Is L2 Safe? Myths vs. What Matters in Practice

Prologue: A Promise to the Persona

Intended readers: People not familiar with Web3 but responsible for digital initiatives in brand/business (marketing, PR, biz dev, product lead).

Today’s goal: Without diving too far into technical details, be able to answer on the spot: “Are L2s safe enough to use?” and “What about budget and KPIs?”

How we’ll learn: At the end of each section, four characters (Rahab / Moka / Rachel / John) give a “chewed-down” summary in dialogue form.

Three-line summary (overview first)

Saying “L2s inherit ETH’s security” is an overstatement; depending on design, risks and centralization can remain.
Cointelegraph

The number of L2s is exploding. Some see it as healthy growth and decentralization; others see it as squeezing L1 revenues.
Cointelegraph

For businesses, “all L2s are the same” is false—you must assess with a practical checklist: operational authority, bridges, and withdrawal safety.

Three-line Summary (Overview)

Key Points Diagram

Section 1: Why this topic matters now

Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko said, “The claim that L2s inherit ETH’s security is wrong.” He cited three reasons: a broader attack surface on L2s, very large codebases, and asset management via multisig (keys held by multiple signers), which in extreme cases could allow funds to move without explicit user consent.
Cointelegraph

• Mini glossary
Multisig: A wallet setup where multiple people hold keys and a transaction goes through only if a specified number sign. It’s convenient, but if the authority design is poor, there remains room for assets to move according to “people factors.”

Dialogue among the four

Rachel: So it’s not “automatically safe,” right?
John: Right. Some designs leave human operational authority in the loop.
Rahab: Bigger attack surface = more entry points, which are harder to defend.
Moka: Which is why “L2 = as safe as ETH” can be a hasty conclusion.
Cointelegraph

Section 1: Why this matters now

Security Debate Map

Section 2: What exactly does “inherit” mean?

Typically, an L2 uses Ethereum L1 as the final “arbiter,” partially leveraging L1’s strong security. However,

Which parts and under what rules it relies on L1 depend on the approach (Optimistic rollups / ZK rollups, etc.).

Depending on the design of bridges, operators, and upgrade authority, the ultimate safety changes.
In short, “L2 = same strength as L1” is an oversimplification. Yakovenko’s point targets precisely this design gap.
Cointelegraph

Dialogue among the four

John: Think baseball—L1 is the umpire; L2s are the teams. Rules may be similar, but sloppy team operations lead to more errors.
Rachel: Even with an umpire, if the bench is a mess, the game falls apart.
Rahab: Operational authority and bridge quality are the “bench strength.”
Moka: Businesses need the eye to pick which team to join.

Section 2: What does “inherit” mean?

Schematic of L1 Dependency Points

Section 3: The numbers behind “L2s today”

Even by L2Beat’s count alone, there are 129 confirmed Ethereum L2s and 29 unverified. Some criticize this as “too many,” while others argue diversity is healthy. Another analysis notes L2 proliferation is eating into L1 revenues.
Cointelegraph

• Mini glossary
L1 revenue: Mainly transaction fees (gas). If activity moves to L2, direct L1 revenue can decline.

Dialogue among the four

Rachel: More platforms mean more user choice—but more chances to get lost.
Rahab: Choice also spurs competition in quality—that’s a plus.
John: On the other hand, liquidity can fragment.
Moka: For business, decide based on “where our customers are” and “integration cost.”
Cointelegraph

Section 3: L2 by the Numbers (Today)

Visualizing Count & Impact

VerifiedUnreviewedL1 impact (concept)

Section 4: A business-ready view of “security” (Checklist)

Rather than “Is it technically perfect?”, ask “Is the operational design acceptable for our brand?”

A. Operational authority

Who holds multisig, how many signers, and under what conditions can emergencies be handled?

Key rotation, audits, and disclosure policy.
Cointelegraph

B. Bridges (asset entry/exit)

Who runs the bridge? Audit status? Past incidents and prevention measures.

Any delay/hold risk when withdrawing (L2 → L1)?
Cointelegraph

C. Data availability and verification

Are transaction data sufficiently recorded on L1 so anyone can verify?

Is there a fallback (safe shutdown procedure in failures)?

D. Ecosystem health

Transaction volume, developer activity, support by major wallets/exchanges.

Vendor lock-in risk (being tied to one implementation).

Dialogue among the four

Rahab: Attack surface is the “number of entrances.” More entrances → more guards needed.
John: Human authority in multisig can be both risk and shield—depends on design and ops rules.
Rachel: Use the checklist and count the red flags.
Moka: If there are three or more reds, consider another option.

Section 4: Practical Security Checks

Evaluation Table (count red flags)

Aspect	What to check	Rating	Note
Operational authority	Multisig setup/rotation/disclosure	Red	Poor signer distribution
Bridge	Operator/audits/incident history	Amber	Need to verify prevention measures
Data availability	Third-party verification/fallback	Green	Scope of L1 posting is clear
Ecosystem	TX volume/devs/major wallets	Green	Supported by major exchanges

Section 5: Decision-making framework for marketing & business

RPG_Keyword:d2ef7esd

State the objective in one sentence: e.g., “Create two touchpoints per month with NFT holders.”

User journey: Map onboarding (learning), action, and reward on paper.

Tech selection: Compare two options with the checklist (L2 A / L2 B).

KPIs:

• On-chain participation rate (vs target users)
• Actions per user
• Retention (re-participation after N days)
• Cost per outcome (tx fees + operating costs)

Budget allocation:

• Initial: proof-of-concept costs (small coupons/NFTs), audits, support
• Operations: community management, customer support, analytics stack (e.g., Dune)
• Risk handling: emergency halt criteria, refund/compensation rules, PR templates

Dialogue among the four

Rachel: I want to weight “re-participation rate” the most.
Moka: Yep—relationship quality over short-term mint counts.
Rahab: Draft the refund/compensation template before launch.
John: Operations before tech. This is what tests are made of.

Section 5: Decision Framework

Goal → Journey → Tech → KPIs → Budget → Risk

Section 6: Common myths vs. the right view

Myth 1: “L2 = exactly as secure as ETH.”
→ Depends on design. Multisig operations and bridge quality create differences.
Cointelegraph

Myth 2: “More L2s = bad.”
→ There’s also a view that diversity is healthy; the real issue is how you choose.
Cointelegraph

Myth 3: “Moving to L2 is always cheaper.”
→ Often cheaper, but people forget costs for withdrawal, bridges, and support.

Myth 4: “If big brands use it, it must be safe.”
→ Early adoption ≠ safety. Check operational authority, audits, and ability to respond in incidents.

Dialogue among the four

Moka: The three keys are “who,” “how far,” and “when” they can move funds.
Rahab: Especially transparency of emergency authority.
John: Read the design docs and ops structure, not just the tech brand name.
Rachel: If reading is painful, paying a security PM for a day is cheaper.

Section 6: Common Misconceptions & the Right View

Myth → Reality

Section 7: Speeding decisions with “two options” and “exit criteria”

How to form the two options:

• Option A = realistic, close to “adopt”
• Option B = deliberately stricter (minimal authority, audits required, withdrawal guarantees)

Compare the gap. If requirements can’t be met, define the exit criteria up front.

Sample exit criteria:

• Audit reports for critical components aren’t delivered on time
• Multisig setup isn’t disclosed / no rotation plan
• Withdrawal (L2 → L1) halts for over 24 hours in testing

Dialogue among the four

John: Decide exit criteria before any announcement.
Rachel: Drafts written after a blow-up are usually late.
Moka: So PR templates first, too.
Rahab: Crisis management is “80% prep, 20% live.”

Section 7: Two Options & Exit Criteria

Selection Matrix (Option A vs Option B)

Metric	Option A (pragmatic)	Option B (strict)
Minimize authority	Medium	High
Audits required	Optional	Required
Withdrawal guarantee (test)	48h	24h
Integration cost	Low	Medium

Exit criterion	Threshold
Audit incomplete	No report within deadline
Authority undisclosed	Unknown multisig setup/rotation plan
Withdrawal halted	Reproduced >24h halt in testing

Section 8: Practical scenarios

1. Member rewards NFTs

Low-value perks × high-frequency actions. Choose an L2 with stable fees.

KPIs: issued count / active rate / revisit rate / CS inquiry rate.

2. Community voting

Bot prevention and consistency in re-votes. Clearly state how results are published (link to L1 data).

3. In-store × on-chain promotion

Store ops first. Time for wallet creation → first receipt, staff training, and checkout congestion mitigation are also KPIs.

Dialogue among the four

Moka: In-store, “QR → tap → received” within 30 seconds is ideal.
Rachel: Users bounce in seconds.
John: That’s more important than which tech you pick.
Rahab: In the end, the winner is what doesn’t get in the customer’s way.

Section 8: Use Cases & Practical Scenarios

1) Member Reward NFTs (KPI examples)

KPI	Description	Progress
Issued count	Distribution completion among target members
Active rate	Share of active users in last 30 days
Revisit rate	Re-participation after N days
CS inquiry rate	Inquiries per 1,000 users

2) Community Voting (transparency diagram)

3) In-store × On-chain Linkage (30s UX)

Section 9: Re-checking the points (based on primary sources)

Yakovenko noted the broad L2 attack surface, huge codebases, and multisig-related fund movement risk.
Cointelegraph

He rebutted the claim that “L2s inherit ETH security,” comparing Wormhole ETH with ETH on Base and discussing “similar worst-case risks.”
Cointelegraph

The number of L2s is surging; concerns about “too many” coexist with arguments that it’s healthy growth.
Cointelegraph

There’s also analysis that L2 growth pressures L1 revenues.
Cointelegraph

Section 9: Primary-source Summary of Key Points

Evidence Mapping

Section 10: 90-day action plan (learn at minimal cost)

Day 1–7: Internal alignment

One-sentence objective, draft KPIs, exit criteria. Clarify roles (R/A/C/I).

Day 8–21: Pre-research on tech options

Desk-compare 2–3 options with the checklist. Count “red flags” for audits/authority/withdrawals.

Day 22–45: PoC (small-scale test)

Limited experiment with 100–300 existing customers. Run CS in parallel.

Weekly report: participation / re-participation / inquiry contents / recurrence prevention steps.

Day 46–60: Evaluate & pivot

Withdrawal tests, incident-response drills, finalize PR templates.

Re-balance budget (L2 fees < CS/education costs in many cases).

Day 61–90: Mini production start

Stage rollout by region or member segment. Document wins and fails openly.

Dialogue among the four

Rachel: In PoC, don’t forget to measure delight.
Moka: Joy drives repetition—make it a KPI.
John: Tech success rides on CS.
Rahab: Quiet operations prevent loud fires.

Section 10: 90-day Action Plan

Timeline (Day 1 → 90)

Section 11: FAQ (for non-engineers)

Q: So, are L2s dangerous after all?
A: You can’t generalize. Safety varies by design and operations. Compare the trio: authority, bridge, and withdrawals.
Cointelegraph

Q: Which L2 should we pick?
A: Make a two-option comparison using: where your customers are × transparency of operational authority × withdrawal safety. Choose the one with fewer red flags.

Q: What about costs?
A: Gas may be lower, but education/CS/audit and other surrounding costs matter. Budget more for “operations that don’t break the experience.”

Q: Internal explanation is hard.
A: Turn this article’s checklist and 90-day plan into slides as-is. Lead with “operational rules,” not tech brand names.

Section 11: FAQ (for non-engineers)

Q&A Table

Question	Key point
Are L2s risky?	No blanket answer; judge by the trio of authority / bridge / withdrawals
Which L2 to choose?	Where customers are × transparency × withdrawal safety
Rough cost?	Gas + CS/education/audits and other surrounding costs
How to explain internally?	Reuse the diagrams here (checklist / 90-day plan)

Conclusion: Fear the right things, test the right way

“Inherit = equal” is hasty. We anchored on primary info showing design and operations are the keys.

Don’t be fooled by the “mask of safety.” Build the habit of counting red flags with a checklist.

Test small while defining both your path to victory and your exit yardsticks—that’s the shortest route.

Final dialogue among the four

Rahab: Safety doesn’t arrive from “principles” alone—it’s built by operations.
Moka: Loved experiences start from feeling safe.
Rachel: Our KPI is “Do they want to come back?”
John: And the strongest security is doing tomorrow what we decided today.