Lei Yang

Stage two, ultimately, you are not ambitious enough.

Not really.

And I can totally see how it can be a trick question because, yeah, we thought about our performance-oriented sequencer a lot, but

like centralization or monolithic sequencers does not really conflict with the goal of being stage two, right?

It's all about having an immutable piece of code that validates the layer two state sitting on the layer one and that code being the ultimate say of what can and cannot happen on the layer two.

And I think, again, that's a really inspiring goal for every layer two.

So I would say no.

And actually just,

Funny enough, I was in New York and I was chatting with the founders of WorldWCM.

So I was asking if, I was asking, so, hey, if your end goal or even if your current architecture is to be fully on-chain in the sense that there is no backend server, supposedly you can also make your contract immutable.

Of course, the current contract is not immutable because, yeah,

God knows when you need to do an emergency upgrade, right?

But their goal is also to make their contract immutable.

And I felt good.

I think there was some good synergy between their thinking and our thinking.

What I want you to say is with great power comes great responsibility.

I think Layer 2s inherently have more power than Layer 1s.

And I think that's also the reason that the arbitrage team faced a decision.

And I think they took one particular option.

To me, my preference is I do not want the power.