A few weeks ago, after the Airdrop was sent out by Blast, it seems that everyone didn't follow this project much anymore.

But as long as the community keeps an eye on it, all the details are easy to catch.

Yesterday, sharp-eyed netizens discovered that Blast changed the account name of his official X account from the original @Blast_L2 to @Blast.

Official accounts often represent their own brand and positioning. A slight difference in wording can make a big difference in meaning.

Although this is just a small account name change, it is not enough to warrant a corresponding official announcement; but from the perspective of brand and recognition, this is very likely to be 'part of the plan'.

Meanwhile, the official account of Blast has also begun to describe itself as "The Fullstack Chain" rather than just an L2 on Ethereum in its profile, which seems to deliberately play down the common impression that it is an ETH-based L2.

However, is this just a unique selling point in terms of branding, highlighting differentiation, or is it a technological independence, intending to separate from Ethereum and create its own independent chain?

Helping Ethereum is important, but developing yourself is even more important

Without a doubt, Blast is one of the most slickly operated and active L2s, perhaps none like it.

Of course, Tiexun will not just do Airdrops to gain popularity, Blast has become a full-stack chain, which has actually been written into its second phase development plan.

From the official diagrams provided, the full-stack meaning of Blast is not just a ledger that handles transactions and records transaction state changes, but Blast also wants to integrate with the upstream and downstream of the chain.

From Fiat Currency deposits and withdrawals to Wallets, Telegram Bots, and Dapps in the ecosystem, all become part of the Blast Chain, extending the reach of your business.

From infrastructure to applications, from fund flow to information flow, it feels like everyone wants a slice of the pie.

It has to be said that this is indeed an ambitious and very reasonable strategic choice. L2s all look similar, so it is necessary to build around the merchandise chain to make oneself more identifiable and radiate the upstream and downstream.

However, the original intention of L2 was actually to help Ethereum address performance issues. Now, looking at Blast's full-stack chain initiatives, it is not just a matter of performance anymore.

The stronger sense of self-development, but if you say it in reverse, it also promotes the experience of ETH users, which is also fine.

But does moving from L2 to full-stack chain mean that you have to build an independent L1 instead of not doing L2?

Currently not.

In yesterday's most viewed post on this topic, Twitter user @0xjim interpreted it as 'leaving Ethereum to form a separate chain'.

In the comment section, Wang Qiao of Alliance DAO interpreted it as an "integration" - having its own deposit channel, Wallet, and chain-related supporting facilities, rather than directly cutting off from ETH.

Other voices in the community are even sharper, pointing out that there may be longer Rollups in the future calling themselves chains; this is not about standing alone to create an L1 and Ethereum split, but rather:

"Cut off the "looks the same as all L2 today".

Technical homogenization is original sin, and standing out is obsession

Every L2 has its own ambitious words at the beginning of its establishment.

Although the descriptions are different, the goals all point to making Ethereum better.

This also precisely points out the relationship between L2 and Ethereum---ethereum alignment, which is parasitic as part of the Ethereum ecosystem.

Help you trade faster, help you relieve congestion, help you expand capacity...

If there are L1s acting as Ethereum killers outside, then L2s, including Blast, should be assistants to Ethereum.

Just that these assistants' technologies are too homogeneous, whether it's ZK or OP, Rollup as a service has emerged, allowing you to quickly create your own L2.

When assistants begin to compete fiercely, the obsession to stand out becomes their driving force.

The attention and funds of the encryption market are limited, and users don't really care about the technical choices of different L2s. Because the effects that L2s can achieve are basically the same, it's fine to choose 1-2.

When everyone's experience is more or less the same, there are dozens of L2 solutions competing in the market. Sometimes, being a step ahead in brand and recognition can bring about significant changes.

So, you are more and more likely to see these ETH assistants, who have gradually embarked on the road to success from the original intention of helping ETH,01928374656574839201.

If you go and take a look at different L2 official accounts, you will find that they have surprisingly consistent tacit understanding:

No L2 is willing to say in their own introduction that they are an Ethereum L2.

In the end, it's becoming more and more like a MEME that fits Ethereum.

After all, projects are all for themselves, and no project will use all their passion to be a selfless helper of Ethereum without expecting anything in return.

Understanding this, you need to be more careful when surfing the encryption world:

The initial slogan and narrative are always just means, not ends.