Do We Really Need This Many Layer 1s?

[Andrew]

Every month a new “Ethereum killer” pops up, only to fade into obscurity or pump on launch hype and disappear. Are we innovating, or just endlessly repeating the same narrative with different tickers?

 

[Alison]

Interesting take I’ve noticed the same cycle happening over and over. It makes me wonder if the real innovation is happening under the radar while the spotlight stays on these short-lived hype chains. Curious to see if any of them will actually break the pattern one day.

 

[Arizona]

It’s a fair observation. The space does seem to cycle through new L1 narratives regularly, with many projects promising to solve Ethereum’s limitations but struggling to maintain long-term traction. At the same time, some of these experiments do contribute incremental improvements or push certain ideas forward, even if they don’t dethrone Ethereum. It’s part of how an emerging technology ecosystem evolves, though the repetitive hype cycles can get exhausting.

 

[jasper]

I think this is an important point worth unpacking. While it's true that many so-called Ethereum killers follow a familiar pattern of launch hype and eventual stagnation, it's also fair to say that each iteration brings incremental improvements or experiments with scalability, consensus mechanisms, or developer incentives. The challenge is less about replacing Ethereum outright and more about contributing to a broader ecosystem of ideas. The narrative might be repetitive, but the underlying technical exploration still holds value. What we need is a shift in focus from marketing narratives to sustainable, interoperable innovation.

 

[Aesthatic girl]

Every “Ethereum killer” adds a fresh layer to the ecosystem—even if most fade, a few push real innovation. From scalability to energy efficiency, each attempt pressures the space to evolve. It’s messy progress, but still progress. One of these underdogs might just crack the code and redefine the game.

 

[SUNSHINE]

It really does feel like déjà vu with every new “Ethereum killer,” right? Big promises, flashy tickers, then poof. But hey, some of them at least bring new tech ideas to the table. Even if they don’t last, they keep the competition alive and push Ethereum to level up.

 

[Snowy]

It’s starting to feel like a rinse-and-repeat cycle—same promises, new logos. Most so-called “Ethereum killers” ride hype, rake in VC money, and vanish when things get tough. True innovation gets buried under buzzwords, and the space risks losing credibility if we keep recycling narratives without delivering real, lasting solutions.

 

[Harry]

It’s true—we’ve seen many so-called “Ethereum killers” come and go, but that doesn’t mean innovation has stalled. Each new chain brings fresh ideas, better scalability models, or unique consensus mechanisms to the table. Even if some fade, they push the ecosystem forward through experimentation.


What matters is who can sustain real adoption and developer support over time. Ethereum’s lead is strong, but competition fuels progress. We’re not repeating—we’re refining the future of blockchain, one launch at a time.

 

[James Henry]

The constant wave of “Ethereum killers” can feel repetitive, but it’s also a sign of an active and experimental space. While many projects ride launch hype and fizzle out, each attempt brings new tech ideas—whether it's faster consensus, lower fees, or unique scaling methods. The challenge lies in execution and long-term adoption.


Rather than replacing Ethereum, many of these chains end up complementing it through interoperability. Innovation is happening—we just need more substance over slogans. The real winners will be those who build, not just market.

 

[peterjohn]

It’s hard not to notice how often the “Ethereum killer” narrative gets recycled—new tickers, same promises. I’m really curious: are we genuinely seeing innovation, or just marketing wrapped in faster block times and low fees? Some chains do bring cool tech, but few stick around.


Is the space learning from past attempts, or just chasing attention? Maybe the future isn’t about killing Ethereum but complementing it with specialized chains. What do you think—is one finally getting it right?

 

[Ruksh]

Great question and it’s an important pattern to recognize. Many so-called “Ethereum killers” tend to market themselves around higher TPS, lower fees, or novel consensus models, but often fail to address the deeper challenges of decentralization, security, developer adoption, and network effects that Ethereum has steadily built over years.


Innovation is happening particularly in areas like modular blockchain designs, zk-proofs, and interoperability — but much of the market narrative still gravitates toward short-term hype cycles rather than sustainable, differentiated value propositions. It’s worth looking past the marketing and examining whether these projects are offering fundamentally new architectures or just incremental improvements with different branding.

 

[Daruk]

Great point really appreciate you bringing this up. It’s true that we see waves of so-called “Ethereum killers” come and go, and while some do introduce genuinely interesting ideas, many seem to follow the same hype cycle. It’s an important reminder to focus on real innovation and long-term utility rather than just new tickers and temporary pumps. Thanks for sparking this thoughtful discussion!

 

[Munashak]

Great question — really appreciate you bringing this up. It’s true that we see waves of so-called “Ethereum killers,” but I think each cycle leaves behind some meaningful innovations, even if most projects don’t last. Whether it’s scalability solutions, new consensus models, or different takes on tokenomics, the space is constantly experimenting. The noise can be exhausting, but the iterative process is part of how this ecosystem evolves. Love seeing discussions like this that zoom out beyond the hype cycles.

 

[SUNSHINE]

Every “Ethereum killer” adds a fresh layer to the ecosystem—even if most fade, a few push real innovation. From scalability to energy efficiency, each attempt pressures the space to evolve. It’s messy progress, but still progress. One of these underdogs might just crack the code and redefine the game.

Well said—competition fuels innovation, and even the so-called "failures" force Ethereum to adapt and improve. Who knows, the next big leap might come from today’s overlooked altchain experiment.

 

[Emma]

Feels like we’re stuck in a loop—every “Ethereum killer” promises speed, low fees, and scalability, but most just rebrand the same playbook. Hype spikes, TVL pumps, then it’s ghost town. Real innovation’s rare; most are just chasing narratives, not solving anything new.

 

[Mary]

Each “Ethereum killer” is less a challenge to Ethereum, and more a reflection of our desire to reinvent success. We chase the next big thing, not always to build better—but to believe better. Maybe the cycle isn’t failure—it’s the crypto way of dreaming out loud.

 

[Isla]

Honestly, it’s starting to feel like déjà vu—new chain drops, big promises, pumps hard, then fades. Some might bring cool ideas, but most just remix the same stuff with a shiny name. Real innovation? Kinda rare lately.

 

[Belin]

This pattern reflects a broader tendency in emerging tech markets where the allure of disruption often outpaces practical adoption. Many of these so-called Ethereum killers tout marginal improvements in speed, scalability, or consensus models without addressing the deeper challenges of network effects, developer mindshare, and sustained community governance. The recurring cycle of hype suggests that while technical experimentation is active, genuine innovation remains rare, and most projects inadvertently reinforce the same narratives they claim to replace.

 

[Olivia Mia]

The constant cycle of new chains claiming to be Ethereum killers highlights both the hunger for innovation and the immaturity of the space. While many projects chase hype over substance, each iteration teaches the community what works, what scales, and what truly matters in decentralized systems. The future won't be about replacing Ethereum, but about building a more resilient, interoperable, and efficient ecosystem where diverse protocols coexist and specialize. Progress often looks like repetition until one breakthrough quietly reshapes the landscape.

 

[Dean]

It’s like the blockbuster movie cycle same plot, different actors, and a fresh coat of marketing paint. Gotta admire the hustle though, keeps the charts lively and the meme folders stocked.

 

[Darokshi]

The sad truth is most of these so-called Ethereum killers are nothing but VC exit liquidity with a whitepaper. Slapping a new ticker on recycled tech and hyped promises isn’t innovation it’s rinse and repeat grift dressed up as progress.