Layer-2 networks like Base are infrastructure extensions of Ethereum, not exchanges; Vitalik Buterin says sequencers do not custody funds and L2s remain non-custodial, so they act as transaction processors tied to Ethereum’s security, not market matching engines.
-
Layer-2s process and order transactions without custodying user funds.
-
Sequencers determine transaction ordering but do not match buyers and sellers like exchange matching engines.
-
Regulatory concerns focus on centralization of sequencing; official guidance and industry responses continue to evolve.
Meta description: Layer-2 networks like Base are infrastructure, not exchanges — Vitalik Buterin defends non-custodial sequencers. Read the latest analysis and next steps.
What is Vitalik Buterin’s defense of Base and layer-2 networks?
Vitalik Buterin says layer-2 networks such as Base are infrastructure extensions of Ethereum and are non-custodial. He argues sequencers provide UX and ordering benefits while funds remain controlled by users on Ethereum, so L2s should not be equated with centralized exchanges.
How do sequencers differ from exchange matching engines?
Sequencers order transactions and batch them for inclusion on Ethereum. They do not pair buy and sell orders or custody assets. This makes them operationally distinct from matching engines used in centralized exchanges, which execute trades at matched prices.
Vitalik Buterin defended Base and layer-2 networks against SEC regulatory concerns, arguing they’re infrastructure extensions of Ethereum, not exchanges.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has praised Ethereum layer-2 Base’s approach to decentralization in response to recent concerns over Base’s sequencer and whether it should be treated as an exchange.
“Base is doing things the right way: an L2 on top of Ethereum, that uses its centralized features to provide stronger UX features, while still being tied into Ethereum’s decentralized base layer for security,” Vitalik Buterin said on Tuesday.
He added that the Coinbase layer-2 does not have custody over your funds, “they cannot steal funds or stop you from withdrawing funds.”
True layer-2s are non-custodial, he continued, “they are extensions of Ethereum, not glorified servers that happen to submit hashes.”
Buterin’s comments came amid recent cynicism over the definition of layer-2 networks and concerns of centralization. L2s have been thrust into the spotlight following comments by SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce in a podcast on Sept. 7.
Are L2s the same as exchanges?
Many layer-2s use centralized transaction sequencing to provide better rates and prevent front running by bots. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce noted potential regulatory implications if these sequencing systems act like centralized matching engines controlled by a single entity.
Peirce said, “If you have a matching engine that’s essentially controlled by one entity that controls all the pieces of that, then that looks a lot more like an exchange, and we’re going to have to think about that.”
She added that if the assets being “matched” are not securities, then the regulator’s role may be limited.
Why are layer-2s compared to infrastructure providers like AWS?
Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal has argued that calling layer-2 sequencers “exchanges” misunderstands their role. The SEC definition of “exchange” centers on bringing together buyers and sellers of securities.
Layer-2s operate as general-purpose blockchains that batch transactions and execute code provided by developers. They process messages, invoke smart contracts, and aggregate transactions for settlement on Ethereum.
The analogy: if an exchange application runs on a cloud provider, that cloud provider is not an exchange simply because it hosts exchange software. The same distinction applies to L2 infrastructure.
How do sequencers operate without acting as matching engines?
Base co-founder Jesse Pollak explains sequencers determine transaction ordering; users can still submit transactions directly to Ethereum if they prefer full decentralization and censorship resistance.
Sequencers act like traffic controllers: they ensure efficient ordering and throughput but do not perform price discovery or pair orders at matched prices. Matching engines are exchange-specific and execute trades by pairing buy and sell orders.
If L2s were classified as exchanges, they would face registration and compliance burdens that apply to securities exchanges, prompting industry pushback and legal debate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are sequencers custodial?
Sequencers are typically non-custodial: they order transactions but do not hold user funds. Users maintain asset control on the underlying Ethereum layer and can withdraw without sequencer custody.
Will regulators treat L2s as exchanges?
Regulators are examining the role of sequencing and centralization. If an L2 operates like a matching engine and custody is present, it could attract exchange-like treatment; current industry stance argues against that classification.
Key Takeaways
- Layer-2 as infrastructure: L2s like Base are extensions of Ethereum that batch and order transactions without custodying funds.
- Sequencers ≠ matching engines: Sequencers determine ordering, while matching engines execute paired trades at prices.
- Regulatory focus: Centralized sequencing raises questions; transparency, governance, and withdrawal guarantees are key to regulatory assessments.
Conclusion
Vitalik Buterin and industry leaders maintain layer-2s are infrastructure, not exchanges. Sequencers provide performance and ordering while users retain custody through Ethereum, which supports the view that L2s should be regulated differently than centralized exchanges. Watch governance, technical transparency, and official guidance as the debate evolves.
