I do not expect Ethereum to be useful as sanctuary technology if the price of ETH were to eventually follow that of alt L1s.
1. Sanctuary technology requires deep liquidity. If you can't move size it's not that valuable, even if you expect billions of small users.
2. Sanctuary tech requires security. The sanctuary security budget is denominated in ETH. If ETH declines materially in value then the chain can be attacked easily.
L2s move congestion off main-net and increase trust assumptions (post 4844) whilst reducing the demand for L1 blockspace consumption both from L2s themselves (tx call_data) and users: developers and end users.
L2s can help with distribution so long as there is interop between main-net assets and the L2, i.e. ETH. However L2s are mostly distributing stablecoins, BTC, and native assets. ETH itself is only ~19% of the total value secured on L2s (l2beat), which is ~2.4% of total ETH supply. To put that in context, Coinbase and Binance hold in sum about ~ 21.5% of ETH supply. The retail onramp to ETH is through centralized exchanges who now also own the chains. They own the user from end to end. There is no incentive to prioritize ETH. Robinhood will be no different.
At best L2s are verifiable servers for businesses and at worst multi-sigs taking advantage of regulatory arbitrage for a quick buck. It's fine if the broader community wants to keep DA fees negligible. Robinhood and Base are reacting to incentives. It's significantly easier to lean into regulatory arbitrage than it is to build a fully decentralized Layer 1 both technically and from a GTM perspective.
But note that isn't going to accrue any value to ETH. You need size trading on L1. MEV burn + base Fee burn + tapered issuance burn *could* in aggregate outpace issuance in a future. This is true only if L1 orderflow grows by about an order of magnitude. If size trades on mainnet this is possible.
Size does not necessarily need sub-second latency, it needs best execution and censorship resistance with strong finality guarantees. Accelerating RWA issuance brings quality collateral, propAMMs make tight quotes possible, and deep credit markets facilitate capital efficient margin.
Sanctuary technology is not all that useful to the world if it's only for cypherpunks and idealists. Ethereum only becomes sanctuary technology if and only if Ethereum is the venue for the deepest spot markets in crypto and captures value from that orderflow.
The primary value accrual to ETH is velocity of assets increasing on main-net a.k.a. more activity. L2 settlement & da fees are nice in theory but likely will never make a huge dent. Over the last 90 days L2s collected ~ $29M in fees and paid ~$0.135M in rent for settlement and DA (source: growthepiedotcom).
The Robinhood chain explosion is both a distribution win and activity win. Trench devs and trench users either directly or via Fomo are trading on an Ethereum secured chain paying for gas in ETH.
This activity is not going to accrue value via settlement and DA fees however, it’s a narrative win because it speaks to “why Ethereum”.
If you want value accrual to ETH from L2s you need some combination of
1. Much higher base fee (blobs) by OOMs - best option just requires a protocol change.
2. L2 taxes - unpopular and requires opt in plus has social consequences.
3. Based sequencing for high velocity chains - realistic and there is a path, but incentive alignment is not likely when L2 business models rely on sequencer fees.
The more interesting and direct path to ETH value accrual is increasing asset velocity on main-net. L1 activity increases the burn of base fees even as block size scales if the induced demand thesis is true.
Large notional activity that requires L1 security and censorship resistance is the velocity that accrues value. People trading size are price insensitive to fees and will pay for these L1 affordances. This is a key reason to be bullish on the intersection of propAMMs and RWAs because the flow is a demand source.
L2 activity is not an ETH value accrual story. Increased asset velocity on L1 is.