Vitalik Buterin was joined by other members of the Ethereum Foundation in a Reddit Ask Me Anything (AMA) session on Nov 17.
I haven't read it all, but Vitalik highlighted one answer on his twitter feed; I shall reproduce the relevant parts below.
Realistically, for the next ~2 years, Ethereum will be an ecosystem under rapid transformation.
OK
[...] PoW is being ripped out and replaced with PoS, we're adding an unprecedented new technology called "data availability sampling", and on top of that the economics are being radically revamped on three fronts: (i) PoW -> PoS, (ii) EIP 1559, (iii) user activity moving from L1 to L2.
and
The Ethereum ecosystem has a resolute goal of being a stable and dependable system in the long run, but if you are here in Ethereum today, you should be here not because you believe the current rules (economic or technical) deserve to be protected and stabilized at all costs, but because you believe in where the ecosystem is going. In two years the main task will be to stabilize and cherish what we will have built. Until then, participation in Ethereum is unavoidably in part a prediction that the roadmap is a good one and that once this upgrading process ends we actually will get to a place where the network is efficient and stable and powerful and capable of being the base of significant parts of the global economy.
Now, this last paragraph could be said of Blurt itself, however small it may currently be compared to Ethereum, but is especially interesting coming from the second-largest coin in crypto. These are all experiments and are adapting in light of experience, and in response to both hopes and concerns. The research takes time and converting theoretical ideas into working code also takes time.
But going back to the first quote, note that the change to Proof of Stake is also accompanied by "user activity moving from L1 to L2." What this says to me is that POS Level 1 is a banking system, or at least a cryptocurrency version of a purely financial system. This is something I predicted many moons ago, taking seriously some of the big hints from both Vitalik and Larimer. This is what Steem has become. This is the logical mathematical endgame.
Thing is, is there a real economy on top of the banking economy? Graphene DPOS systems merge L1 and L2 functions but, as we have experienced, one cannot so easily merge L1 investors with L2 bloggers.
One thing I highlighted in my old article, is that the merging of L1/2 on Steem meant that every account was a digital-incorporation that had the same financial powers as every other such entity. The distinction between investor and blogger is in the mind of the individual; an actual account has always had both powers. If we cannot effect a change in perception we may need to change some economic constructions and the ways in which coins flow.
One of my long-term tasks is to prise open those parts of the system that are pure L1 and pure L2. One aim is to see whether instead of a merged L1/2 we can create a distinct L1+2 on the same chain. The reason for this is that as L2 already exists, there is no point replicating it above the chain when that merely duplicates those existing L2 functions - unless those L2 functions are radically different.
And thus the alternative is, like ETH's POS, to separate the two spheres of activity and have the financial L1 support both itself and the activities of L2 user interfaces.
I'm not aware of any discussions by the Blurt core team about the L1 & L2 implementation for Blurt that's why I'm thrilled that you're starting to talk about this topic.
I know for sure that Hive has been talking about this in many occasions and it looks like there accounts who are in favor of the direction that L1 is for Governance while L2 is for Rewards.
What do you think of this setup? Will it apply for Blurt? (Please take this question as a casual one, I just want to learn your opinion about it.)
I'm not sure, maybe the L1/L2 dilemma has not been formally expressed, but all discussions about the investor/blogger issues amount to the same thing. All the months of so-called SMTs on steem/hive are also about the same issue - I must admit I haven't been following that closely as it was going round in circles. I also disliked the structure of SMTs.
I must pick up on one thing though, whether L1=governance and L2=rewards ? That sounds like a similar obfuscation that somehow EIP was going to be a good thing.
L1=money! L1=cryptographic monetarism. To call it mere "governance" is disingenuous as it is both governance and money. We saw very clearly that link during the Steem-coup.
L2=work=value. There is one vast con in this human world: that money has value!! It looks like it does because it is the measure of things, but without those things what value does it truly have?
Like "colour"; everything has a colour, but does that mean the world is run by colour? Is there a chromo-economic model? ;-)
In terms of investors, L1 is akin to passive investment whereas L2 is active investment.
For bloggers, L2 is everything.
IMO Graphene DPOS is a fascinating merger of L1/2 and formally splitting it in two could be seen as a failure of its underlying model. However, what has always struck me as peculiar was the lack of discussion about fixing the model, creating a V2 DPOS - messing around with curves is a mere paint-job to hide the rust. I then got the feeling that nobody knew how to fix it! Or at least, nobody was going to try for fear of breaking it. So SMTs became the agenda, but they are merely L2* and have to comply with the existing blockchain L2.
Lots of issues to discuss :-)
And rewarded shitposts are the manifestation of that uneasy borderline between L1 and L2 :-)