Odaily Planet Daily reports that in response to community member Daniel Wang's proposed naming tag #BattleTested for the L2 network Stage 2 phase, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik posted on the X platform stating: "This is a good reminder: Stage 2 is not the only factor affecting security; the quality of the underlying proof system is equally important. This is a simplified mathematical model showing when to enter Stage 2: each security council member has a 10% independent 'break' chance; we treat activity failures (refusal to sign or inaccessible keys) and security failures (signing incorrectly or keys being hacked) as equally likely; the goal is to minimize the probability of protocol failure under these assumptions. Stage 0 security council is 4/7, Stage 1 is 6/8; please note these assumptions are very imperfect. In reality, council members have 'common mode failures': they might collude, be coerced, or be hacked in the same way, etc. This makes Stage 0 and Stage 1 less secure than the model shows, so entering Stage 2 earlier than the model suggests is the best choice. Additionally, note that by turning the proof system itself into multiple independent multi-signature systems, the probability of proof system failure can be greatly reduced (which is what I advocated in a previous proposal). I suspect all Stage 2 deployments in recent years will be like this. Considering this, here is the chart. The X-axis is the probability of proof system failure. The Y-axis is the probability of protocol failure. As the quality of the proof system improves, the optimal stage shifts from Stage 0 to Stage 1, then from Stage 1 to Stage 2. Using a Stage 0 quality proof system for Stage 2 is the worst. In short, @l2beat ideally should show proof system audit and maturity metrics (preferably for the proof system implementation rather than the entire rollup, so we can reuse it) along with the stages."

Odaily Planet Daily News: In response to the label #BattleTested for the Stage 2 phase of the L2 network proposed by community member Daniel Wang, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik posted on the X platform stating: "This is a good reminder: the second stage is not the only factor affecting security; the quality of the underlying proof system is equally important. This is a simplified mathematical model that shows when to enter the second stage:
Each security council member has a 10% independent chance of 'breaking'; we treat activity failure (refusal to sign or inaccessible keys) and security failure (incorrect signing or hacked keys) as equally likely; the goal is to minimize the probability of protocol collapse under these assumptions.
*Stage 0 security council is 4/7, Stage 1 is 6/8; note that these assumptions are very imperfect. In reality, council members have 'common mode failures': they may collude, or be coerced or hacked in the same way, etc. This makes Stage 0 and Stage 1 less secure than the model shows, so entering Stage 2 earlier than the model suggests is the best choice.
Additionally, note that by turning the proof system itself into multiple independent systems with multisignature, the probability of proof system collapse can be greatly reduced (which is what I advocated in previous proposals). I suspect all Stage 2 deployments in previous years will be like this. Considering this, here is the chart. The X-axis is the probability of proof system collapse. The Y-axis is the probability of protocol collapse. As proof system quality improves, the optimal stage shifts from Stage 0 to Stage 1, then from Stage 1 to Stage 2. Using a proof system of Stage 0 quality for Stage 2 is the worst.
In short, @l2beat should ideally show proof system audit and maturity metrics (preferably for the proof system implementation rather than the entire rollup, so we can reuse them) as well as the stage."

Vitalik: The quality of the underlying proof systems of Layer 2 networks is equally important and should gradually enter the second phase as development progresses.