According to @stonecoldpat0, launching a blockchain requires specifying the decision-making quorum, validator uptime targets, per-agent participation costs, and how validators are compensated or can profit, positioning these variables as the core constraints every new network must solve, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He states that to pay validators purely via fees, average fee multiplied by throughput must exceed per-validator compensation, making the economics challenging at scale, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He notes that with thousands of validators and monthly validator costs in the range of $10k to $100k, expenses escalate and typically require token inflation that pays validators at the expense of everyone else, implying dilution risk for non-validator stakeholders, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He adds that only a few networks may eventually earn enough fees to cover costs without inflation, meaning a broad set of L1s is unlikely to be sustainably fee-funded, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He argues L2s are compelling because fewer than 10 agents can run the network, making it far more likely that fee revenue can cover costs with no token inflation required, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. He also highlights that L2s preserve experimentation with custom VMs and proofs while accessing the soon-to-be greatest liquidity source, enabling neutrality and resilience without massive validator sets, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025. These points make validator count, per-node cost, fee-throughput coverage, and reliance on inflation key inputs for assessing network sustainability and dilution dynamics when comparing L1s vs L2s, source: @stonecoldpat0 on X, Sep 7, 2025.