Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

can a governance chain become a native L2?

Published

on

can a governance chain become a native L2?

Gnosis’ push behind the Ethereum Economic Zone shows DAOs moving from tuning parameters to voting on whether whole chains become Ethereum L2s, tying governance to market structure.

Summary

  • Gnosis and Zisk’s Ethereum Economic Zone (EEZ) emerged directly from a GnosisDAO R&D mandate to explore turning Gnosis Chain into a natively integrated Ethereum layer‑2.
  • The framework, co‑funded by the Ethereum Foundation and unveiled at EthCC 2026, aims to fix Ethereum’s “fragmentation problem” by enabling synchronous composability across L2s while keeping ETH as the core gas and settlement asset.
  • The process marks a new phase in on‑chain governance, with DAOs effectively voting on the technical and economic destiny of entire chains, not just on parameter tweaks.

The Ethereum Economic Zone did not appear out of thin air at EthCC 2026; it is the visible tip of a governance process inside Gnosis that has been wrestling with a single strategic question for months: should a long‑running sidechain effectively become a native Ethereum layer‑2. GnosisDAO governance records from February 2026 show community discussions around a six‑month R&D collaboration with zero‑knowledge engineer Jordi Baylina to explore “converting Gnosis Chain (GNO) into a natively integrated Ethereum (ETH) L2 with synchronous composability,” as summarized by analytics site Crypto Whale Data. According to a subsequent note on that same site, “EEZ appears to be the product of that exploration,” effectively weaponizing Gnosis’ internal L2 thesis into a shared framework for the broader ecosystem.

At EthCC in Cannes on March 29, Gnosis co‑founder Friederike Ernst and Baylina formalized that pivot by unveiling the Ethereum Economic Zone, a rollup framework co‑funded by the Ethereum Foundation and pitched as a way to “reassemble Ethereum” into “One Ethereum.” As Binance’s coverage of the announcement notes, the “core commitment” of EEZ is “synchronous composability,” allowing smart contracts on connected rollups to interact with each other and with Ethereum mainnet “within a single atomic transaction” and using ETH as the default gas token. In an EtherWorld write‑up, Ernst is quoted telling the audience that “Ethereum does not have a scaling problem, it has a fragmentation problem,” arguing that every new L2 has become “its own island, separate liquidity, separate deployments, separate bridges that take a cut every time you try to move between them.”

Advertisement

What makes the Gnosis story different from a routine technical upgrade is the way governance and infrastructure are now fused. As MEXC’s summary of the initiative points out, Gnosis has been active as a layer‑1 for seven years, and its decision to help build EEZ means “a governance‑driven blockchain is actively choosing to tie its future to Ethereum’s rollup‑centric roadmap rather than compete as a standalone L1.” The same report stresses that development is being led by contributors from Gnosis and Baylina’s proving‑stack project Zisk, with the Ethereum Foundation co‑funding the work and a Swiss‑based EEZ Association created to maintain neutrality and invite broader participation.

Market commentators within the ecosystem have seized on the shift. In a widely circulated post, the Bankless account described EEZ as “Ethereum’s fragmentation problem [getting] its most serious answer yet,” emphasizing that it is “led by Gnosis and ZisK, funded by the EF.” A longer explainer published on Binance’s content platform asks, “Can this new framework bring Ethereum back together?” and frames EEZ as an attempt to stop building “more walled gardens” and instead connect existing rollups into “something that actually behaves like a single DeFi economy.”

For GnosisDAO and other token‑holder communities watching closely, the implications are clear. Governance is no longer just about changing interest‑rate curves or fee switches; it is about making existential choices over whether entire chains migrate into tightly coupled rollup frameworks, which settlement asset they prioritize, and how closely they bind themselves to Ethereum’s monetary and security model. The Gnosis‑EEZ path suggests that future DAO votes may increasingly resemble corporate strategy decisions—approve an R&D mandate, explore a structural pivot, then ratify an architecture that can redefine the chain’s economic role—rather than the parameter fine‑tuning that defined DeFi’s first era.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

US Law Firm Apologizes For AI Hallucinations in Filing

Published

on

US Law Firm Apologizes For AI Hallucinations in Filing

Sullivan & Cromwell’s Andrew Dietderich said the company has AI policies to prevent incorrect citations and other errors, but procedures weren’t followed on this occasion.

Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell has apologized to a federal judge after submitting a court filing that contained around 40 incorrect citations and other errors caused by AI hallucinations.

“We deeply regret that this has occurred,” Andrew Dietderich, co-head of Sullivan & Cromwell’s global restructuring team, wrote Friday in a letter to Chief Judge Martin Glenn of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Advertisement

“The Firm and I are keenly aware of our responsibility to ensure the accuracy of all submissions including under Local Bankruptcy Rule 9011-1(d), and I take responsibility for the failure to do so,” he said of an emergency motion filed nine days earlier.

Excerpt from Andrew Dietderich’s letter to Chief Judge Martin Glenn. Source: Sullivan & Cromwell

The incident highlights the risk AI tools can pose in high-stakes professional work without proper oversight. A database managed by legal technologist Damien Charlotin has recorded 1,334 incidents of AI hallucinations in court filings around the world, including more than 900 in the US.

Charlotin pointed out that most of these hallucinations involve fabricated citations, though AI-generated legal arguments have also occasionally been identified.

Dietderich said Sullivan & Cromwell has policies in place for the use of AI tools, which include a review of the citations it uses, but said the policies weren’t followed.

“Regrettably, this review process did not identify the inaccurate citations generated by AI, nor did it identify other errors that appear to have resulted in whole or in part from manual error.”

Sullivan & Cromwell is one of the largest law firms in the US by revenue, ranking 30th on the AmLaw Global 200. The firm also represented crypto exchange FTX in its bankruptcy case.

Advertisement

Sullivan & Cromwell is conducting an internal investigation

Dietderich said the law firm took “immediate remedial measures,” including a full review of the circumstances that led to the errors. 

Related: Coinbase’s AI payments protocol x402 launches app store for AI agents

The firm is also “evaluating whether further enhancements to its internal training and review processes are warranted,” Dietderich said.

Dietderich also noted that the errors were spotted by a rival law firm.

Advertisement

“I also called Boies Schiller Flexner LLP on Friday to thank them for bringing this matter to our attention and to apologize directly to them as well,” he said. 

Magazine: IronClaw rivals OpenClaw, Olas launches bots for Polymarket — AI Eye