Ethereum killers once promised to take down Ethereum by fixing its well-known problems like high fees, slow transactions, and energy waste. But that dream has shifted. Instead of trying to replace Ethereum, many now aim to copy what works and build compatibility with it.

This change matters for crypto founders, VCs, and blockchain insiders because it reshapes where innovation and investment flow. Rather than battling for a throne, top projects have pivoted toward becoming part of Ethereum’s ecosystem, adopting its standards and focusing on interoperability. This new direction marks a clear shift in how the blockchain space collaborates and grows.

The Origins of Ethereum Killers

Ethereum’s rise was never guaranteed to be without challenges. Before Ethereum 2.0 began addressing its core issues, cracks started showing—mainly around scalability, cost, and environmental impact. These weaknesses gave birth to a wave of new blockchains targeting Ethereum’s shortcomings. Known as “Ethereum killers,” these projects promised faster transactions, lower fees, and greener operations. To understand why these alternatives emerged, we need to look at what Ethereum struggled with before its major upgrades and how early challengers tried to solve those problems with new technical designs.

Ethereum’s Scalability and Cost Challenges

Before the launch of Ethereum 2.0 and widespread layer-2 solutions, the original Ethereum blockchain faced major hurdles:

  • Network congestion: As Ethereum grew in popularity, its Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus method limited transaction throughput to about 15 transactions per second. This bottleneck led to slow processing times during peak demand.
  • High gas fees: Because Ethereum's network has limited capacity, users often faced soaring gas fees during busy periods. These fees priced out smaller transactions and dampened user experience, especially for developers building decentralized applications (dApps).
  • Environmental concerns: Ethereum’s PoW required vast computational power and energy, similar to Bitcoin’s mining model. This raised serious environmental questions at a time when sustainability became a growing focus across industries.

Yet, these limitations were also the spark for innovation. Developers and crypto founders sought alternatives that could provide faster, cheaper, and cleaner solutions while still maintaining decentralization and security.

Technical Approaches of Early Killers

Each Ethereum killer arrived with its own way to overcome these barriers. Their solutions not only addressed Ethereum’s issues but also experimented with new consensus algorithms, governance models, and network architectures:

  • Cardano’s Ouroboros Proof-of-Stake: Cardano focused on formal research and peer-reviewed protocols. Ouroboros offered a scalable PoS alternative to PoW that reduced energy consumption drastically while enhancing throughput and security. Cardano’s design also separated computation and settlement layers to improve efficiency.
  • Solana’s Proof-of-History: Solana introduced a unique cryptographic clock mechanism verifying transaction order without extra consensus overhead. The combination of Proof-of-History and PoS allowed Solana to process up to 50,000 transactions per second with lower fees and near-instant finality. This breakthrough targeted large-scale dApp and DeFi use cases needing speed.
  • Polkadot’s Shared Security Model: Polkadot approached the scalability challenge by creating a multi-chain ecosystem where specialized parachains run alongside a central relay chain that guarantees their security. This design enables interoperability and high throughput while pooling resources for security.
  • Tezos’ Upgradeable Governance: Tezos emphasized on-chain governance and adaptability. Its Liquid Proof-of-Stake (LPoS) mechanism enables relatively low fees and energy use, while its governance framework allows protocol upgrades without hard forks, aiming for long-term stability and evolution.

These early Ethereum killers highlighted different paths toward improving blockchain performance, energy efficiency, and governance structures. They raised big questions in the community: Could a new consensus method truly replace PoW’s security? How do you balance decentralization with the need for speed? Can a blockchain evolve seamlessly without disruptive forks?

The answers varied but set the stage for the current phase, where many of these “killers” have shifted from trying to overthrow Ethereum to collaborating with it, cloning good features, and focusing on compatibility. Understanding these origins clarifies why Ethereum remains central despite fierce competition and why these projects’ technical experiments still influence the broader ecosystem.

Ethereum’s Evolution: From Competition to Collaboration

Ethereum’s growth hasn’t just been about attracting rivals looking to dethrone it. Instead, it’s become a platform others want to build with or even on top of. This shift owes much to Ethereum’s steady evolution, especially its major technical upgrades and scaling solutions. Let’s break down two key developments that explain why Ethereum remains at the heart of the blockchain ecosystem, even as some “Ethereum killers” shift to cloning and collaborating.

The Merge and Ethereum 2.0 Impact

One of the biggest changes for Ethereum came in September 2022 with the Merge, when it switched from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus. This was not just a technical pivot but a foundational transformation, affecting energy use, throughput, and transaction costs.

  • Energy Efficiency: By retiring PoW mining, Ethereum slashed its energy consumption by over 99%. This aligned the network with growing environmental concerns and made Ethereum far more sustainable. For many investors and companies, this was a critical factor in embracing Ethereum with confidence.
  • Throughput and Gas Fees: While the Merge alone didn’t immediately boost transaction speeds or lower gas fees significantly, it laid groundwork to support future upgrades like sharding. The shift to PoS reduces network congestion over time by enabling faster block submission, smoother validator participation, and better network security.
  • Security and Decentralization: PoS maintains Ethereum’s security by requiring validators to stake ETH instead of expending electricity on computing power. This change keeps the network decentralized by welcoming more participants willing to secure Ethereum, including stakers of all sizes.

By replacing mining rigs with staked coins, Ethereum turned its energy-heavy challenge into a cleaner, more scalable system. But this was only the first step—the ecosystem still needed ways to handle growing demand and reduce costs.

Layer 2 Approaches Enhancing Ethereum's Scalability

Enter Layer 2 solutions: second-layer protocols operating on top of Ethereum to handle transactions off the main chain. These Layer 2 networks reduce load on Ethereum’s base layer, cutting gas fees and enabling near-instant transactions. Today, prominent players include Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync.

  • Arbitrum and Optimism: Both use optimistic rollups, bundling many transactions off-chain and posting only minimal data on Ethereum’s mainnet. This approach slashes fees and speeds up interactions, creating an environment where decentralized finance (DeFi) and other dApps can run more smoothly.
  • zkSync: This solution employs zero-knowledge rollups, using cryptographic proofs to validate transactions without revealing sensitive data. This method boosts throughput significantly while preserving the Ethereum mainnet’s security and decentralization guarantees.

These Layer 2 networks have moved from experimental tech to essential infrastructure. They allow daily users, developers, and enterprises to avoid the prohibitively high gas fees that once capped Ethereum’s usability.

Layer 2’s rise answers some key questions:

  • How can Ethereum support tens or hundreds of thousands of transactions per second without sacrificing security?
  • Can users move funds quickly and affordably for everyday activities like gaming, DeFi trades, or NFT sales?

By offloading transactions, Layer 2 solutions act like express lanes next to Ethereum’s main highway. The road stays secure and stable while traffic moves faster and more cheaply.

Together, the Merge and Layer 2 ecosystems show Ethereum’s path from challenges to solutions. Instead of facing off with “killers,” Ethereum is attracting collaborators who boost its scale and usability. This dynamic explains why many competing projects now mimic Ethereum’s design or integrate with its network rather than try to beat it outright.

Why Ethereum Killers Became Ethereum Cloners

At first, Ethereum killers set out to replace Ethereum by offering faster, cheaper, and greener alternatives to the original blockchain’s platform. However, as Ethereum evolved—upgrading its consensus mechanism, enabling Layer 2 scaling, and strengthening its ecosystem—many of those challengers adjusted their strategy. Instead of beating Ethereum head-on, they started copying its features, integrating with it, and adapting their networks to interact smoothly with Ethereum. This shift reveals how blockchain projects now prioritize connection rather than outright competition.

Interoperability as a Strategic Pivot

One major reason Ethereum killers turned into cloners is the rise of interoperability. Projects like Polkadot and Cosmos don’t just compete with Ethereum; they build bridges that connect different blockchains and make assets and data transferable across them.

  • Polkadot’s parachain model lets independent blockchains plug into its relay chain, sharing security and communicating without sacrificing performance. Many parachains are purposely designed to link back to Ethereum, letting users move tokens and smart contract data between the two.
  • Cosmos uses its Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol to create an entire ecosystem of connected blockchains, or zones. These zones can handle specific use cases but remain linked to Ethereum-compatible chains, ensuring assets and applications flow between Ethereum and Cosmos seamlessly.

This approach treats Ethereum as a central hub in a larger network, not a rival to be defeated. Instead of isolating themselves, these projects provide tools for cross-chain collaboration, making multi-chain activity easier for developers and users alike. They recognize that few blockchains can succeed alone in today’s landscape, so interoperability is a pragmatic way to grow.

Maintaining Developer and User Networks

Another factor driving Ethereum killers to clone Ethereum is the importance of its existing developer and user base. Ethereum’s EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) is the de facto standard for smart contracts, meaning millions of developers are familiar with Solidity and the tools built around it.

By adopting Ethereum’s standards, chains like Avalanche, Binance Smart Chain, and Fantom keep their environments compatible with Ethereum’s tooling and code. This means:

  • Developers can port their apps with minimal changes, avoiding costly rewrites.
  • Users find consistent experience across chains, encouraging multi-chain activity without steep learning curves.
  • Tooling ecosystems—wallets, explorers, and developer frameworks—work cross-chain, saving teams from reinventing the wheel.

Maintaining this compatibility lets Ethereum killers retain and expand their communities rather than forcing developers and users to choose sides. It’s a way to grow their networks by tapping into Ethereum’s massive market rather than building one from scratch.

Could a project thrive if it cut itself off from all others? The answer seems to be no. Cloning Ethereum standards lets competing chains become part of a broader multi-chain environment where they coexist and interoperate, each bringing unique strengths without fragmenting talent or liquidity.

This pivot—from isolationist challengers to ecosystem collaborators—reflects the maturity of the blockchain industry. Ethereum’s dominance isn’t just about technology; it’s about the networks and shared standards that draw people in. That’s why today’s Ethereum “killers” often look a lot like Ethereum’s clones, committed to building bridges instead of barriers.

Implications for Crypto Founders and Investors

The shift from Ethereum challengers aiming to replace Ethereum to becoming its clones brings major consequences for founders and investors. This evolution calls for rethinking how projects are built and where investment capital flows. It also highlights the growing importance of collaboration, standards, and sustainability in blockchain development.

Reassessing Investment Opportunities in Layer 1 and Layer 2 Chains

This new narrative changes the playing field for those putting money behind blockchain projects. Instead of betting on isolated blockchains that compete against Ethereum, investors and founders are now encouraged to look deeper into projects that align or complement Ethereum’s ecosystem.

Consider these factors:

  • Compatibility matters more than uniqueness. Projects that support Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility or integrate with Ethereum’s Layer 2 solutions offer smoother user and developer adoption. They avoid the costly trap of building isolated user bases.
  • Layer 1 chains need to prove unique value beyond cloning. Many Layer 1s now replicate Ethereum’s core features but must differentiate by excelling in areas like speed, cost-efficiency, or specialized use cases (e.g., gaming, privacy, enterprise solutions). Investors should scrutinize actual adoption metrics and partnerships instead of just theoretical advantages.
  • Layer 2 scaling solutions offer strong potential. With Ethereum’s base layer approaching limits, Layer 2 protocols like optimistic and zero-knowledge rollups continue to draw attention. They promise lower fees and higher throughput while maintaining security. These protocols represent promising targets to diversify portfolios with less systemic risk than entirely separate blockchains.
  • Cross-chain bridges and interoperability projects become more critical. As the market shifts toward interconnected ecosystems, investments in tech enabling seamless movement of assets and information between chains will likely gain importance. Such protocols often serve as hubs, coordinating liquidity and users across diverse blockchains.

For founders, the question is how your project fits into this broader ecosystem. Building in isolation means facing an uphill battle competing with Ethereum’s network effect. Aligning with Ethereum standards or focusing on niche layers and interoperability opens better pathways for growth and capital attraction.

Building Sustainable and Scalable Blockchain Products

What does this mean for product development? The story now favors builders who can harness Ethereum’s ongoing upgrades and rich partner networks rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

  • Leverage Ethereum’s technical advances. Ethereum’s move to Proof-of-Stake combined with Layer 2 scaling (optimistic rollups, zk-rollups) creates a foundation that blends security with improved performance. Building your dApp or protocol on these layers ensures access to a large, active user base and the full security guarantees of Ethereum.
  • Focus on user experience and cost-efficiency. High gas fees and slow transactions once hampered Ethereum’s growth. Today’s products should maximize Layer 2 adoption to deliver fast, affordable interactions. Think of Layer 2 chains as express lanes—your product should take advantage of these to keep users engaged without breaking the bank.
  • Tap into the partner ecosystem. Many blockchain projects build complementary services around Ethereum and Layer 2s, such as wallet providers, identity solutions, governance tools, and analytics. Collaborating with these partners can enhance your product’s value proposition and operational reach.
  • Plan for future-proof scalability. Sharding and modular solutions like Celestia promise to extend Ethereum’s scalability further in the coming years. Preparing products to benefit from these upgrades, including ensuring smart contract portability and cross-chain capabilities, keeps you ahead.
  • Build with interoperability in mind. As users and assets flow across chains, your product should support cross-chain functionality or at least easy integration with bridges and multi-chain wallets. This prevents siloed user experiences and opens broader markets.

By aligning development with Ethereum’s roadmap and ecosystem, founders can create blockchain products that are not only technically sound but also viable in the long term. It’s less about building a new chain from scratch, and more about fitting well into the web of projects that together support a thriving, sustainable blockchain economy.

The question for every founder and investor today: How does your project or portfolio adapt to a world where the “Ethereum killer” myth has given way to a reality of collaboration, cloning, and ecosystem synergy? The answer shapes strategy, technical choices, and ultimately, the chances for success.

Conclusion

Ethereum killers have largely abandoned the goal of displacing Ethereum and shifted toward cloning its features and joining its ecosystem. This reflects Ethereum’s strength as a platform that evolves through major upgrades and growing Layer 2 adoption, making outright competition less viable.

The blockchain space now centers around interoperability and compatibility, with chains connecting to Ethereum rather than breaking away from it. For founders and investors, success depends on understanding this cooperative multi-chain environment and aligning projects with Ethereum’s standards and network effects.

As the industry moves forward, embracing collaboration will unlock more innovation and sustainable growth. How your project fits into this ecosystem will shape its future relevance and impact. Thanks for reading—your thoughts on this shift are welcome.