# Yearn Ecosystem Layer 2 Migration **URL:** \ **Category:** Technical Discussion\ **Created:** [7 February 2021 02:16 UTC](https://gov.yearn.fi/t/yearn-ecosystem-layer-2-migration/9627 "2021-02-07T02:16:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![justsome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@justsome](https://gov.yearn.fi/u/justsome)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2021 16:01 UTC](https://gov.yearn.fi/t/yearn-ecosystem-layer-2-migration/9627/3 "2021-02-07T16:01:41Z")
Here’s my pitch, though it’s not aimed at supporting the entire yearn ecosystem, more untested products and features > [@\*\*\[Discussion\]\*\* Insurance for Vaults & Risk Team](http://gov.yearn.fi/t/discussion-insurance-for-vaults-risk-team/9620/4): > > Why not lean into the defi condom narrative ([https://twitter.com/hasufl/status/1357703584356442116](https://twitter.com/hasufl/status/1357703584356442116))? I think it’s clear defi as a whole is iterating too quickly to develop secure software, and test net deployments aren’t a credible simulation of main net conditions. You can burn money trying to transfer smart contract risk; or you can rethink it, turn it into a yield generator. Imagine Yearn sets up and administers a “defi sandbox”: an evm-enabled L2 with 2 key features, the ability to migrate … --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.yearn.fi/t/yearn-ecosystem-layer-2-migration/9627)._