Ethereum's Next Decade: Technological Innovation and Unsolved Problems

Yesterday, Ethereum celebrated its tenth anniversary. When the genesis block went live in 2015, Ethereum was still just an “experimental project.” Today, it manages over $4.4 billion in Layer 2 total value locked and stands as critical infrastructure powering global crypto ETFs. Over its first decade, Ethereum has marked one of the most dramatic technological evolutions in blockchain history—from the DAO fork to the Merge upgrade, from sky-high gas fees to the widespread adoption of rollups—transforming every crisis into a springboard for technical progress.

But as it enters its second decade, Ethereum’s “coming of age” is proving anything but smooth. Security vulnerabilities have emerged after account abstraction’s rollout; Layer 2 ecosystems are embroiled in “fragmentation wars;” MEV threatens fairness, and global regulation cuts both ways. These four core challenges hang over Ethereum like a Sword of Damocles. As institutional money pours in via ETFs and everyday users continue to demand better experiences, Ethereum must find a new equilibrium between technological ideals and practical compromises.

Account Abstraction: A Life-or-Death Game Between Convenience and Security

In May 2025, a user shared their ordeal on social media: after clicking “authorize,” their wallet balance was drained within 15 minutes—without even exposing their private key. While using a wallet’s “one-click upgrade to account abstraction” feature, the user mistakenly authorized a malicious contract, and ETH worth 120,000 yuan was automatically transferred away. This isn’t an isolated incident. Blockchain security firm SlowMist reported that within just two weeks of the Pectra upgrade, over 100,000 wallets fell victim to EIP-7702 authorization vulnerabilities, tallying total losses of $150 million.

The Double-Edged Nature of EIP-7702

The Pectra upgrade, which went live on May 7, 2025, marked a major milestone in “account abstraction” by implementing EIP-7702. Now, regular user wallets (EOAs) can temporarily gain smart contract functionality to enable batch transactions, gas fee sponsorship, social recovery, and other “Web3-native” experiences. In theory, this solves a decade-old user experience headache for Ethereum: what once required two approvals and a transaction in DeFi can now be consolidated into a single step. Developers can also sponsor users’ gas fees, making “Web3 with zero ETH” a reality.

Yet beneath this convenience, the entire trust model has been rewritten. CertiK’s security team points out that EIP-7702 breaks the long-held assumption that EOAs cannot execute smart contract code—putting legacy contracts relying on tx.origin==msg.sender at risk of reentrancy attacks. More alarmingly, scammers exploit users’ fascination with account abstraction by luring them into authorizing malicious contracts. For example, the top EIP-7702 delegate contract (0x930fcc37d6042c79211ee18a02857cb1fd7f0d0b) was found to automatically redirect funds; first-time users of account abstraction made up 73% of victims.

Future Focus: The Key Challenges Ahead

The Ethereum Foundation is working on “smart account security standards,” requiring wallets to display whether delegate contracts are open-source and to include a 72-hour cooling-off period. The real hurdle, however, is striking the right balance between “flexibility” and “security.” Institutions need robust permission controls such as multisig and timelocks, while everyday users want Apple Pay-level simplicity. As Vitalik noted at Hong Kong’s Web3 Carnival, account abstraction is not the end game—it’s a continuous tug-of-war between “user sovereignty” and “security guardrails.”

Layer 2 Ecosystem: The Fragmentation Crisis Lurking Behind Growth

Transferring USDC on Arbitrum costs just $0.01, while a transfer on mainnet is still $5. Beijing developer Zhang Ming complained that when he bought an NFT on zkSync, cross-chain transfers took 30 minutes. This illustrates the current state of Layer 2: by 2025, Ethereum’s Layer 2 TVL is set to exceed $5.2 billion and daily transaction volume will reach 40 million, yet users still have to switch constantly between different rollups, like living in parallel universes.

Optimistic Dominance & The ZK Comeback

Today’s Layer 2 ecosystem is sharply divided. Optimistic Rollups—Arbitrum (TVL: $1.78 billion) and Optimism (TVL: $890 million)—are developer favorites for their EVM compatibility, commanding a 72% market share. ZK-Rollups like zkSync (TVL: $380 million) and Starknet (TVL: $220 million) are catching up quickly, using zero-knowledge proofs to cut confirmation times to just 2 seconds and reduce fees by 60% compared to Optimistic Rollups.

But this booming landscape hides deep risks:

Liquidity fragmentation: Uniswap’s liquidity on Arbitrum is 8x that of zkSync, forcing users to repeatedly deposit funds for cross-platform trading.

Technical fragmentation: Optimistic Rollups rely on fraud proofs, resulting in 7-day withdrawal delays, while the computational cost of ZK proofs remains formidable for most developers.

Centralization risk: Arbitrum’s sequencer is controlled by Offchain Labs and has suffered a 3-hour outage due to server failure.

The “Superchain” Vision vs. Real-World Headwinds

Optimism’s “Superchain” proposal aims to connect all Optimistic Rollups via a shared security layer, but progress remains slow: by July 2025, only Base and Zora had achieved cross-chain interoperability. On the ZK side, zkSync and Starknet joined forces to launch the “ZK Alliance,” targeting proof interoperability, but different ZK algorithms still pose major compatibility challenges. As blockchain analyst Wang Feng observed, whether Layer 2 ends up as “one seamless web” or “many fragmented fiefdoms” will decide if Ethereum can ever support a billion users.

MEV: Wrestling With Fairness in Blockchain’s “Dark Forest”

On March 24, 2025, Uniswap user Michael tried swapping $220,000 USDC, only to fall prey to a textbook “sandwich attack.” An MEV bot bought up USDT to pump prices, then dumped it after Michael’s trade, leaving him with just 5,272 USDT and a $215,000 loss. Blockchain data show validator “bobTheBuilder” pocketed a $200,000 “tip” for including the transaction, while the attacker earned $8,000. Once again, everyday users bear the brunt of such exploits.

MEV Industrialization and the Fight for Fairness

Since Ethereum’s shift to PoS, MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) has evolved from a “miner’s privilege” into a specialized industry: searchers write arbitrage scripts, builders bundle transactions, and validators select the best blocks. In Q1 2025, Ethereum’s total extracted MEV reached $520 million, with DEX arbitrage and liquidations accounting for 73%. For regular users, MEV adds a hidden “tax” of 15%–20% to transaction costs.

Worse, MEV is now highly centralized: 65% of block-building power sits with leading builder Flashbots, and validators chase high-MEV blocks for bigger rewards—squeezing out smaller builders. MIT professor Muriel Médard has warned that if block ordering becomes the domain of just a few entities, Ethereum could turn into “Wall Street’s high-frequency trading playground.”

Breaking the Deadlock: From Technical Defenses to System Design

The Ethereum community is pursuing several solutions:

Encrypted mempools: Hide pending transactions from the public mempool so MEV bots can’t preempt them.

MEV-Burn: Destroy a portion of MEV profits to reduce validators’ rent-seeking incentives.

With proposer-builder separation (PBS), only validators propose blocks while builders compete on transaction order, reducing single-point control risks. However, all these proposals require careful balance between “fairness” and “efficiency.” In the words of core Ethereum developer Dankrad Feist: “MEV isn’t a bug, it’s an inherent result of blockchain transparency. Our goal isn’t to eradicate MEV, but to share its rewards more equally across the network.”

Regulation and Financialization: “Soul-Searching” as Institutions Arrive

In July 2025, the US SEC approved Ethereum ETFs, drawing in $2.2 billion in net flows and raising institutional ETH holdings from 5% to 18%. Simultaneously, the EU’s Smart Contract Transparency Act requires rollups to disclose their algorithms and Hong Kong mandates KYC for all crypto service providers. Ethereum now faces the ultimate clash between “compliance” and “decentralization.”

The “Three-Way Fork” of Global Regulation

United States: The CLARITY Act heralds a wave of DeFi compliance, defines ETH as a “commodity” (enabling bank custody), and requires DeFi platforms to register as “exchanges.”

European Union: MiCA mandates stablecoin issuers hold 100% fiat reserves and requires privacy coins to obtain extra approvals for transactions.

China: Mainland China still maintains a heavy regulatory hand, but digital yuan cross-border settlement is expected to surpass 3.5 trillion yuan by 2025. Hong Kong, as a “testing ground,” now allows free flow and trading of digital assets, and its stablecoin law is breathing new life into the local market.

These differences have sparked a wave of “regulatory arbitrage.” For example, one top DeFi protocol deploys KYC modules for the EU while retaining anonymous pools in Singapore; for U.S. users, only compliant trading pairs are accessible. This “fragmented compliance” not only raises developer costs but also chips away at Ethereum’s vision of “global unified infrastructure.”

The Double-Edged Sword of Financialization

Institutional money has improved liquidity, but now Ethereum’s price correlation with U.S. equities has climbed from 0.3 to 0.6. When the Fed hiked rates by 0.5% in June 2025, ETH dropped 8% in a day—versus Bitcoin’s 5% slide—something unthinkable five years ago. Deeper changes are afoot as well: where ETH value was once driven by on-chain gas fees and ecosystem growth, it’s now dominated by ETF flows and macro interest rates.

Wanxiang Blockchain Chairman Xiao Feng argues that Ethereum’s second decade must chart a course “between innovating within regulatory frameworks and staying true to decentralization.” Hong Kong, he suggests, may be the best laboratory for this—connecting the mainland’s digital yuan with the global crypto industry.

Finding Equilibrium in the “Impossible Triangle”

During its first decade, upgrades like the Merge, Shapella, and Dencun answered whether Ethereum could survive. In its second decade, the core question is: How can Ethereum truly become global infrastructure? The four challenges of account abstraction security, Layer 2 integration, MEV fairness, and regulatory compliance are all facets of the enduring “impossible triangle”—decentralization, security, and scalability. This time, the trust of a billion users is on the line.

In his tenth anniversary speech, Vitalik remarked, “We don’t need a perfect blockchain; we need a blockchain that keeps evolving.” Perhaps Ethereum’s ultimate value isn’t in solving every problem—but in proving that a decentralized network can keep moving forward, even as technological idealism and real-world realities pull it in different directions.

The curtain on Ethereum’s second decade has risen. The answers are being written—in every line of code, every upgrade, and every user’s wallet!

Disclaimer:

1. This article is republished from [Medium], with copyright belonging to the original author [链上花絮]. If you have concerns regarding this republication, please contact the Gate Learn Team. The team will address issues promptly according to relevant procedures.
2. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute investment advice of any kind.
3. Other language versions of this article are translated by the Gate Learn Team. Unless Gate is cited, translated articles may not be copied, distributed, or plagiarized.