When Blast renamed itself as a full-stack chain instead of L2, "aligned with Ethereum" gradually became a MEME..

Author: Deep Tide TechFlow

A few weeks ago, after Blast completed its airdrop, it seemed that everyone stopped paying attention to the project.

However, as long as the community keeps a close eye, all details can be caught.

Yesterday, sharp-eyed netizens discovered that Blast changed its official X account username from @Blast_L2 to @Blast.

Official accounts often represent their brand and positioning. A slight change in wording can have a significant difference in meaning.

Although this is just a small change in the username and doesn't warrant a formal announcement, from a branding and perception perspective, it could very well be "part of a plan."

At the same time, the official account's bio has started to describe itself as "The Fullstack Chain," rather than just an L2. This seems to deliberately downplay its general impression as an Ethereum L2.

However, is this merely a branding gimmick to highlight differentiated selling points, or is it a technical move to establish an independent chain separate from Ethereum?

Helping Ethereum is important, but developing oneself is even more important

There is no doubt that Blast is one of the most adept L2s in operations and activities, possibly without equal.

Ironically, it’s not just about issuing airdrops to gain popularity; Blast becoming a fullstack chain has actually been written into its second-phase development plan.

From the schematic provided by the official team, the meaning of fullstack is that Blast aims to integrate not only transaction processing and recording transaction state changes but also all upstream and downstream related to the chain.

From fiat currency deposits and withdrawals to wallets, Telegram bots, and Dapps within the ecosystem, all become part of the Blast chain, extending its business reach.

From infrastructure to applications, from capital flow to information flow, it seems that everyone wants a piece of the pie.

It must be said that this is indeed an ambitious and very reasonable strategic choice. Since many L2s look quite similar, how to make oneself more recognizable inevitably requires building around the upstream and downstream that can radiate from the chain.

However, the original intention of L2s was to help Ethereum address performance issues. Now, looking at Blast's fullstack chain initiative, it is clear that it is no longer just a simple performance issue.

The emphasis on self-development is stronger, but one could argue that it also enhances the experience for Ethereum users, which is not a problem.

But does moving from L2 to a fullstack chain mean that it no longer wants to be an L2 and instead aims to become an independent L1?

Currently, it does not seem to be the case.

In the most viewed post on this topic yesterday, Twitter user @0xjim interpreted it as "leaving Ethereum to form a separate chain."

In the comments, Alliance DAO's Wang Qiao interpreted it as an "integration"—that is, having its own deposit channels, wallets, and chain-related support, rather than directly cutting ties with Ethereum.

Other voices in the community are even sharper, pointing out that there may be more Rollups claiming to be chains in the future; this does not mean establishing an independent L1 separate from Ethereum, but rather:

"Cutting ties with the perception that there is no difference from all current L2s."

Technical homogeneity is the original sin, standing out is the obsession

Every L2 has grand ambitions at its inception.

Although the descriptions vary, the goals all point to "making Ethereum better."

This precisely highlights the relationship between L2s and Ethereum—ethereum alignment, existing as a part of the Ethereum ecosystem.

Helping you process transactions faster, alleviating congestion, expanding capacity…

If external L1s act as Ethereum killers, then L2s, including Blast, should be Ethereum's assistants.

However, these assistants' technologies are too homogeneous; whether it's ZK or OP, Rollup as a service has emerged, allowing you to quickly create your own L2.

When assistants start to compete internally, standing out becomes an obsession.

The attention and funds in the crypto market are limited; users actually do not care much about the technical choices of different L2s. Because the effects that L2s can achieve are basically the same, choosing 1-2 to use is sufficient.

When everyone's experience is quite similar, dozens of L2s are competing in the market, and sometimes being half a step ahead in branding and perception can lead to significant changes.

Thus, you increasingly see these Ethereum assistants gradually moving from the original intention of "helping Ethereum" to the path of standing out.

If you look back at the official accounts of different L2s, you will find a surprisingly consistent understanding:

Not a single L2 is willing to say in its bio that it is an Ethereum L2.

Aligning with Ethereum has ultimately become more and more like a MEME.

After all, projects live for themselves; no project will selflessly help Ethereum without expecting anything in return.

Understanding this, you should be more cautious while surfing the crypto world:

The initial slogans and narratives are always just means, not ends.