Base is doing things the right way: an L2 on top of Ethereum, that uses its centralized features to provide stronger UX features, while still being tied into Ethereum's decentralized base layer for security. Base does not have custody over your funds, they cannot steal funds or stop you from withdrawing funds (this is part of the L2beat stage 1 definition). You can see Base's status as an L2 on l2beat: I feel like many people have been confused by recent cynicism and think that things like L2beat are a weird sort of nerd-sharia compliance authority. This is NOT what is going on. The security that L2s provide, that L2beat measures, reflects concrete properties that protect you as a user from being rugged. Here is an explanation of how, if an L2 shuts down, users are automatically able to withdraw funds even without that L2's involvement: Here is an example of how L2s prevent the operator from censoring transactions, that happened on Soneium earlier this year: This is what we mean when we say that L2s are non-custodial, they are extensions of ethereum, not glorified servers that happen to submit hashes. There are concrete pathways implemented in smart contract logic on Ethereum L1, that have been successfully used in the wild, that ensure that the L2 users' funds are ultimately controlled by L1, they cannot be stolen or blocked by the L2 operator.