The turning point of the 10-year debate: Can Ethereum truly solve the "trilemma"?

Article by: imToken

Have you heard of the term “trilemma”? It might be making your ears numb by now.

In the first decade since Ethereum’s birth, the “trilemma” has been like a physical law hanging over every developer’s head—you can choose any two of decentralization, security, and scalability, but never all three at once. However, looking back from the beginning of 2026, we find that it seems to be gradually transforming into a “design threshold” that can be crossed through technological evolution, as Vitalik Buterin pointed out in a disruptive perspective on January 8:

Compared to reducing latency, increasing bandwidth is safer and more reliable. With PeerDAS and ZKP, Ethereum scalability can be increased by thousands of conflicts, and decentralization does not conflict with it.

So, can the once deemed insurmountable “trilemma” really dissipate in 2026 as PeerDAS, ZK technology, and account abstraction mature? 1. Why has the “trilemma” remained unsolvable for so long? We need to revisit the concept of the “blockchain trilemma” proposed by Vitalik Buterin, which was specifically used to describe the dilemma faced by public chains in balancing security, scalability, and decentralization:

• Decentralization means low node barriers, broad participation, and no trust in a single entity;
• Security means the system can maintain consistency against malicious acts, censorship, and attacks;
• Scalability means high throughput, low latency, and a good user experience;

The problem is that these three often hinder each other under traditional architectures. For example, increasing throughput usually means raising hardware requirements or introducing centralized coordination; reducing node burden might weaken security assumptions; insisting on extreme decentralization can sacrifice performance and user experience. Over the past 5-10 years, answers have varied among different public chains—from early EOS to later Polkadot, Cosmos, and the ultra-high-performance chains like Solana, Sui, Aptos, etc. Some sacrificed decentralization for performance, some improved efficiency through permissioned nodes or committee mechanisms, and others prioritized performance with flexible verification and validation. But the common point is that almost all scaling solutions can only satisfy two of the three, inevitably sacrificing the third. In other words, most solutions are stuck in a tug-of-war under the “monolithic blockchain” logic—if you want to run fast, you need strong nodes; if you want many nodes, you have to run slower. It seems like a dead-end. If we temporarily set aside the debate over the pros and cons of monolithic versus modular blockchains, and carefully review Ethereum’s transition from a “monolithic chain” to a multi-layer architecture centered on Rollups since 2020, along with the recent maturity of ZK (zero-knowledge proof) and other supporting technologies, we will find: The underlying logic of the “trilemma” has been gradually reconstructed over the past 5 years through Ethereum’s modularization. Objectively, Ethereum has, through a series of engineering practices, decoupled the original constraints one by one. At least in terms of engineering pathways, this problem is no longer just a philosophical discussion. 2. The engineering solution of “divide and conquer” Next, we will break down these engineering details and see how Ethereum has advanced multiple technical lines in parallel during the five years from 2020 to 2025 to dissolve this triangular constraint. First, by decoupling data availability through PeerDAS, freeing the inherent limit of scalability. As everyone knows, in the trilemma, data availability is often the first bottleneck for scalability because traditional blockchains require each full node to download and verify all data, which guarantees security but limits scalability. This is why solutions like Celestia, which adopt a “heretical” DA approach, have experienced explosive growth. Ethereum’s approach is not to make nodes stronger but to change how nodes verify data, with PeerDAS (Peer Data Availability Sampling) as the core idea:

It no longer requires each node to download all block data but instead verifies data availability through probabilistic sampling—block data is split and encoded, and nodes randomly sample parts of the data. If data is hidden, the probability of sampling failure quickly increases, allowing significant improvements in data throughput while still enabling ordinary nodes to participate in verification. Does this mean it is not a step toward optimizing decentralization through structural design?

Vitalik emphasizes that PeerDAS is no longer just a conceptual roadmap but a real deployed system component, which means Ethereum has taken a substantial step toward balancing “scalability × decentralization.” Next is zkEVM, which attempts to solve the problem of “whether each node must repeat all computations” through zero-knowledge proof-driven verification layers. The core idea is to enable the Ethereum mainnet to generate and verify ZK proofs. In other words, after executing each block, a verifiable mathematical proof can be output, allowing other nodes to confirm correctness without re-executing all transactions. Specifically, zkEVM’s advantages focus on three aspects:

• Faster verification: nodes do not need to re-execute transactions, only verify zkProof to confirm block validity;
• Lighter burden: significantly reduces full node computation and storage, making light nodes and cross-chain verifiers easier to participate;
• Stronger security: compared to OP line, ZK state proofs are confirmed on-chain instantly, with higher anti-tampering capability and clearer security boundaries;

Recently, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) officially released the L1 zkEVM instant proof standard, marking the first time ZK technology has been formally incorporated into mainnet-level technical planning. Over the next year, Ethereum mainnet will gradually transition to an execution environment supporting zkEVM verification, achieving a structural shift from “re-execution” to “proof verification.” Vitalik judges that zkEVM has preliminarily reached a usable stage in terms of performance and functionality, with the main challenges being long-term security and implementation complexity. According to EF’s announced roadmap, block proof latency is targeted within 10 seconds, zk proofs are less than 300 KB in size, and security levels are set at 128-bit, avoiding trusted setup, with plans to enable household devices to participate in proof generation to lower decentralization barriers. Finally, besides the above two, there are multiple dimensions based on Ethereum’s 2030 roadmap (such as The Surge, The Verge, etc.), focusing on increasing throughput, restructuring state models, raising Gas limits, and improving execution layers. These are all trial-and-error and cumulative paths in crossing the traditional trilemma. They resemble a long-term mainline, dedicated to achieving higher blob throughput, clearer Rollup division of labor, and more stable execution and settlement rhythm, laying the foundation for future multi-chain collaboration and interoperability. Importantly, these are not isolated upgrades but are explicitly designed to be layered and mutually reinforcing modules. This also reflects Ethereum’s “engineering attitude” toward the trilemma: not seeking a magic solution like a monolithic chain, but redistributing costs and risks through multi-layer architecture adjustments. 3. The 2030 vision: Ethereum’s ultimate form Even so, we must remain cautious. Because elements like “decentralization” are not static technical indicators but long-term evolutionary results. Ethereum is gradually exploring the constraints of the trilemma through engineering practices—as verification methods (from re-computation to sampling), data structures (from state explosion to state expiration), and execution models (from monolithic to modular) change, the original trade-offs are shifting, and we are infinitely approaching that “want, want, want” endpoint. In recent discussions, Vitalik also provided a relatively clear timeline:

• 2026: With some improvements in execution layers/construction mechanisms, after introducing directions like ePBS, the Gas limit without relying on zkEVM can be increased first, creating conditions for “more widespread zkEVM node operation”;
• 2026–2028: Adjustments around Gas pricing, state structure, and execution load organization to maintain security under higher loads;
• 2027–2030: As zkEVM gradually becomes an important way to verify blocks, Gas limits may further increase, with the long-term goal of more decentralized block construction;

Combined with recent roadmap updates, we can glimpse three key features of Ethereum before 2030, which together constitute the final answer to the trilemma:

• Minimalist L1: L1 becomes a solid, neutral bottom layer responsible only for data availability and settlement proofs, no longer handling complex application logic, thus maintaining extremely high security;
• Prosperous L2 and interoperability: Through EIL (Interoperability Layer) and fast confirmation rules, fragmented L2s are stitched into a whole, users do not perceive the chain’s existence, only experiencing TPS in the hundreds of thousands;
• Extremely low verification threshold: Thanks to mature state processing and lightweight client technology, even mobile phones can participate in verification, ensuring the cornerstone of decentralization remains solid as a mountain;

Interestingly, as this article was being written, Vitalik reiterated an important testing standard—the “Walkaway Test”—emphasizing that Ethereum must have autonomous operation capability, so that even if all service providers (Server Providers) disappear or are attacked, DApps can still run, and user assets remain safe. This statement essentially shifts the evaluation of this “ultimate form” from speed/experience back to what Ethereum cares most—whether the system remains trustworthy in the worst case and does not rely on single points. In conclusion People always need to look at problems with a developmental perspective, especially in the rapidly changing Web3/Crypto industry. I also believe that many years later, when people look back at the intense debates about the trilemma from 2020–2025, they might think it’s like the serious discussion about “how to make horse-drawn carriages simultaneously fast, safe, and load-bearing” before the invention of cars. Ethereum’s answer is not to find a magic solution among the three vertices, but to build a digital infrastructure that belongs to everyone, is extremely secure, and capable of supporting all human financial activities through PeerDAS, ZK proofs, and clever economic game design. Objectively speaking, every step forward in this direction is stepping on the end of the “trilemma” chapter.