Code Deep Dive: Why Blast Is Far from Being a True L2 Solution
Why Blast Fails the Layer 2 Test
Let me be blunt: After auditing Blast’s smart contracts line-by-line (because apparently nobody else did), I can confirm it’s about as much an L2 as my toaster is a quantum computer. Here’s the technical autopsy:
The 3⁄5 Multisig Time Bomb
Proxy Puppetry: Blast uses OpenZeppelin’s UUPSUpgradeable - meaning 3 out of 5 anonymous signers can rewrite contract logic overnight. Yes, Optimism and Arbitrum have similar backdoors, but at least their teams are doxxed.
Bridge to Nowhere: Unlike real L2s, Blast lacks:
- Transaction batches
- Fraud proofs
- Data availability checks It’s literally just a wallet that auto-stakes your ETH via Lido.
The $200M Escape Hatch
Found something scarier than the upgrade vulnerability? Meet enableTransition():
- Approves ANY contract as
mainnetBridge - Only validation: Is it not an EOA? Congrats, here’s all the staked ETH/DAI!
The included screenshot of the laughably minimal validation check deserves its own horror movie franchise.
Why This Matters
While writing this, Blast TVL crossed $200M. That’s:
- 200 million reasons for attackers to target those 5 mystery wallets
- Zero technical barriers preventing exit scams
- More centralization than Binance circa 2017
Pro Tip: If your “L2” doesn’t batch transactions or post data to Ethereum… it’s just a fancy savings account with extra steps.
