After careful consideration of @VitalikButerin's latest statements regarding the rapid withdrawal of L2, I find it quite interesting. In simple terms: he believes that achieving quick withdrawals within one hour is more important than reaching Stage 2. The logic behind this shift in priority is worth deep reflection: 1) The one-week withdrawal waiting period has indeed become a significant issue in practical applications, not only resulting in poor user experience but also significantly increasing cross-chain costs. For instance, with intent-based bridging solutions like ERC-7683, liquidity providers have to bear a week of capital occupation costs, which directly raises cross-chain fees. As a result, users are forced to choose to trust multi-signature solutions with weaker assumptions, which goes against the original intention of L2. Therefore, Vitalik proposed a 2-of-3 hybrid proof system (ZK+OP+TEE), where ZK and TEE can provide immediacy, and both TEE and OP have sufficient production verification. Theoretically, any two systems can ensure security, thus avoiding the time cost of simply waiting for ZK technology to mature completely. 2) Additionally, Vitalik's new statement gives the impression that he has become more pragmatic? From previously being a youthful idealist full of "decentralization crusades" and "anti-censorship" rhetoric, he has now transformed into a pragmatic figure directly providing hard metrics: one-hour withdrawals, twelve-second finality, everything has become straightforward and brutal. Previously, everyone was focused on the degree of decentralization in Stage 2, but now V God directly states that quick withdrawals are more important, which effectively re-prioritizes the entire L2 landscape. This is actually paving the way for the ultimate form of the "Rollup-Centric" grand strategy, allowing Ethereum L1 to truly become a unified settlement layer and liquidity center. Once quick withdrawals and cross-chain aggregation are achieved, it will become significantly more challenging for other public chains to compete with the Ethereum ecosystem. The reason little V is doing this is that the market has already voted with its feet, indicating that it does not care about the technical slogans of decentralization but rather focuses on experience and efficiency. This shift from "ideal-driven" to "result-oriented" reflects the entire Ethereum ecosystem's evolution towards a more commercial and competitive direction. 3) The question arises: to achieve the long-term goals of practical experience and infrastructure construction, the Ethereum ecosystem is likely to focus on the maturity and cost control of ZK technology in the near future. From the current situation, although ZK technology is progressing rapidly, cost remains a real constraint. A ZK proof costing over 500k gas means that, in the short term, only hourly submission frequencies can be achieved. To realize the ultimate goal of twelve seconds, breakthroughs in aggregation technology will still be necessary. The logic here is clear: the cost of frequently submitting proofs for a single Rollup is too high, but if the proofs of N Rollups can be aggregated into one, spreading the cost across each slot (12s) becomes economically feasible. This also presents a new technical route for the L2 competitive landscape; those L2 projects that can achieve breakthroughs in ZK proof optimization may find their footing, while those still stubbornly pursuing Optimism's optimistic proofs are likely to lose their direction.