Building a blockchain solution often overwhelms most modern companies today.
As firms explore blockchain technology, many feel compelled to evaluate creating an Ethereum layer two network to boost operations. This urge has spiked as mainstream brands and financial players announce their custom chain ambitions. Start Cloud Mining networks regularly appear as companies look for new ways to scale, but understanding the deeper landscape reveals this approach is rarely essential.
Ethereum’s foundations have matured, supporting countless digital assets, decentralized apps, and stablecoins. These advancements have kept Ethereum as the go-to environment for decentralized finance, with its influence only growing when accounting for layer two extensions. While launching a new layer one ecosystem pits newcomers against well-established players, layer two networks allow for expansion using Ethereum’s proven infrastructure.
Many are drawn to the flexibility provided by these newer solutions. A dedicated layer two environment offers control, enabling custom transaction rules, fee structures, and tailored data privacy. This lets participants carve out an ecosystem while enjoying seamless integration with the broader Ethereum community.
However, these benefits require ongoing investment. Every layer two network needs to settle transactions back to the core Ethereum chain for security, a process that incurs costs known as blob space fees. Though relatively low, especially compared to launching from scratch, these expenses still impact the balance sheets of operators. For example, Base, an Ethereum layer two launched by Coinbase, collected millions in transaction fees but spent only a fraction on mainnet settlements. Such efficiency raises ongoing debates about how fee structures might evolve as more networks emerge.
Market interest continues as leading firms expand staking, trading, or financial services operations using dedicated networks. High-profile announcements lend credibility to the concept and feed the perception that every business must now consider launching their own chain. Reality paints a more nuanced picture.
The reason for using a public blockchain hinges on the ability to cooperate among peers without a single controlling entity. Most companies do not need granular control or exclusive environments when they can securely transact with suppliers, clients, and competitors on shared infrastructure. Participation in the open ecosystem assures a level playing field, driving down integration costs and enhancing transparency.
Transaction volume is another critical ingredient in the equation. Successful layer two networks thrive only when companies can bring sustained demand. Many chains, despite promising technology, struggle to justify their existence as they attract minimal usage and sit mostly idle. Data consistently reveals that most such networks have limited bridged assets and little operational activity.
Firms most suited to this pathway tend to be intermediaries with substantial and recurring transaction flows. Major consumer-facing financial platforms can aggregate activity at a scale justifying a standalone environment. By contrast, manufacturers or logistics firms rarely move enough volume to offset the investment in independent infrastructure. In these cases, connecting to established networks, whether on Ethereum directly or through a reputable open layer two, generally proves far more practical.
Evaluating whether to pursue a dedicated chain involves asking if the firm has enough activity to warrant its own ecosystem. Is transacting on-chain central to the company’s operations? Does a new network provide a clear advantage over what is already available? Honest answers to these questions often lead businesses to realize that working within existing platforms better aligns with both their needs and resources.
While the temptation to own and control a blockchain environment persists, it is often more of an illusion than a necessity. Many companies once launched private blockchains for the promise of autonomy, yet these efforts largely failed to deliver sustained value or broad adoption. Today’s centralized layer two networks echo similar ambitions—they offer additional control, but only a select few will deliver the advantages their creators hope for.
The broader trend suggests most firms will gain more by joining open, widely adopted public infrastructure than by investing heavily in bespoke chains. Over time, the shared benefits of standardization, interoperability, and reduced costs will outweigh the perceived upsides of exclusive environments.
Some enterprises will inevitably experiment with building out these technologies in pursuit of market differentiation or tighter control. Yet, history teaches that openness and broad participation foster more resilient ecosystems. As technology matures, network effects naturally reward solutions that lower barriers and encourage collaboration, not those that isolate and divide.
Conclusion
For most organizations, integrating with existing Ethereum networks or leveraging established layer two platforms presents the best mix of security, efficiency, and future-proofing. The costs of independent chain operations rarely justify the outcomes when balanced against the available alternatives.
While certain high-traffic intermediaries may see substantial benefits from custom deployments, the overwhelming majority will thrive through partnership and cooperation—not control and isolation—inside blockchain’s ever-evolving ecosystem.
Ewan’s fascination with cryptocurrency started through his curiosity about innovative technologies reshaping the financial world. Over the past four years, he has specialized in cloud mining and crypto asset management, diving deep into mining contracts, profitability analysis, and emerging trends. Ewan is dedicated to helping readers understand the technical and economic aspects of crypto mining, making complex information accessible and actionable.
