of culture is particularly significant, especially in the following key aspects:
Direction and quality of protocol changes: Culture determines what types of protocol changes are accepted, including the quantity and quality of the changes and the direction they take.
Maintaining decentralization, openness, and censorship resistance: If the blockchain culture emphasizes decentralization, openness, and censorship resistance, then these principles are more likely to be reflected in the protocol design.
Attract high-quality development and research talent: A positive culture can attract and retain top protocol developers and researchers who are committed to moving blockchain technology forward.
Attractiveness of high-quality application developers: Culture also affects the attractiveness of the ecosystem to application developers. A culture that supports innovation and encourages cooperation can attract more outstanding application developers.
User attraction: Culture not only affects the number of users, but also determines the type of users that the ecosystem attracts. A culture that emphasizes security and reliability can attract more long-term investors and conservative users.
Public Legitimacy: Culture also determines how a blockchain ecosystem is perceived by external communities and participants, which in turn affects its public legitimacy.
If you highly value the decentralized nature of blockchain, even if it means sacrificing a certain amount of speed, then in addition to focusing on how current technology supports these goals, you also need to pay close attention to how culture emphasizes these values. If blockchain culture lacks openness and a spirit of exploration toward new technologies, it may find it difficult to achieve breakthroughs in both decentralization and speed, because it may miss out on innovative technologies such as ZK-SNARK that can bring huge progress. Similarly, if blockchain is misunderstood by the public as a "casino chain", non-gambling applications will find it difficult to integrate, and even non-profit core protocol developers and researchers may be discouraged. Therefore, we must recognize that culture plays a vital role in shaping the blockchain ecosystem, and it is at least one of the upstream drivers of all other factors.
Researcher Paul Dylan-Ennis has delved into Ethereum subcultures and identified three main groups:
Cypherpunk: This group is dedicated to open source development, adhering to the DIY or punk spirit. In the context of Ethereum, Cypherpunks focus on building infrastructure and tools while remaining neutral and not interfering with how they are used. Although Cypherpunk has historically emphasized privacy, privacy is not always the primary consideration in the Ethereum ecosystem. However, in recent years, a new Cypherpunk offshoot, Lunarpunk, is working to put privacy back at the core.
Regens: Many influential voices within Ethereum favor a Regenerative approach. These Regens, mostly influenced by Vitalik Buterin's interests in the fields of politics and social sciences, are committed to conducting experiments in governance aimed at revitalizing, improving or replacing existing social institutions. Distinguishing features of this subculture are its experimental nature and deep interest in public goods.
Degens (Decentralized Finance Enthusiasts): This is a group driven by speculation and eager to accumulate wealth by any means. Degens are financial nihilists who chase trends and hype in the hope of getting rich overnight and escaping the rat race of contemporary neoliberal capitalism. Although Degens often take huge risks, the methods they adopt are often ironic and almost otherworldly.
Of course, there are far more groups within the Ethereum community than these three, and these classifications are not strictly defined. There are significant cultural differences between profit-oriented organizations and those who purchase virtual items such as pictures of monkeys. “Cypherpunk” here includes individuals who are committed to the ultimate goals of protecting privacy and freedom, as well as enthusiasts who are interested in cutting-edge mathematics and cryptography but do not have strong ideologies. However, this classification provides us with a preliminary observation perspective, which is very interesting.
A major feature of these three groups in Ethereum is that, due to the flexibility of Ethereum as a developer platform, they can all find their own stage and not just stay in verbal discussions. Cypherpunks are deeply involved in the core research and development of Ethereum and develop privacy software; Regens participate in Gitcoin funding programs, public goods funding, and various non-financial applications; and Degens are engaged in meme coin and NFT transactions, as well as various blockchain games.
In my opinion, this cultural diversity is essential to the healthy development of Ethereum. Ethereum's core development culture values high-quality thinking in advanced cryptography, game theory, and software engineering, emphasizes freedom and independence, adheres to the concept of Cypherpunk and the principle of "immutability" of blockchain, and an idealism guided by values and soft power. These values have played a positive role in the development of Ethereum's ecosystem, enabling it to occupy a favorable position in many aspects (such as protocol design, attracting high-quality developers, maintaining openness and decentralization, etc.). However, this culture also has its limitations, such as insufficient attention to attracting application developers and users. Cultural diversity provides a possibility to solve this problem, allowing different subcultures to focus on different aspects of the ecosystem.
