A group of developers within the Ethereum ecosystem, operating independently of the Ethereum Foundation, have announced Ethereum R1 — a layer-2 (L2) scaling solution for the Ethereum network that does not include a native token.

According to the announcement, the project relies entirely on donations, does not have venture funding, and does not have any pre-mined token allocations or a governance token. The project’s team wrote in a May 1 X post:

“General-purpose L2s should be commodities — simple, replaceable, and free from centralized dependencies or risky governance. Ethereum R1 is our answer to that call — the rollup grounded in credible neutrality, decentralization, and censorship resistance.”

“Most L2s today are acting more like new L1s than an Ethereum scaling solution — private allocations, opaque governance, and centralized control,” the developers continued.

The announcement points to increasing concerns within the Ethereum community regarding the current direction of many layer-2 scaling solutions, which some view as potentially misaligned with the interests of the base layer

Related: Ethereum community members propose new fee structure for the app layer

Ethereum’s L2-centric approach: unique value proposition or exploitation?

Ethereum’s Dencun upgrade in March 2024 significantly lowered fees for its layer-2 networks. By September, revenue on the Ethereum base layer collapsed by 99%.

As a result, transaction costs on the Ethereum network base layer dropped to a five-year low of roughly $0.16 per transaction in April 2025, due to a lack of demand for block space on the base layer.

Ethereum’s transaction fees are determined by demand and network traffic — higher demand and network traffic translate into higher fees for the base layer and more revenue.

Ethereum’s base layer revenue collapsed in Q1 2025. Source: Token Terminal

While critics continue to argue that this provides perverse incentives for layer-2 networks to grow at the expense of the base layer, protocols continue to argue that Ethereum’s many layer-2 networks are a feature, not a bug.

Anurag Arjun, co-founder of the unified chain abstraction solution Avail, told Cointelegraph that Ethereum’s layer-2 approach gives users a virtually unlimited number of high-throughput chains to choose from, as opposed to the singular one-size-fits-all approach employed by monolithic blockchain protocols.

Magazine: Ethereum is destroying the competition in the $16.1T TradFi tokenization race

Bitcoin’s expanding institutional adoption may provide the “structural” inflows necessary to surpass gold’s market capitalization and push its price beyond $1 million by 2029, according to Bitwise’s head of European research, André Dragosch.

“Our in-house prediction is $1 million by 2029. So that Bitcoin will match gold’s market cap and total addressable market by 2029,” he told Cointelegraph during the Chain Reaction daily X spaces show on April 30.

Corporations are coming for your bitcoin (feat. André Dragosch, Head of Research at Bitwise) #CHAINREACTION https://t.co/5F3cRWBHzq

— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) April 30, 2025

Gold is currently the world’s largest asset, valued at over $21.7 trillion. In comparison, Bitcoin’s market capitalization sits at $1.9 trillion, making it the seventh-largest asset globally, according to CompaniesMarketCap data.

Top 10 global assets by market capitalization. Source: CompaniesMarketCap

Related: Bitcoin treasury firms driving $200T hyperbitcoinization — Adam Back

For the 2025 market cycle, Bitcoin may surpass $200,000 in the “base case” and $500,000 with more governmental adoption, Dragosch said.

“But once you see sovereign bias like the US government stepping in, all this will change to $500,000.”

“So the base case is $200,000, conditional on the US government not stepping in. If they step in, it will move closer toward $500,000,” said Dragosch, referring to the US government’s plan to potentially make direct Bitcoin acquisitions through “budget-neutral” strategies.

The US is looking at “many creative ways” to fund its Bitcoin investments, including from tariff revenue and by reevaluating the US Treasury’s gold certificates, creating a paper surplus to fund the BTC reserve without selling gold, Bo Hines of the Presidential Council of Advisers for Digital Assets said in an interview on April 14.

Related: Crypto sentiment recovers, but weekend liquidity risks remain

“Structural” ETF inflows, institutional adoption prolong Bitcoin cycle

The US-based spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have surpassed all expectations during their first year of trading, exceeding record trading volumes as BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF became the fastest-growing ETF in history.

The first year is usually the “slowest” for ETFs, Dragosch said, highlighting the launch of the gold ETF:

“That alone implies that in the second and third year, we will see growing inflows. In terms of the four four-year cycle, implies that, this cycle will be prolonged by these structural inflows.”

The Bitcoin cycle may also be prolonged when US wirehouses start gaining exposure to Bitcoin and ETFs.

“In the US, the major distribution channels go via Wirehouses, which are essentially the big banks like Merrill Lynch or Morgan Stanley. […] Not even half of these wirehouses have opened up their distribution channels to US Bitcoin ETFs,” the analyst said.

Adoption from US wirehouses may bring a “huge amount of capital,” since these control over $10 trillion worth of customer assets, Dragosch added.

Magazine: Altcoin season to hit in Q2? Mantra’s plan to win trust: Hodler’s Digest, April 13 – 19

Opinion by: Vikash Singh, Principal Investor at Stillmark

The Bybit hack resulted in the largest loss of funds to cyber hackers by a cryptocurrency exchange in history. It served as a wake-up call for those complacent about the state of security threats in the digital assets space. Everyone must learn the lesson from this heist — enterprise-grade custody solutions require tech to be accompanied by transparency.

Unlike many previous incidents, this loss of funds was not due to a faulty smart contract, lost/mismanaged keys or deliberate mismanagement or rehypothecation of user funds, but rather a sophisticated social engineering attack that exploited vulnerabilities in operational security. 

This hack differs from earlier eras because it happened to a major global exchange that takes security and compliance seriously. It’s a reminder that, in crypto, there’s no such thing as “good enough” security.

The anatomy of a heist 

A technical overview of the Bybit attack is key for understanding how companies can proactively strengthen their security against such attacks. Initially, a developer machine belonging to Safe, an asset management platform offering multisig Ethereum wallets used by Bybit, was compromised. This initial breach granted the attackers unauthorized access to Safe’s Amazon Web Services (AWS) environment, including its S3 storage bucket. 

The attackers then pushed a malicious JavaScript file into this bucket, which was subsequently distributed to users via access to the Safe UI. The JS code manipulated the transaction content displayed to the user during the signing process, effectively tricking them into authorizing transfers to the attackers’ wallets while believing they were confirming legitimate transactions. 

Recent: CertiK exec explains how to keep crypto safe after Bybit hack

This highlights how even highly robust security at the technical level, like multisig, can be vulnerable if not implemented correctly. They can lull users into a false sense of security that can be fatal.

Layered security

While multisignature security setups have long been considered the gold standard in digital asset security, the Bybit hack underscores the need for further analysis and transparency on the implementation of these systems, including the layers of security that exist to mitigate attacks that exploit operational security and the human layer in addition to verification of the smart contracts themselves. 

A robust security framework for safeguarding digital assets should prioritize multi-layered verification and restrict the scope of potential interactions. Such a framework demonstrably enhances protection against attacks.

A well-designed system implements a thorough verification process for all transactions. For example, a triple-check verification system involves the mobile application verifying the server’s data, the server checking the mobile application’s data, and the hardware wallet verifying the server’s data. If any of these checks fail, the transaction will not be signed. This multi-layered approach contrasts with systems that directly interface with onchain contracts, potentially lacking critical server-side checks. These checks are essential for fault tolerance, especially if the user’s interface is compromised.

A secure framework should limit the scope of possible interactions with digital asset vaults. Restricting actions to a minimal set, like sending, receiving and managing signers, reduces potential attack vectors associated with complex smart contract modifications.

Using a dedicated mobile application for sensitive operations, like transaction creation and display, adds another security layer. Mobile platforms often offer better resistance to compromise and spoofing compared to browser-based wallets or multisig interfaces. This reliance on a dedicated application enhances the overall security posture.

Transparency upgrades

To bolster transparency, businesses can leverage the capabilities of proof-of-reserve software. These can defend multisignature custody setups from UI-targeted attacks by providing an independent, self-auditable view of chain state/ownership and verifying that the correct set of keys is available to spend funds in a given address/contract (akin to a health check). 

As institutional adoption of Bitcoin (BTC) and digital assets continues, custody providers must transparently communicate such details on the security models of their systems in addition to the design decisions behind them: This is the true “gold standard” of crypto security. 

Transparency should extend to how the nature of the underlying protocols alters the attack surface of custody setups, including multisignature wallets. Bitcoin has prioritized human-verifiable transfers where signers confirm destination addresses directly rather than confirm engagement in complex smart contracts, which require additional steps/dependencies to reveal the flow of funds. 

In the case of the Bybit hack, this would enable the human signer to detect more easily that the address shown by the hardware wallet did not match the spoofed UI.

While expressive smart contracts expand the application design space, they increase the attack surface and make formal security audits more challenging. Bitcoin’s well-established multisignature standards, including a native multisig opcode, create additional security barriers against such attacks. The Bitcoin protocol has historically favored simplicity in its design, which reduces the attack surface not just at the smart contracting layer but also at the UX/human layer, including hardware wallet users. 

Increasing regulatory acceptance shows how far Bitcoin has come since its early era of widespread hacks and frauds, but Bybit shows we must never let our guard slip. Bitcoin represents financial freedom — and the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Opinion by: Vikash Singh, Principal Investor at Stillmark.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.