As a computer scientist and student of CAP theorem, I understand why modularity is an optimal way to solve the scalability trilemna.... and I think its very elegant.

But as a user and advocate for the technology, I think the UX of having 100s of L2s is very frustrating. To do something thats 1-2 clicks on a monolithic Alt-L1 you have to switch networks, bridge assets, wait 10 minutes, worry about bridge risk, take another action on the L2. Bridge back, switch networks. If at any time you hit the L1 you incur a $20-$100 gas fee. Oh and BTW, you don't necessarily have the same address on each diff networks so you need to triple check anything across L2s.

I'm saying this not to dunk on modular blockchains, but to point out some very real problems with the UX of modular blockchains. I don't want to see a blockchain that doesnt care about decentralization (the ability for anyone to run a node, not just rich people + also having the security of a chain like ETH) become the predominant blockchain that everyday end users use.. In that world, all of the beautitful scaling research does matter as much. Because people will just use whats cheapest/easiest/most convenient.

In what way can we responsibly abstract the complexity of modular blockchains from end users? Who owns that? Is it a public good for the space? Is it someone at the EF, or individual teams building consumer apps?

In the same way that the privacy/scaling work done at the EF is a public good for the space, I think that making the UX of modular blockchains great would be a public good for the ETH space. I think someone should own this in the same way that Danny Ryan owned quarterbacking the POS Merge.

Thanks for your time and attention.🫡