# @koeppelmann: ETH on L1 differs from USDC, USDT, and ETH on Arbitrum; asks which

Source: https://x.com/koeppelmann/status/2116552841758130526
Kiwi News: https://news.kiwistand.com/stories/koeppelmann-ETH-on-L1-differs-from-USDC-USDT-and-ETH-on-Arbitrum-asks-which?index=0x6ae62139a2637ec4e93e5982524cab1e24a94dc62331ba52545623681d5fdb424b6246a7
Submitted by tim on 2026-10-31 UTC, 1 upvote, 0 comments

## Summary

Koeppelmann argues that ETH on Ethereum L1 is fundamentally different from stablecoins like USDC and USDT, or from ETH on Arbitrum, and asks which of these assets people want and how much capacity should exist to move between them. He says censorship-resistant assets like ETH and Bitcoin remain desirable, while an entity that can intervene after a hack can be positive in many cases. He warns that such power can feel arbitrary, asking whether Paolo is asleep or whether someone has a direct line to Jermey to block without a court order. He concludes that assets and rollups should offer an extra layer of protection under clear, transparent, consistently applied rules that also protect smaller users.

## Article

It should now be abundantly clear that ETH on Ethereum L1 is a very different beast from stablecoins like USDC and USDT, or ETH on e.g. Arbitrum.

It is time to ask really hard questions: Which “beast” do people really want, and when? And how much capacity should there be to move instantly between them?

Clearly, we still want strongly censorship-resistant assets like ETH and Bitcoin. But in many cases, having an entity that can intervene in the event of a hack can be a positive.

However, the way that power is exercised can feel arbitrary. Is Paolo asleep? Do you have a direct line to Jermey so suddenly they block without court order.

I think it would be good to have assets and rollups that offer an additional layer of protection, but under clear, transparent, consistently applied rules that protect smaller users too, not just the well-connected.