Picking an L2 on TVL Alone Gets Expensive

The $48B Layer 2 Ecosystem After EIP-4844

The Ethereum Layer 2 ecosystem is a collection of scaling networks that execute transactions off Ethereum mainnet, compress and post transaction data or cryptographic proofs to Ethereum for final settlement, and inherit its security guarantees at a fraction of the base-layer cost. As of May 2026, more than 73 active rollups collectively hold over $48 billion in total value locked (TVL), with five networks — Arbitrum One, Base, OP Mainnet, zkSync Era, and Linea — commanding roughly 75% of that capital [3]. The structural catalyst for this growth was EIP-4844, the Dencun upgrade deployed on Ethereum mainnet in March 2024, which introduced "blob" transactions and cut L2 data-posting costs to Ethereum by 80–90%, driving per-transaction fees below $0.10 across every major network [3]. Combined L2 networks now process between 2 million and 20 million transactions per day, surpassing Ethereum mainnet volume — a structural redistribution of on-chain activity, not a temporary spike [1]. Post-Dencun fee parity means cost alone no longer drives chain selection; architecture, security posture, and ecosystem depth are now the defining criteria.

Quick Answer: Ethereum's Layer 2 ecosystem holds over $48B TVL across 73+ rollups as of May 2026. EIP-4844 (March 2024) cut data-posting costs 80–90%, pushing fees below $0.10 on every major network. Arbitrum One leads with $16.88B TVL; Base leads on transaction volume at 12.89M daily transactions. Architecture and security stage — not fees — now determine network selection.

Arbitrum One and Base dominate the capital picture. Arbitrum One holds $16.88 billion in TVL — approximately 44% of all L2 DeFi capital — while Base follows with $10.74 billion, roughly 33% [3]. OP Mainnet adds $1.91 billion to the optimistic rollup total [3]. In the ZK rollup segment, zkSync Era leads at approximately $4.1 billion, followed by Linea at $3.4 billion, Scroll at $2.1 billion, and Starknet at $1.5 billion [4]. These concentration patterns are self-reinforcing: deep liquidity attracts more protocols, which attract more users, which attract more liquidity — making TVL a lagging indicator of prior ecosystem investment rather than a real-time measure of network quality.

The real decision-making challenge for traders and developers is not whether to use a Layer 2 — the economics make that a clear choice — but which L2 to use and why. With fees now indistinguishable in practical terms, the meaningful distinctions involve withdrawal finality mechanics, smart contract language compatibility, TVL depth by protocol category, and the governance maturity underpinning actual security guarantees. Those distinctions are the subject of this guide.

Optimistic Rollups: How Arbitrum, Base & OP Mainnet Work

Optimistic rollups are Layer 2 networks that assume all submitted transactions are valid by default, execute them off-chain, and post transaction data to Ethereum mainnet without a validity proof attached. Instead of proving correctness upfront, they rely on a 7-day fraud-proof challenge window — a period during which any network participant can submit cryptographic evidence that a transaction was invalid, triggering a dispute resolution process [1]. Only once that window expires without a successful challenge do native withdrawals finalize on Ethereum mainnet. The architectural trade-off is direct: lower computational overhead on the proving side enables full EVM compatibility, which means existing Solidity smart contracts port to Arbitrum One, Base, or OP Mainnet with near-zero code changes. That compatibility directly explains TVL concentration — Arbitrum One alone holds $16.88 billion, approximately 44% of all L2 DeFi capital, because established DeFi protocols deployed on it without rewriting a line of code [3]. For retail traders, the 7-day withdrawal window is the most immediately practical constraint to internalize.

The 7-day native withdrawal window does not mean funds are inaccessible for a week. Third-party liquidity bridges — Across Protocol, Hop Exchange, and Stargate Finance — provide near-instant withdrawals from optimistic rollups by fronting liquidity on Ethereum mainnet and recouping funds once the challenge window expires. These bridges settle in under 5 minutes in standard conditions for a fee of 0.05–0.20% of the withdrawn amount, depending on network congestion and bridge utilization [1]. For most retail-scale positions, bridge fees are negligible relative to the transaction cost savings gained by operating on an L2 in the first place. The challenge window becomes most relevant when moving very large positions where bridge liquidity depth or fee sensitivity becomes a material constraint.

According to BlockEden Research (February 2026): Full EVM compatibility is the defining advantage of optimistic rollups — it allows teams to deploy existing Solidity protocols on Arbitrum One without code modification, and is the primary explanation for why optimistic rollups captured the majority of L2 TVL before ZK equivalence became viable at scale.

Arbitrum's development roadmap reflects a deliberate strategy to expand beyond EVM-native Solidity developers. Arbitrum Stylus, now live in production, allows developers to write smart contracts in Rust, C++, and C# — languages compiled to WebAssembly and executed alongside the existing EVM environment [1]. The Stylus Sprint developer program attracted 147 submissions, a meaningful signal that the systems-programming community — historically excluded from Ethereum L2 by the Solidity requirement — is beginning to engage with the network [1]. WebAssembly contracts also offer performance characteristics suited to computationally intensive applications — high-frequency on-chain derivatives, complex pricing engines, and AI inference at the contract layer — that would be prohibitively expensive in pure Solidity.

Base, built on the OP Stack by Coinbase, has taken a different approach to growth: rather than competing for DeFi capital depth, it has focused on consumer applications and retail onboarding via Coinbase's existing user base. With 12.89 million daily transactions and 382,500 active addresses, Base leads all Layer 2 networks on raw activity metrics despite holding substantially less TVL than Arbitrum One [3]. This reflects a structural distribution advantage: direct Coinbase Wallet integration and consumer-facing application primitives generate high transaction counts with smaller per-user capital commitments than DeFi protocols — a different growth vector, not a lesser one.

ZK Rollups: zkSync, Starknet, Linea & Scroll Side by Side

ZK rollups are Layer 2 networks that generate a cryptographic validity proof — a mathematical certificate of correctness — for every batch of transactions, then post that proof alongside compressed transaction data to Ethereum mainnet for on-chain verification. Because the proof mathematically guarantees the validity of every included transaction, no challenge window is required: withdrawal finality completes in 1–24 hours depending on the network and batch submission frequency [4]. This finality advantage has meaningful implications for institutional users and high-frequency traders who need cryptographic certainty of settlement rather than economic incentivization via fraud challenges. The ZK rollup segment — led by zkSync Era at $4.1 billion, Linea at $3.4 billion, Scroll at $2.1 billion, and Starknet at $1.5 billion — is growing but collectively still trails Arbitrum One's $16.88 billion alone, largely because EVM compatibility trade-offs in earlier ZK systems slowed dApp migration from established optimistic rollup deployments [4].

Within the ZK rollup category, the critical technical distinction is between SNARK-based and STARK-based proof systems. SNARK-based networks — zkSync Era, Linea, Scroll, and Polygon zkEVM — produce compact proofs that are fast and inexpensive to verify on-chain, while maintaining full EVM equivalence for Solidity developers [4]. The trade-off is a requirement for a trusted setup ceremony: a coordinated multi-party computation event that initializes the cryptographic parameters and must be trusted to have been conducted honestly. Scroll is notable within this group for offering bytecode-level EVM equivalence — the highest degree of Solidity compatibility currently available in ZK infrastructure — making it the lowest-friction migration target for teams porting existing Solidity contracts.

According to Nethermind Engineering's comparative analysis: STARK proofs rely on hash-based cryptography with no trusted setup and are considered post-quantum secure — properties that SNARK systems cannot currently claim. The practical trade-off is larger on-chain proof sizes, higher verification gas costs, and the requirement for a Cairo-native smart contract language rather than Solidity.

Starknet is the principal STARK-based rollup in active production. Its proof system requires no trusted setup, derives security from hash functions rather than elliptic curve assumptions, and is considered post-quantum secure — meaning it would remain cryptographically valid against a quantum computer with sufficient qubit capacity [6]. The practical consequence is larger proof sizes and higher on-chain verification costs. More significantly for adoption, Starknet uses Cairo — a proprietary smart contract language purpose-built for STARK provability — rather than Solidity. Cairo's native account abstraction enables built-in social recovery and gasless transaction flows, but the language requirement limits dApp portability and constrains the developer pool. Starknet's TVL of $1.5 billion reflects both its genuine technical advantages and this ecosystem friction [4].

Linea, maintained by ConsenSys, and zkSync Era, by Matter Labs, both occupy the SNARK space with a critical governance distinction from the Stage 1 networks: both are classified as Stage 0 by L2BEAT as of May 2026, meaning protocol upgrades are controlled by centralized multi-sig wallets rather than on-chain governance with active proofs constraining upgrade authority [3]. This governance gap is addressed in the security section below. Despite it, both networks have attracted substantial capital: Linea's $3.4 billion TVL reflects MetaMask ecosystem integration, while zkSync Era's $4.1 billion signals strong developer and institutional interest in its Hyperchain architecture and ZK proof finality.

Fees & Throughput: 2026 Network Performance Data

Transaction fees across Ethereum's major Layer 2 networks converged dramatically following the Dencun upgrade in March 2024. As of mid-2026, the average cost of a simple ETH transfer or token swap sits below $0.10 on every major L2 — compared to $2–$14 on Ethereum mainnet — representing a 95%+ fee reduction across the board [3]. Base and zkSync Era lead on cost efficiency at approximately $0.05 and $0.07 per transaction respectively, while Arbitrum One and OP Mainnet average around $0.09 [3]. The spread between cheapest and most expensive major network is approximately $0.04 per transaction — economically marginal for all but the highest-frequency trading strategies. The more operationally significant metrics are daily transaction throughput, active address density, and the nature of applications generating that volume, since transaction-type distribution directly affects congestion dynamics and MEV exposure for DeFi participants.

Sources: CoinBureau [3], BlockEden [1], DEXTools [4] — data as of April–May 2026. "—" denotes data not published by the network in consistent daily form.

Base's throughput figure — 12.89 million daily transactions and 382,500 active addresses — requires context to interpret correctly [3]. High transaction count does not imply high TVL. Consumer and social applications — on-chain social graphs, creator monetization primitives, lightweight gaming interactions — generate large volumes of low-value transactions. Each individual transaction involves a small capital commitment, but scales across a broad user base. Arbitrum One's 4.30 million daily transactions, by contrast, predominantly involve DeFi operations — perpetual swaps, liquidity provision, structured lending, and derivatives — with significantly higher capital per transaction [1]. The result: Arbitrum One holds roughly 1.6× Base's TVL despite processing only one-third of its daily transactions.

OP Mainnet's ~130 TPS theoretical ceiling makes it technically the fastest of the three major optimistic rollups on raw throughput, but its 2.35 million daily transactions suggest throughput is not the current bottleneck [1]. ZK networks generally trail on observed TPS — zkSync Era at approximately 28 TPS and Starknet at approximately 19 TPS — partly because ZK proof generation introduces computational overhead that limits batch submission frequency. As proof generation hardware and algorithm optimizations mature through 2026 and 2027, ZK throughput ceilings are expected to rise substantially, narrowing the performance gap with optimistic rollups.

Security & Decentralization: L2BEAT Stage Rankings Explained

L2BEAT's "training wheels" framework is the standard methodology for evaluating how decentralized and trustless an Ethereum Layer 2 network is in practice — distinct from its theoretical architecture. The framework assigns one of three maturity stages. Stage 0 networks are operational but retain centralized multi-sig upgrade authority: a sufficiently compromised key set could alter the protocol unilaterally without on-chain governance. Stage 1 networks have deployed active fraud or validity proofs with meaningful on-chain governance constraints limiting upgrade key authority. Stage 2 is the fully trust-minimized state where no administrator can override the protocol — governed entirely by code, with no emergency admin capability [3]. As of May 2026, five major networks have reached Stage 1: Arbitrum One, Base, OP Mainnet, Starknet, and Scroll. zkSync Era and Linea remain at Stage 0. No major network has yet reached Stage 2, making the decentralization race the defining governance story of 2026 [4].

Sources: CoinBureau [3], DEXTools [4] — L2BEAT classifications as of May 2026.

According to CoinBureau's 2026 Layer 2 security analysis: the gap between Stage 0 and Stage 1 is not cosmetic. At Stage 0, a compromised or coerced key holder can alter the rollup contracts unilaterally — potentially affecting user funds without any governance check. The meaningful question is not whether the current team is trustworthy, but whether the system requires trust in a team at all.

The practical implication for capital allocation: Stage 0 is not a disqualifier — zkSync Era and Linea have each attracted billions in TVL under Stage 0 conditions, and both teams have published roadmaps toward Stage 1 — but it is an explicit risk factor that should be consciously evaluated. A Stage 0 protocol sits closer to a trusted service than a trustless infrastructure layer in its actual security model. For institutional capital with compliance requirements, this distinction is increasingly material, particularly as on-chain governance standards mature and counterparty risk assessments of DeFi infrastructure become more rigorous.

The absence of any Stage 2 network deserves emphasis as a systemic observation. Every major L2 in production today retains some form of administrative capability over the protocol — a security council with upgrade keys, time-locked admin overrides, or governance systems with emergency powers. Achieving Stage 2 requires eliminating all such override mechanisms while maintaining enough protocol agility to address critical vulnerabilities — an unsolved governance engineering problem. The first network to credibly reach Stage 2 will set a new trust standard that the rest of the ecosystem will face sustained pressure to match.

Ecosystem Depth: Superchain, Stylus & Institutional ZK

Ecosystem depth — the breadth of protocols, developer tooling, user primitives, and institutional integrations available on a network — is increasingly the variable that distinguishes networks with similar fee profiles and security stages. As of mid-2026, three distinct ecosystem development strategies have emerged. The OP Stack Superchain model connects Base, Worldcoin, and dozens of application-specific chains through a shared modular infrastructure layer and cross-chain messaging protocol, creating an interoperable ecosystem where liquidity and users can move across participating chains [5]. Analysts project 40–60% collective Superchain TVL growth in 2026 as new app-chain deployments and cross-chain DeFi composability accelerate adoption [5]. Arbitrum pursues a different angle — expanding the developer surface via Stylus to attract systems programmers — while zkSync targets institutional and regulated DeFi deployments where ZK proof finality satisfies compliance settlement requirements.

Arbitrum Stylus represents the most significant developer-surface expansion of any L2 since EVM compatibility became table stakes. By enabling Rust, C++, and C# smart contracts compiled to WebAssembly and executed alongside the existing EVM runtime, Stylus opens Ethereum L2 development to a population of systems engineers who previously had no viable deployment path to on-chain infrastructure [1]. The 147 submissions to the Stylus Sprint developer program signal early-stage momentum in that developer community [1]. WebAssembly contracts also unlock performance characteristics suited for computationally intensive applications — sophisticated derivatives pricing, real-time on-chain gaming physics, and AI model inference — that would be economically unviable in Solidity.

On the institutional ZK front, Matter Labs' zkSync Era was selected for Deutsche Bank's Project Dama 2, a consortium of 24 financial institutions testing regulated asset tokenization on ZK rollup infrastructure [1]. This deployment pattern — using ZK proof finality to satisfy proof-of-settlement requirements for regulated securities — is a preview of where institutional DeFi infrastructure is heading. ZK rollups' ability to generate verifiable mathematical settlement proof within hours aligns naturally with traditional finance clearing and settlement timelines. Project Dama 2 represents the most significant institutional proof-of-concept for ZK rollup architecture to date, and signals that the institutional DeFi wave will favor ZK networks over optimistic rollups when regulatory requirements are a primary concern.

Starknet's Cairo-native account abstraction offers a user experience dimension that EVM-based chains cannot easily replicate. Built-in social recovery — where a user-defined set of trusted contacts can restore wallet access without a seed phrase — and gasless transaction flows are native to Cairo account contracts, not retrofit additions [6]. For consumer-oriented applications targeting non-technical users, this is a genuine competitive advantage. The trade-off — Cairo's proprietary language limiting dApp portability and constraining the addressable developer pool — remains the primary ceiling on Starknet's broader adoption trajectory against EVM-compatible alternatives.

Which Layer 2 Fits Your Strategy? A Decision Framework

Selecting an Ethereum Layer 2 in 2026 is primarily an ecosystem alignment and risk calibration decision, not a fee or throughput decision. Post-Dencun, fee differences between major networks are measured in cents, making them irrelevant for most trading strategies. The meaningful selection criteria are: liquidity depth in the specific protocol category you intend to use, withdrawal finality speed relative to your capital management requirements, smart contract language compatibility for developers, and L2BEAT security stage relative to your risk tolerance for governance-level protocol exposure. For a retail trader deploying capital in established DeFi markets — perpetuals, structured lending, yield optimization, or spot liquidity provision — the dominant choice is Arbitrum One, which holds the deepest aggregate liquidity across GMX, Camelot, Pendle, Aave, and Uniswap [3]. The concentration of blue-chip DeFi protocols on Arbitrum One is not accidental — it is the compounding result of first-mover scale, which attracted the first wave of DeFi migrations, which attracted liquidity and users, which attracted further protocol deployments in a self-reinforcing cycle.

For users prioritizing activity-rich consumer applications, Coinbase ecosystem integration, or lower-cost retail transactions, Base is the clear answer. Its 12.89 million daily transactions and 382,500 active addresses represent the broadest active user base of any L2 as of May 2026, and Coinbase's distribution infrastructure remains a structural advantage for onboarding non-crypto-native users to on-chain activity [3]. Base's lower TVL relative to Arbitrum One is a feature of its use-case mix — consumer applications generate volume with smaller per-user capital commitment than DeFi protocols — not a signal of inferior infrastructure quality. Both networks are Stage 1, both are below $0.10 per transaction; the differentiator is protocol ecosystem, not network fundamentals.

According to CoinBureau's Layer 2 analysis for 2026: the Layer 2 selection framework has fundamentally shifted post-Dencun. When every major network costs under $0.10 per transaction, fees stop being a differentiator. Ecosystem depth, security stage, and withdrawal mechanics are now the actual selection variables for serious capital deployment.

For ZK-focused use cases, the selection fork divides on EVM compatibility versus proof-system properties. zkSync Era and Scroll offer the best EVM compatibility within the ZK space — Scroll at the bytecode equivalence level — enabling Solidity teams to migrate with minimal friction. zkSync Era leads on institutional validation via Project Dama 2. Starknet is the rational choice when post-quantum security and native account abstraction are prioritized over ecosystem breadth, accepting Cairo language proficiency as a prerequisite. For traders or protocol teams who require ZK proof finality certainty without accepting a proprietary smart contract language, zkSync Era or Scroll represent the current best balance of cryptographic proof security, EVM tooling compatibility, and network maturity [4].

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core difference between optimistic and ZK rollups?

Optimistic rollups assume all submitted transactions are valid by default and rely on a 7-day fraud-proof challenge window before native withdrawals finalize on Ethereum mainnet. Any network participant can dispute an invalid transaction during that window; if no successful challenge occurs, the state is accepted as final. ZK rollups generate a cryptographic validity proof for every transaction batch — a mathematical certificate proving the batch is correct — and submit it to Ethereum for immediate on-chain verification. This enables withdrawal finality in 1–24 hours with no challenge period. Both architectures reduce fees by 95%+ versus Ethereum mainnet. The core practical trade-off is EVM compatibility (straightforward for optimistic rollups, historically constrained for ZK) versus finality speed and cryptographic settlement certainty (inherent in ZK rollups). As of 2026, the EVM compatibility gap for ZK rollups has largely closed, making the finality advantage of ZK networks increasingly relevant for capital allocation decisions.

Which Ethereum Layer 2 has the lowest fees in 2026?

Base averages approximately $0.05 per transaction as of mid-2026, making it the consistent cost leader among major optimistic rollups. zkSync Era averages around $0.07, while Arbitrum One and OP Mainnet sit at approximately $0.09. Starknet can range from $0.05 to $0.19 depending on batch conditions. All major L2s are well below Ethereum mainnet's $2–$14 per transaction — a 95%+ reduction in every case. In practical terms, the spread between the cheapest and most expensive major network is roughly $0.04 per transaction. For most retail trading strategies, this difference is negligible. Fees were a meaningful differentiator before EIP-4844; post-Dencun, ecosystem depth, security stage, and withdrawal mechanics are more consequential selection variables for most users than the marginal cent-level fee differences between networks.

What does L2BEAT Stage 1 vs Stage 0 actually mean for my funds?

A Stage 0 classification means the network's smart contracts can be upgraded by a centralized set of private key holders — typically a multi-sig wallet controlled by the core team — without requiring on-chain governance approval. If that key set were compromised or coerced, the protocol's rules could be altered unilaterally, potentially affecting user funds with no recourse mechanism. As of May 2026, zkSync Era and Linea are at Stage 0. Stage 1 means that fraud or validity proofs are active on-chain and upgrade keys are subject to meaningful governance constraints — such as a security council with time-locked overrides or a multi-sig requiring supermajority approval with a defined delay period. Arbitrum One, Base, OP Mainnet, Starknet, and Scroll have reached Stage 1. Stage 2 — where no administrator can override the protocol under any circumstances, with all protocol evolution governed exclusively by on-chain code — has not yet been achieved by any major network. The practical framing: Stage 0 requires trusting the team; Stage 1 requires trusting the governance system; Stage 2 would require trusting only the code.

Why does Arbitrum have more TVL than Base when Base processes more transactions?

TVL — Total Value Locked — measures the capital deposited in DeFi protocols: lending pools, automated market maker liquidity positions, derivatives vaults, and yield strategies. Arbitrum One's $16.88 billion TVL reflects the depth of its established DeFi ecosystem, where GMX, Camelot, Pendle, Aave, and Uniswap collectively hold large capital positions from traders and liquidity providers. These are high-capital-density use cases: a single perpetual position or lending supply on Arbitrum might represent tens of thousands of dollars. Base's 12.89 million daily transactions are driven primarily by consumer and social applications — on-chain social graphs, creator platforms, lightweight gaming — where transaction frequency is high but per-user capital commitment is typically small, often cents per interaction. Transaction volume and TVL measure fundamentally different things: frequency of activity versus concentration of capital. A network can lead on both, but the mechanics driving each metric are independent.

How do I move funds off an optimistic rollup without waiting 7 days?

Third-party liquidity bridges bypass the 7-day fraud-proof challenge window by fronting liquidity on Ethereum mainnet immediately, then recouping the bridged funds from the rollup once the challenge window expires. Across Protocol, Hop Exchange, and Stargate Finance are the primary options for Arbitrum One, Base, and OP Mainnet withdrawals. Settlement typically completes in under 5 minutes under normal conditions. The fee for this service is 0.05–0.20% of the withdrawn amount, varying by current bridge utilization, network congestion, and the token being bridged. For most retail-scale positions, these fees are negligible relative to the transaction cost savings generated by operating on an L2. Key risk factors to evaluate before using a bridge: the bridge's smart contract audit history and security track record, liquidity depth for the specific token and destination (large withdrawals may face slippage), and whether the bridge is routing through additional networks that introduce additional smart contract exposure.

What's Next for Ethereum Layer 2

The 2026 Layer 2 landscape reflects a market that has passed through its fee-competition phase and entered an infrastructure maturity phase. EIP-4844 resolved the cost problem; the remaining competitive dimensions — decentralization stage, ecosystem depth, ZK proof system quality, and cross-chain interoperability — are more complex and slower to resolve than a single protocol upgrade. The race to Stage 2 governance is the defining technical-political narrative: every major network must eventually remove its administrative training wheels without triggering a security incident in the process. The first network to credibly achieve Stage 2 while maintaining production stability will set a new trust standard that the rest of the ecosystem will face pressure to match.

For retail traders, the actionable framework is straightforward: identify the protocols you intend to use, confirm they are deployed on a specific network, verify that network's current L2BEAT security stage, and understand its withdrawal mechanics before committing capital. Arbitrum One for established DeFi depth; Base for consumer-scale activity and Coinbase-native integration; Scroll or zkSync Era for ZK finality without proprietary language overhead; Starknet for post-quantum proof assurance and account abstraction capabilities. As ZK proof generation costs continue to fall and batch frequencies increase, the throughput gap between ZK and optimistic rollups will narrow — the selection criteria will shift further toward ecosystem composition and governance maturity rather than underlying architecture type.

The institutional ZK trajectory — exemplified by Deutsche Bank's Project Dama 2 with 24 participating financial institutions [1] — signals the next growth vector beyond retail DeFi. Regulated asset tokenization at scale requires the cryptographic settlement finality that ZK rollups uniquely provide. As compliance frameworks for on-chain tokenized assets mature across major jurisdictions through 2026 and 2027, ZK rollup TVL growth may accelerate beyond current projections, potentially narrowing the structural gap with optimistic rollup dominance established during the 2022–2025 EVM-compatibility era.

Last updated: 2026-05-21. TVL, fee, and throughput data sourced from CoinBureau, BlockEden Research, and DEXTools; L2BEAT governance stages reflect May 2026 classifications. Network metrics are updated on a rolling monthly basis — verify current figures at L2BEAT.io before making capital deployment decisions.