삼코딩

In 2026, the Ethereum Layer 2 ecosystem is attracting developers not just with 'faster transaction speeds,' but with unique execution environment architectures. Builders must now select completely different networks based on the high-performance computational needs of their services, compatibility with zero-knowledge proof systems, and adherence to institutional regulatory compliance.

The most prominent trend is the contrast between the execution architectures of Arbitrum Stylus and Scroll. Through Stylus, Arbitrum has successfully established a dual virtual machine structure that runs WASM code written in compiled languages like Rust or C++ alongside the EVM. It is the top choice for dApps that require complex mathematical operations or high-performance cryptography, as it dramatically reduces on-chain computational gas costs. On the other hand, starting with the Euclid upgrade, Scroll has transitioned to the OpenVM proof architecture, a general-purpose RISC-V virtual machine. This allows developers to leverage powerful zero-knowledge proof capabilities while maintaining existing Solidity bytecode, without the need to learn complex zkVM-specific languages.

Meanwhile, Dunamu’s GIWA chain, which has recently gained traction, offers a completely different solution. Utilizing a self-managing tier on the OP Stack, the GIWA chain provides a fast 1-second block time and comes equipped with 'Dojang,' an identity authentication layer with built-in Ethereum attestation services, and 'Bojagi,' a zero-knowledge-based financial privacy layer. It is optimized for infrastructure where strict regulation and compliance are essential, such as in cross-border remittances or enterprise-grade solutions.

Ultimately, the choice of L2 in 2026 has moved beyond simple fee comparisons. It is time for smart design: choose Arbitrum Stylus for complex on-chain computations, Scroll for gas compatibility and robust zero-knowledge security, and the GIWA chain if institutional financial integration and global compliance are your top priorities.

This is a look into the EIP-8130 Native Account Abstraction implementation, which I've been finding quite interesting from a gas cost and architectural perspective. The existing ERC-4337 method required executing arbitrary code during the smart contract verification stage, necessitating heavy infrastructure like separate mempools or bundlers. In contrast, EIP-8130 introduces a new transaction type, 0x79, to internalize the verification process at the protocol level.

The core lies in the changes on the client side. Within the Reth V2 execution pipeline, instead of going through EVM execution, signatures are verified directly at the engine-native level using pre-registered stateless authenticators. As a result, smart account verification becomes possible with just 21,000 gas, the same level as standard EOA accounts. By omitting the bundler simulation process, gas estimation speeds are also reduced to the millisecond range.

When EIP-8140 is added, token gas fee sponsorship can also be handled directly by the client without calling a Paymaster contract. This approach, which shifts complexity from the smart contract level to the execution engine domain, seems like a practical solution to lower actual infrastructure costs.