# @evan_van_ness: Rollups need marketing over technical differentiation

Source: https://x.com/evan_van_ness/status/1919391884725936328
Kiwi News: https://news.kiwistand.com/stories/evanvanness-Rollups-need-marketing-over-technical-differentiation?index=0x6819a56da42f0e468df2d88950a84e2e0bfabf753905e106a98a1752c676532a9071e09c
Submitted by tim on 2025-05-06 UTC, 2 upvotes, 3 comments

## Summary

Evan Van Ness argues that rollup projects should prioritize marketing over technical differentiation, because their technology does not set them apart. He says none of the rollups are 10x better than competitors, only percentage differences, and that none are trustless yet. He also says Ethereum has no business development team, so its 42 rollup teams approach institutions and governments separately, muddle each other's messages, and fail to close sales, which sours some institutions on Ethereum. He adds that Vitalik is culpable for overrating technology rather than focusing on distribution.

## Article

It's actually the opposite 

This is a screenshot from a tweet from a rollup founder.

Rollups need to stop thinking that their tech differentiates them.

None of your tech is 10x your competitors, sorry.  None of you.  Not even close.  We're talking percentage differences, not magnitudes.  None of you are even trustless yet.

Ethereum doesn't have a BD team. Which means that we have 42 BD rollup teams that go talk to institutions and governments, and none close the sale because they all muddle each other's messages. The whole process sours some institutions on Ethereum even when ETH is obviously the best choice for them.

Startups and tech generally have traditionally underrated marketing. "The product should sell itself."

Ethereum is even worse about this.  Vitalik is culpable for overrating tech and tinkering with the protocol rather than doing the hard work of figuring out distribution.

Ethereum needs to focus on winning.  Real apps for real users.

## Comments

**macbudkowski.eth**: +1. I think Superchain L2s are doing the best job here so far: Base, World, and (while it was still running) Zora had very clear use cases and it was obvious to me which chain is for what. But when someone asked me what's the difference between zkSync, Starknet and Aztec, I'd not be able to tell.

**tim**: What was the Zora chain use case? Bc liquidity was maybe an aspirational goal but never a use case tbh

**macbudkowski.eth**: The idea (before they pivoted to memecoins etc) was to have this network for open edition NFTs that's optimized for rev-sharing, royalties etc. Ofc the market didn't like it, but at least it was clear what they want to differentiate on