Rollups-as-a-Service in 2025: OP, ZK, Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon CDK, and zkSync Hyperchains

Introduction

Rollups-as-a-Service (RaaS) and modular blockchain frameworks have become critical in 2025 for scaling Ethereum and building custom blockchains. Leading frameworks – Optimism’s OP Stack, zkSync’s ZK Stack (Hyperchains), Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon’s Chain Development Kit (CDK), and related solutions – allow developers to launch their own Layer-2 (L2) or Layer-3 (L3) chains with varying approaches (optimistic vs zero-knowledge). These frameworks share a philosophy of modularity: they separate concerns like execution, settlement, data availability, and consensus, enabling customization of each component. This report compares the frameworks across key dimensions – data availability options, sequencer design, fee models, ecosystem support – and examines their architecture, tooling, developer experience, and current adoption in both public and enterprise contexts.

Comparison Overview

The table below summarizes several core features of each framework:

Aspect	OP Stack (Optimism)	ZK Stack (zkSync)	Arbitrum Orbit	Polygon CDK (AggLayer)
Rollup Type	Optimistic Rollup	Zero-Knowledge (Validity)	Optimistic Rollup	Zero-Knowledge (Validity)
Proof System	Fault proofs (fraud proofs)	ZK-SNARK validity proofs	Fault proofs (fraud proofs)	ZK-SNARK validity proofs
EVM Compatibility	EVM-equivalent (geth)	High – zkEVM (LLVM-based)	EVM-equivalent (Arbitrum Nitro) + WASM via Stylus	Polygon zkEVM (EVM-equivalent)
Data Availability	Ethereum L1 (on-chain); pluggable Alt-DA modules (Celestia, etc.)	Ethereum L1; also Validium options off-chain (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA)	Ethereum L1 (rollup) or AnyTrust committee (off-chain DAC); supports Celestia, Avail	Ethereum L1 (rollup) or off-chain (validium via Avail or Celestia); hybrid possible
Sequencer Design	Single sequencer (default); multi-sequencer possible with customization. Shared sequencer vision for Superchain (future).	Configurable: can be centralized or decentralized; priority L1 queue supported.	Configurable: single operator or decentralized validators.	Flexible: single sequencer or multiple validators (e.g. PoS committee).
Sequencer Access	Centralized today (each OP chain’s sequencer is run by its operator); not permissionless yet. Plans for a shared, permissionless sequencer network among OP Chains. L1 backup queue allows trustless tx submission if sequencer fails.	zkSync Era uses a centralized sequencer (Matter Labs), but ZK Stack allows custom sequencer logic (even external consensus). Priority L1 sequencing supported for fairness. Decentralized sequencer options under development.	Arbitrum One uses a centralized sequencer (Offchain Labs), with failover via L1 inbox. Arbitrum Orbit chains can run their own sequencer (initially centralized) or institute a validator set. BoLD upgrade (2025) enables permissionless validation to decentralize Orbit chains.	Polygon zkEVM began with a single sequencer (Polygon Labs). CDK allows launching a chain with a permissioned validator set or other consensus for decentralization. Many CDK chains start centralized for simplicity, with roadmap for later community-run sequencers.
Fee Token	ETH by default on OP-based L2s (to ease UX). Custom gas token technically supported, but most OP Chains opt for ETH or a standard token for interoperability. (OP Stack’s recent guidance favors common tokens across the Superchain).	Custom base tokens are supported – developers can choose ETH or any ERC-20 as the native gas. (This flexibility enables project-specific economies on zkSync-based chains.)	Custom gas token supported (upgrade in late 2023). Chains may use ETH, Arbitrum’s ARB, or their own token for fees. Example: Ape Chain uses APE as gas.	Custom native token is supported. Many Polygon CDK chains use MATIC or another token as gas. Polygon’s ecosystem encourages MATIC for cross-chain consistency, but it’s not required.
Fee Model & Costs	Users pay L2 gas (collected by sequencer) plus L1 data posting costs. The sequencer must post transaction data (calldata or blobs) to Ethereum, so a portion of fees covers L1 gas. Revenue sharing: OP Chains in the Superchain commit ~2.5% of revenue to Optimism Collective (funding public goods).	Users pay fees (often in ETH or chosen token) which cover L1 proof verification and data. No protocol-level “tax” on fees – each chain’s sequencer keeps revenue to incentivize operators. ZK prover costs are a factor: operators might charge slightly higher fees or use efficient provers to manage costs. Finality is fast (no delay), so users don’t need third-party fast exits.	Users pay gas (in ETH or chain’s token) covering L2 execution + L1 batch cost. Sequencers/validators retain the fee revenue; no mandatory revenue-share to Arbitrum DAO or L1 (aside from L1 gas costs). To avoid the optimistic 7-day delay, many Orbit chains integrate liquidity providers or official fast-withdrawal bridges (Arbitrum supports 15-min fast exits on some Orbit chains via liquidity networks).	Users pay gas fees which cover proving and posting costs. Sequencers or validators earn those fees; Polygon does not impose any rent or tax on CDK chain revenue. Using off-chain DA (validium mode) can cut fees by >100× (storing data on Celestia or Avail instead of Ethereum), at the cost of some trust assumptions.

Table: High-level comparison of key technical features of OP Stack, zkSync’s ZK Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, and Polygon CDK.

Data Availability Layers

Data Availability (DA) is where rollups store their transaction data so that anyone can reconstruct the chain’s state. All these frameworks support using Ethereum L1 as a DA (posting calldata or blob data on Ethereum for maximum security). However, to reduce costs, they also allow alternative DA solutions:

• OP Stack: By default, OP chains publish data on Ethereum (as calldata or blobs). Thanks to a modular “Alt-DA” interface, OP Stack chains can plug into other DA layers easily. For example, an OP chain could use Celestia (a dedicated DA blockchain) instead of Ethereum. In 2023 OP Labs and Celestia released a beta where an OP Stack rollup settles on Ethereum but stores bulk data on Celestia. This reduces fees while inheriting Celestia’s data availability guarantees. In general, any EVM or non-EVM chain – even Bitcoin or a centralized store – can be configured as the DA layer in OP Stack. (Of course, using a less secure DA trades off some security for cost.) Ethereum remains the predominant choice for production OP chains, but projects like Caldera’s Taro testnet have demonstrated OP Stack with Celestia DA.

• ZK Stack (zkSync Hyperchains): The ZK Stack offers both rollup and validium modes. In rollup mode, all data is on-chain (Ethereum). In validium mode, data is kept off-chain (with only validity proofs on-chain). Matter Labs is integrating Avail, Celestia, and EigenDA as first-class DA options for ZK Stack chains. This means a zkSync Hyperchain could post transaction data to Celestia or an EigenLayer-powered network instead of L1, massively increasing throughput. They even outline volition, where a chain can decide per-transaction whether to treat it as a rollup (on-chain data) or validium (off-chain). This flexibility allows developers to balance security and cost. For example, a gaming hyperchain might use Celestia to cheaply store data, while relying on Ethereum for periodic proofs. The ZK Stack’s design makes DA pluggable via a DA client/dispatcher component in the node software. Overall, Ethereum remains default, but zkSync’s ecosystem strongly emphasizes modular DA to achieve “hyperscale” throughput.

• Arbitrum Orbit: Orbit chains can choose between Arbitrum’s two data modes: rollup (data posted on Ethereum) or AnyTrust (data availability committee). In Rollup configuration, an Orbit L3 will post its call data to the L2 (Arbitrum One or Nova) or L1, inheriting full security at higher cost. In AnyTrust mode, data is kept off-chain by a committee (as used in Arbitrum Nova, which uses a Data Availability Committee). This greatly lowers fees for high-volume apps (gaming, social) at the cost of trusting a committee (if all committee members collude to withhold data, the chain could halt). Beyond these, Arbitrum is also integrating with emerging modular DA networks. Notably, Celestia and Polygon Avail are supported for Orbit chains as alternative DA layers. Projects like AltLayer have worked on Orbit rollups that use EigenDA (EigenLayer’s DA service) as well. In summary, Arbitrum Orbit offers flexible data availability: on-chain via Ethereum, off-chain via DACs or specialized DA chains, or hybrids. Many Orbit adopters choose AnyTrust for cost savings, especially if they have a known set of validators or partners ensuring data is available.

• Polygon CDK: Polygon’s CDK is inherently modular with respect to DA. A Polygon CDK chain can operate as a rollup (all data on Ethereum) or a validium (data on a separate network). Polygon has its own DA solution called Avail (a blockchain for data availability), and CDK chains can use Avail or any similar service. In late 2024, Polygon announced direct integration of Celestia into CDK – making Celestia an “easily-pluggable” DA option in the toolkit. This integration is expected in early 2024, enabling CDK chains to store compressed data on Celestia seamlessly. Polygon cites that using Celestia could reduce transaction fees by >100× compared to posting all data on Ethereum. Thus, a CDK chain creator can simply toggle the DA module to Celestia (or Avail) instead of Ethereum. Some Polygon chains (e.g. Polygon zkEVM) currently post all data to Ethereum (for maximal security), while others (perhaps certain enterprise chains) run as validiums with external DA. The CDK supports “hybrid” modes as well – for instance, critical transactions could go on Ethereum while others go to Avail. This modular DA approach aligns with Polygon’s broader Polygon 2.0 vision of multiple ZK-powered chains with unified liquidity but varied data backends.

In summary, all frameworks support multiple DA layers to various degrees. Ethereum remains the gold standard DA (especially with blob space from EIP-4844 making on-chain data cheaper), but new specialized DA networks (Celestia, Avail) and schemes (EigenLayer’s EigenDA, data committees) are being embraced across the board. This modularity allows rollup creators in 2025 to make trade-offs between cost and security by simply configuring a different DA module rather than building a new chain from scratch.

Sequencer Design and Decentralization

The sequencer is the node (or set of nodes) that orders transactions and produces blocks for a rollup. How the sequencer is designed – centralized vs decentralized, permissionless vs permissioned – affects the chain’s throughput and trust assumptions:

• OP Stack (Optimism): Today, most OP Stack chains run a single sequencer operated by the chain’s core team or sponsor. For example, Optimism Mainnet’s sequencer is run by OP Labs, and Base’s sequencer is run by Coinbase. This yields low latency and simplicity at the cost of centralization (users must trust the sequencer to include their transactions fairly). However, Optimism has built in mechanisms for trust-minimization: there is an L1 transaction queue contract where users can submit transactions on Ethereum which the sequencer must include in the L2 chain. If the sequencer goes down or censors txs, users can rely on L1 to eventually get included (albeit with some delay). This provides a safety valve against a malicious or failed sequencer. In terms of decentralization, OP Stack is modular and theoretically allows multiple sequencers – e.g. one could implement a round-robin or proof-of-stake based block proposer set using the OP Stack code. In practice, this requires customization and is not the out-of-the-box configuration. The long-term Superchain roadmap envisions a shared sequencer for all OP Chains, which would be a set of validators sequencing transactions for many chains at once. A shared sequencer could enable cross-chain atomicity and reduce MEV across the Superchain. It’s still in development as of 2025, but the OP Stack’s design does not preclude plugging in such a consensus. For now, sequencer operations remain permissioned (run by whitelisted entities), but Optimism governance plans to decentralize this (possibly via staking or committee rotation) once the technology and economics are ready. In short: OP Stack chains start with centralized sequencing (with L1 as fallback), and a path to gradual decentralization is charted (moving from “Stage 0” to “Stage 2” maturity with no training wheels).

• ZK Stack (zkSync Hyperchains): zkSync Era (the L2) currently uses a centralized sequencer operated by Matter Labs. However, the ZK Stack is built to allow various sequencing modes for new chains. Options include a centralized sequencer (easy start), a decentralized sequencer set (e.g. multiple nodes reaching consensus on ordering), a priority transaction queue from L1, or even an external sequencer service. In Matter Labs’ Elastic Chains vision, chains remain independent but interoperability is handled by the L1 contracts and a “ZK Router/Gateway” – this implies each chain can choose its own sequencer model as long as it meets the protocols for submitting state roots and proofs. Because ZK-rollups don’t require a consensus on L2 for security (validity proofs ensure correctness), decentralizing the sequencer is more about liveness and censorship-resistance. A Hyperchain could implement a round-robin block producer or even hook into a high-performance BFT consensus for its sequencers if desired. That said, running a single sequencer is far simpler and remains the norm initially. The ZK Stack docs mention that a chain could use an “external protocol” for sequencing – for instance, one could imagine using Tendermint or SU consensus as the block producer and then generating zk proofs for the blocks. Also, like others, zkSync has an L1 priority queue mechanism: users can send transactions to the zkSync contract with a priority fee to guarantee L1->L2 inclusion in a timely manner (mitigating censorship). Overall, permissionless participation in sequencing is not yet realized on zkSync chains (no public slot auction or staking-based sequencer selection in production), but the architecture leaves room for it. As validity proofs mature, we might see zkSync chains with community-run sequencer nodes that collectively decide ordering (once performance allows).

• Arbitrum Orbit: On Arbitrum One (the main L2), the sequencer is centralized (run by Offchain Labs), though the chain’s state progression is ultimately governed by the Arbitrum validators and fraud proofs. Arbitrum has similarly provided an L1 queue for users as a backstop against sequencer issues. In Orbit (the L3 framework), each Orbit chain can have its own sequencer or validator set. Arbitrum’s Nitro tech includes the option to run a rollup with a decentralized sequencer: essentially, one could have multiple parties run the Arbitrum node software and use a leader election (possibly via the Arbitrum permissionless proof-of-stake chain in the future, or a custom mechanism). Out of the box, Orbit chains launched to date have been mostly centralized (e.g. the Xai gaming chain is run by a foundation in collaboration with Offchain Labs) – but this is a matter of configuration and governance. A noteworthy development is the introduction of BoLD (Bounded Liquidity Delay) in early 2025, which is a new protocol to make Arbitrum’s validation more permissionless. BoLD allows anyone to become a validator (prover) for the chain, resolving fraud challenges in a fixed time frame without a whitelist. This moves Arbitrum closer to trustless operation, although the sequencer role (ordering transactions day-to-day) might still be assigned or elected. Offchain Labs has expressed focus on advancing decentralization in 2024-2025 for Arbitrum. We also see multi-sequencer efforts: for example, an Orbit chain could use a small committee of known sequencers to get some fault tolerance (one goes down, another continues). Another angle is the idea of a shared sequencer for Orbit chains, though Arbitrum hasn’t emphasized this as much as Optimism. Instead, interoperability is achieved via L3s settling on Arbitrum L2 and using standard bridges. In summary, Arbitrum Orbit gives flexibility in sequencer design (from one entity to many), and the trend is toward opening the validator/sequencer set as the tech and community governance matures. Today, it’s fair to say Orbit chains start centralized but have a roadmap for permissionless validation.

• Polygon CDK: Polygon CDK chains (sometimes referred to under the umbrella “AggLayer” in late 2024) can similarly choose their sequencer/consensus setup. Polygon’s zkEVM chain (operated by Polygon Labs) began with a single sequencer and centralized prover, with plans to progressively decentralize both. The CDK, being modular, allows a chain to plug in a consensus module – for instance, one could launch a CDK chain with a Proof-of-Stake validator set producing blocks, effectively decentralizing sequencing from day one. In fact, Polygon’s earlier framework (Polygon Edge) was used for permissioned enterprise chains using IBFT consensus; CDK chains could take a hybrid approach (run Polygon’s zkProver but have a committee of nodes propose blocks). By default, many CDK chains might run with a single operator for simplicity and then later adopt a consensus as they scale. Polygon is also exploring a shared sequencer or aggregator concept through the AggLayer hub, which is intended to connect all Polygon chains. While AggLayer primarily handles cross-chain messaging and liquidity, it could evolve into a shared sequencing service in the future (Polygon co-founder has discussed sequencer decentralization as part of Polygon 2.0). In general, permissionlessness is not yet present – one cannot spontaneously become a sequencer for someone’s CDK chain unless that project allows it. But projects like dYdX V4 (which is building a standalone chain with a form of decentralized consensus) and others show the appetite for validator-based L2s. Polygon CDK makes it technically feasible to have many block producers, but the exact implementation is left to the chain deployer. Expect Polygon to roll out more guidance or even infrastructure for decentralized sequencers as more enterprises and communities launch CDK chains.

To summarize the sequencer comparison: All frameworks currently rely on a relatively centralized sequencer model in their live deployments, to ensure efficiency. However, each provides a route to decentralization – whether via shared sequencing networks (OP Stack), pluggable consensus (CDK, ZK Stack), or permissionless validators (Arbitrum’s BoLD). Table below highlights sequencer designs:

Sequencer Design	OP Stack	ZK Stack (zkSync)	Arbitrum Orbit	Polygon CDK
Default operator model	Single sequencer (project-run)	Single sequencer (Matter Labs or project-run)	Single sequencer (project-run/Offchain Labs)	Single sequencer (project or Polygon-run)
Decentralization options	Yes – can customize consensus, e.g. multiple sequencers or future shared set	Yes – configurable; can integrate external consensus or priority queues	Yes – configurable; can use multi-validator (AnyTrust committee or custom)	Yes – can integrate PoS validators or IBFT consensus (project’s choice)
Permissionless participation	Planned: Superchain shared sequencer (not yet live). Fraud provers are permissionless on L1 (anyone can challenge).	Not yet (no public sequencer auction yet). Validity proofs don’t need challengers. Community can run read-nodes, but not produce blocks unless chosen.	Emerging: BoLD enables anyone to validate fraud proofs. Sequencer still chosen by chain (could be via DAO in future).	Not yet. Sequencers are appointed by chain owners or validators are permissioned/staked. Polygon’s roadmap includes community validation eventually.
Censorship resistance	L1 queue for users ensures inclusion. Training-wheels governance can veto sequencer misconduct.	L1 priority queue for inclusion. Validium mode needs trust in DA committee for data availability.	L1 inbox ensures inclusion if sequencer stalls. DAC mode requires ≥1 honest committee member to supply data.	Depends on chain’s consensus – e.g. if using a validator set, need ≥2/3 honest. Rollup mode fallback is L1 Ethereum inclusion.

As seen, Optimism and Arbitrum include on-chain fallback queues, which is a strong censorship-resistance feature. ZK-based chains rely on the fact that a sequencer can’t forge state (thanks to ZK proofs), but if it censors, a new sequencer could be appointed by governance – an area still being refined. The trend in 2025 is that we’ll likely see more decentralized sequencer pools and possibly shared sequencer networks coming online, complementing these RaaS frameworks. Each project is actively researching this: e.g. Astria and others are building general shared sequencing services, and OP Labs, Polygon, and Offchain have all mentioned plans to decentralize the sequencer role.

Fee Models and Economics

Fee models determine who pays what in these rollup frameworks and how the economic incentives align for operators and the ecosystem. Key considerations include: What token are fees paid in? Who collects the fees? What costs (L1 posting, proving) must be covered? Are there revenue-sharing or kickback arrangements? How customizable are fee parameters?

• Gas Token and Fee Customization: All compared frameworks allow customizing the native gas token, meaning a new chain can decide which currency users pay fees in. By default, rollups on Ethereum often choose ETH as the gas token for user convenience (users don’t need a new token to use the chain). For instance, Base (OP Stack) uses ETH for gas, as does zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM. OP Stack technically supports replacing ETH with another ERC-20, but in the context of the OP Superchain, there’s a push to keep a standard (to make interoperability smoother). In fact, some OP Stack chains that initially considered a custom token opted for ETH – e.g., Worldcoin’s OP-chain uses ETH for fees even though the project has its own token WLD. On the other hand, Arbitrum Orbit launched without custom token support but quickly added it due to demand. Now Orbit chains can use ARB or any ERC-20 as gas. The Ape Chain L3 chose APE coin as its gas currency, showcasing this flexibility. Polygon CDK likewise lets you define the token; many projects lean towards using MATIC to align with Polygon’s ecosystem (and MATIC will upgrade to POL token under Polygon 2.0), but it’s not enforced. zkSync’s ZK Stack explicitly supports custom base tokens as well (the docs even have a “Custom base token” tutorial). This is useful for enterprise chains that might want, say, a stablecoin or their own coin for fees. It’s also crucial for app-chains that have their own token economy – they can drive demand for their token by making it the gas token. In summary, fee token is fully configurable in all frameworks, although using a widely-held token like ETH can lower user friction.

• Fee Collection and Distribution: Generally, the sequencer (block producer) collects transaction fees on the L2/L3. This is a primary incentive for running a sequencer. For example, Optimism’s sequencer earns all the gas fees users pay on Optimism, but must then pay for posting batches to Ethereum. Usually, the sequencer will take the user-paid L2 fees, subtract the L1 costs, and keep the remainder as profit. On a well-run chain, L1 costs are a fraction of L2 fees, leaving some profit margin. For ZK-rollups, there’s an extra cost: generating the ZK proof. This can be significant (requiring specialized hardware or cloud compute). Currently, some ZK rollup operators subsidize proving costs (spending VC funds) to keep user fees low during growth phase. Over time, proving costs are expected to drop with better algorithms and hardware. Framework-wise: zkSync and Polygon both allow the sequencer to charge a bit more to cover proving – and if a chain uses an external prover service, they might have a revenue split with them. Notably, no framework except OP Superchain has an enforced revenue-sharing at protocol level. The Optimism Collective’s Standard Rollup Revenue scheme requires OP Chains to remit either 2.5% of gross fees or 15% of net profits (whichever is greater) to a collective treasury. This is a voluntary-but-expected agreement under the Superchain charter, rather than a smart contract enforcement, but all major OP Stack chains (Base, opBNB, Worldcoin, etc.) have agreed to it. Those fees (over 14,000 ETH so far) fund public goods via Optimism’s governance. In contrast, Arbitrum does not charge Orbit chains any fee; Orbit is permissionless to use. Arbitrum DAO could potentially ask for some revenue sharing in the future (to fund its own ecosystem), but none exists as of 2025. Polygon CDK similarly does not impose a tax; Polygon’s approach is to attract users into its ecosystem (thus raising MATIC value and usage) rather than charge per-chain fees. Polygon co-founder Sandeep Nailwal explicitly said AggLayer “does not seek rent” from chains. zkSync also hasn’t announced any fee sharing – Matter Labs likely focuses on growing usage of zkSync Era and hyperchains, which indirectly benefits them via network effects and possibly future token value.

• L1 Settlement Costs: A big part of the fee model is who pays for L1 transactions (posting data or proofs). In all cases, ultimately users pay, but the mechanism differs. In Optimistic rollups, the sequencer periodically posts batches of transactions (with calldata) to L1. The gas cost for those L1 transactions is paid by the sequencer using ETH. However, sequencers factor that into the L2 gas pricing. Optimism and Arbitrum have gas pricing formulas that estimate how much a transaction’s call-data will cost on L1 and include that in the L2 gas fee (often called the “amortized L1 cost” per tx). For example, a simple Optimism tx might incur 21,000 L2 gas for execution and maybe an extra few hundred for L1 data – the user’s fee covers both. If the pricing is misestimated, the sequencer might lose money on that batch or gain if usage is high. Sequencers typically adjust fees dynamically to match L1 conditions (raising L2 fees when L1 gas is expensive). In Arbitrum, the mechanism is similar, though Arbitrum has separate “L1 pricing” and “L2 pricing” components. In zkSync/Polygon (ZK), the sequencer must post a validity proof to L1 (costing a fixed gas amount to verify) plus either call data (if rollup) or state root (if validium). The proof verification cost is usually constant per batch (on zkSync Era it’s on the order of a few hundred thousand gas), so zkSync’s fee model spreads that cost across transactions. They might charge a slight overhead on each tx for proving. Notably, zkSync introduced features like state diffs and compression to minimize L1 data published. Polygon zkEVM likewise uses recursive proofs to batch many transactions into one proof, amortizing the verification cost. If a chain uses an alternative DA (Celestia/Avail), then instead of paying Ethereum for calldata, they pay that DA provider. Celestia, for instance, has its own gas token (TIA) to pay for data blobs. So a chain might need to convert part of fees to pay Celestia miners. Frameworks are increasingly abstracting these costs: e.g., an OP Stack chain could pay a Celestia DA node via an adapter, and include that cost in user fees.

• Costs to Users (Finality and Withdrawal): For optimistic rollups (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit in rollup mode), users face the infamous challenge period for withdrawals – typically 7 days on Ethereum L1. This is a usability hit, but most ecosystems have mitigations. Fast bridges (liquidity networks) allow users to swap their L2 tokens for L1 tokens instantly for a small fee, while arbitrageurs wait the 7 days. Arbitrum has gone further for Orbit chains, working with teams to enable fast withdrawals in as little as 15 minutes via liquidity providers integrated at the protocol level. This effectively means users don’t wait a week except in worst-case scenarios. ZK-rollups don’t have this delay – once a validity proof is accepted on L1, the state is final. So zkSync and Polygon users get faster finality (often minutes to an hour) depending on how often proofs are submitted. The trade-off is that proving might introduce a bit of delay between when a transaction is accepted on L2 and when it’s included in an L1 proof (could be a few minutes). But generally, ZK rollups are offering 10–30 minute withdrawals in 2025, which is a huge improvement over 7 days. Users may pay a slightly higher fee for immediate finality (to cover prover costs), but many deem it worth it. Fee Customization is also worth noting: frameworks allow custom fee schedules (like free transactions or gas subsidies) if projects want. For example, an enterprise could subsidize all user fees on their chain by running the sequencer at a loss (perhaps for a game or social app). Or they could set up a different gas model (some have toyed with no gas for certain actions, or alternative gas accounting). Since most frameworks aim for Ethereum-equivalence, such deep changes are rare, but possible with code modification. Arbitrum’s Stylus could enable different fee metering for WASM contracts (not charging for certain ops to encourage WASM usage, for instance). The Polygon CDK being open source and modular means if a project wanted to implement a novel fee mechanism (like fee burning or dynamic pricing), they could.

In essence, all rollup frameworks strive to align economic incentives: make it profitable to operate a sequencer (via fee revenue), keep fees reasonable for users by leveraging cheaper DA, and (optionally) funnel some value to their broader ecosystem. Optimism’s model is unique in explicitly sharing revenue for public goods, while others rely on growth and token economics (e.g., more chains -> more MATIC/ETH usage, increasing those token’s value).

Architecture and Modularity

All these frameworks pride themselves on a modular architecture, meaning each layer of the stack (execution, settlement, consensus, DA, proofs) is swappable or upgradable. Let’s briefly note each:

• OP Stack: Built as a series of modules corresponding to Ethereum’s layers – execution engine (OP EVM, derived from geth), consensus/rollup node (op-node), settlement smart contracts, and soon fraud prover. The OP Stack’s design goal was EVM equivalence (no custom gas schedule or opcode changes) and ease of integration with Ethereum tooling. The Bedrock upgrade in 2023 further modularized Optimism’s stack, making it easier to swap out components (e.g., to implement ZK proofs in the future, or use a different DA). Indeed, OP Stack is not limited to optimistic fraud proofs – the team has said it’s open to integrating validity proofs when they mature, essentially turning OP Stack chains into ZK rollups without changing the developer experience. The Superchain concept extends the architecture to multiple chains: standardizing inter-chain communication, bridging, and maybe shared sequencing. OP Stack comes with a rich set of smart contracts on L1 (for deposits, withdrawals, fraud proof verification, etc.), which chains inherit out-of-the-box. It’s effectively a plug-and-play L2 chain template – projects like Base launched by forking the OP Stack repos and configuring them to point at their own contracts.

• ZK Stack: The ZK Stack is the framework underlying zkSync Era and future “Hyperchains.” Architecturally, it includes the zkEVM execution environment (an LLVM-based VM that allows running Solidity code with minimal changes), the prover system (the circuits and proof generation for transactions), the sequencer node, and the L1 contracts (the zkSync smart contracts that verify proofs and manage state roots). Modularity is seen in how it separates the ZK proof circuit from the execution – theoretically one could swap in a different proving scheme or even a different VM (though not trivial). The ZK Stack introduces the Elastic Chain Architecture with components like ZK Router and ZK Gateway. These act as an interoperability layer connecting multiple ZK Chains. It’s a bit like an “internet of ZK rollups” concept, where the Router (on Ethereum) holds a registry of chains and facilitates shared bridging/liquidity, and the Gateway handles messages between chains off-chain. This is modular because a new chain can plug into that architecture simply by deploying with the standard contracts. ZK Stack also embraces account abstraction at the protocol level (contracts as accounts, native meta-transactions), which is an architectural choice to improve UX. Another modular aspect: as discussed in DA, it can operate in rollup or validium mode – essentially flipping a switch in config. Also, the stack has a notion of Pluggable consensus for sequencing (as noted prior). Settlement layer can be Ethereum or potentially another chain: zkSync’s roadmap even floated settling hyperchains on L2 (e.g., an L3 that posts proofs to zkSync Era L2 instead of L1) – indeed they launched a prototype called “ZK Portal” for L3 settlement on L2. This gives a hierarchical modularity (L3->L2->L1). Overall, ZK Stack is a bit less turnkey for non-Matter-Labs teams as of 2025 (since running a ZK chain involves coordinating provers, etc.), but it’s highly flexible in capable hands.

• Arbitrum Orbit: Arbitrum’s architecture is built on the Arbitrum Nitro stack, which includes the ArbOS execution layer (Arbitrum’s interpretation of EVM with some small differences), the Sequencer/Relay, the AnyTrust component for alternative DA, and the fraud proof machinery (interactive fraud proofs). Orbit essentially lets you use that same stack but configure certain parameters (like chain ID, L2 genesis state, choice of rollup vs AnyTrust). Modularity: Arbitrum introduced Stylus, a new WASM-compatible smart contract engine that runs alongside the EVM. Stylus allows writing contracts in Rust, C, C++ which compile to WASM and run with near-native speed on Arbitrum chains. This is an optional module – Orbit chains can enable Stylus or not. It’s a differentiator for Arbitrum’s stack, making it attractive for high-performance dApps (e.g., gaming or trading apps might write some logic in Rust for speed). The data availability module is also pluggable as discussed (Arbitrum chains can choose on-chain or DAC). Another module is the L1 settlement: Orbit chains can post their proofs to either Ethereum (L1) or to Arbitrum One (L2). If the latter, they effectively are L3s anchored in Arbitrum One’s security (with slightly different trust assumptions). Many Orbit chains are launching as L3s (to inherit Arbitrum One’s lower fees and still ultimately Ethereum security). Arbitrum’s codebase is fully open source now, and projects like Caldera, Conduit build on it to provide user-friendly deployment – they might add their own modules (like monitoring, chain management APIs). It’s worth noting Arbitrum’s fraud proofs were historically not permissionless (only whitelisted validators could challenge), but with BoLD, that part of the architecture is changing to allow anyone to step in. So the fraud proof component is becoming more decentralized (which is a modular upgrade in a sense). One might say Arbitrum is less of a “lego kit” than OP Stack or Polygon CDK, in that Offchain Labs hasn’t released a one-click chain launcher (though they did release an Orbit deployment GUI on GitHub). But functionally, it’s modular enough that third parties have automated deployments for it.

• Polygon CDK (AggLayer): Polygon CDK is explicitly described as a “modular framework” for ZK-powered chains. It leverages Polygon’s ZK proving technology (from Polygon zkEVM, which is based on Plonky2 and recursive SNARKs). The architecture separates the execution layer (which is an EVM – specifically a fork of Geth adjusted for zkEVM) from the prover layer and the bridge/settlement contracts. Because it’s modular, a developer can choose different options for each: e.g. Execution – presumably always EVM for now (to use existing tooling), DA – as discussed (Ethereum or others), Sequencer consensus – single vs multi-node, Prover – one can run the prover Type1 (validity proofs posted to Ethereum) or a Type2 (validium proofs) etc., and AggLayer integration – yes or no (AggLayer for interop). Polygon even provided a slick interface (shown below) to visualize these choices:

Polygon CDK’s configuration interface, illustrating modular choices – e.g. Rollups vs Validium (scaling solution), decentralized vs centralized sequencer, local/Ethereum/3rd-party DA, different prover types, and whether to enable AggLayer interoperability.

Under the hood, Polygon CDK uses zk-Proofs with recursion to allow high throughput and a dynamic validator set. The AggLayer is an emerging part of the architecture that will connect chains for trustless messaging and shared liquidity. The CDK is built in a way that future improvements in Polygon’s ZK tech (like faster proofs, or new VM features) can be adopted by all CDK chains via upgrades. Polygon has a concept of “Type 1 vs Type 2” zkEVM – Type 1 is fully Ethereum-equivalent, Type 2 is almost equivalent with minor changes for efficiency. A CDK chain could choose a slightly modified EVM for more speed (sacrificing some equivalence) – this is an architectural option projects have. Overall, CDK is very lego-like: one can assemble a chain choosing components suitable for their use case (e.g., an enterprise might choose validium + permissioned sequencers + private Tx visibility; a public DeFi chain might choose rollup + decentralized sequencer + AggLayer enabled for liquidity). This versatility has attracted many projects to consider CDK for launching their own networks.

• Images and diagrams: The frameworks often provide visual diagrams of their modular architecture. For example, zkSync’s UI shows toggles for Rollup/Validium, L2/L3, centralized/decentralized, etc., highlighting the ZK Stack’s flexibility:

An example configuration for a zkSync “Hyperchain.” The ZK Stack interface allows selecting chain mode (Rollup vs Validium vs Volition), layer (L2 or L3), transaction sequencing (decentralized, centralized, or shared), data availability source (Ethereum, third-party network, or custom), data visibility (public or private chain), and gas token (ETH, custom, or gasless). This modular approach is designed to support a variety of use cases, from public DeFi chains to private enterprise chains.

In summary, all these stacks are highly modular and upgradable, which is essential given the pace of blockchain innovation. They are converging in some sense: OP Stack adding validity proofs, Polygon adding shared sequencing (OP Stack ideas), Arbitrum adding interoperable L3s (like others), zkSync pursuing L3s (like Orbit and OPStack do). This cross-pollination means modular frameworks in 2025 are more alike than different in philosophy – each wants to be the one-stop toolkit to launch scalable chains without reinventing the wheel.

Developer Experience and Tooling

A critical factor for adoption is how easy and developer-friendly these frameworks are. This includes documentation, SDKs/APIs, CLIs for deployment, monitoring tools, and the learning curve for developers:

• OP Stack – Developer Experience: Optimism’s OP Stack benefits from being EVM-equivalent, so Ethereum developers can use familiar tools (Remix, Hardhat, Truffle, Solidity, Vyper) without modification. Smart contracts deployed to an OP chain behave exactly as on L1. This drastically lowers the learning curve. Optimism provides extensive documentation: the official Optimism docs have sections on the OP Stack, running an L2 node, and even an “OP Stack from scratch” tutorial. There are community-written guides as well (for example, QuickNode’s step-by-step guide on deploying an Optimism L2 rollup). In terms of tooling, OP Labs has released the op-node client (for the rollup node) and op-geth (execution engine). To launch a chain, a developer typically needs to configure these and deploy the L1 contracts (Standard Bridge, etc.). This was non-trivial but is becoming easier with provider services. Deployment-as-a-service: companies like Caldera, Conduit, and Infura/Alchemy offer managed OP Stack rollup deployments, which abstracts away much of the DevOps. For monitoring, because an OP Stack chain is essentially a geth chain plus a rollup coordinator, standard Ethereum monitoring tools (ETH metrics dashboards, block explorers like Etherscan/Blockscout) can be used. In fact, Etherscan supports OP Stack chains such as Optimism and Base, providing familiar block explorer interfaces. Developer tooling specifically for OP Chains includes the Optimism SDK for bridging (facilitating deposits/withdrawals in apps) and Bedrock’s integration with Ethereum JSON-RPC (so tools like MetaMask just work by switching network). The OP Stack code is MIT licensed, inviting developers to fork and experiment. Many did – e.g. BNB Chain’s team used OP Stack to build opBNB with their own modifications to consensus and gas token (they use BNB gas on opBNB). The OP Stack’s adherence to Ethereum standards makes the developer experience arguably the smoothest among these: essentially “Ethereum, but cheaper” from a contract developer’s perspective. The main new skills needed are around running the infrastructure (for those launching a chain) and understanding cross-chain bridging nuances. Optimism’s community and support (Discord, forums) are active to help new chain teams. Additionally, Optimism has funded ecosystem tools like Magi (an alternative Rust rollup client) to diversify the stack and make it more robust for developers.

• zkSync ZK Stack – Developer Experience: On the contract development side, zkSync’s ZK Stack offers a zkEVM that is intended to be high compatibility but currently not 100% bytecode-equivalent. It supports Solidity and Vyper contracts, but there are subtle differences (for example, certain precompiles or gas costs). That said, Matter Labs built an LLVM compiler that takes Solidity and produces zkEVM bytecode, so most Solidity code works with little to no change. They also natively support account abstraction, which devs can leverage to create gasless transactions, multi-sig wallets, etc., more easily than on Ethereum (no need for ERC-4337). The developer docs for zkSync are comprehensive (docs.zksync.io) and cover how to deploy contracts, use the Hyperchain CLI (if any), and configure a chain. However, running a ZK rollup is inherently more complex than an optimistic one – you need a proving setup. The ZK Stack provides the prover software (e.g. the GPU provers for zkSync’s circuits), but a chain operator must have access to serious hardware or cloud services to generate proofs continuously. This is a new DevOps challenge; to mitigate it, some companies are emerging that provide prover services or even Proof-as-a-Service. If a developer doesn’t want to run their own provers, they might be able to outsource it (with trust or crypto-economic assurances). Tooling: zkSync provides a bridge and wallet portal by default (the zkSync Portal) which can be forked for a new chain, giving users a UI to move assets and view accounts. For block exploration, Blockscout has been adapted to zkSync, and Matter Labs built their own block explorer for zkSync Era which could likely be used for new chains. The existence of the ZK Gateway and Router means that if a developer plugs into that, they get some out-of-the-box interoperability with other chains – but they need to follow Matter Labs’ standards. Overall, for a smart contract dev, building on zkSync is not too difficult (just Solidity, with perhaps minor differences like gasleft() might behave slightly differently due to not having actual Ethereum gas cost). But for a chain operator, the ZK Stack has a steeper learning curve than OP Stack or Orbit. In 2025, Matter Labs is focusing on improving this – for instance, simplifying the process of launching a Hyperchain, possibly providing scripts or cloud images to spin up the whole stack. There is also an emerging community of devs around ZK Stack; e.g., the ZKSync Community Edition is an initiative where community members run test L3 chains and share tips. We should note that language support for zkSync’s ecosystem might expand – they’ve talked about allowing other languages via the LLVM pipeline (e.g., a Rust-to-zkEVM compiler in the future), but Solidity is the main one now. In summary, zkSync’s dev experience: great for DApp devs (nearly Ethereum-like), moderate for chain launchers (need to handle prover and new concepts like validiums).

• Arbitrum Orbit – Developer Experience: For Solidity developers, Arbitrum Orbit (and Arbitrum One) is fully EVM-compatible at the bytecode level (Arbitrum Nitro uses geth-derived execution). Thus, deploying and interacting with contracts on an Arbitrum chain is just like Ethereum (with some small differences like slightly different L1 block number access, chainID, etc., but nothing major). Where Arbitrum stands out is Stylus – developers can write smart contracts in languages like Rust, C, C++ (compiled to WebAssembly) and deploy those alongside EVM contracts. This opens blockchain development to a wider pool of programmers and enables high-performance use cases. For example, an algorithmic intensive logic could be written in C for speed. Stylus is still in beta on Arbitrum mainnet, but Orbit chains can experiment with it. This is a unique boon for developer experience, albeit those using Stylus will need to learn new tooling (e.g., Rust toolchains, and Arbitrum’s libraries for interfacing WASM with the chain). The Arbitrum docs provide guidance on using Stylus and even writing Rust smart contracts. For launching an Orbit chain, Offchain Labs has provided Devnet scripts and an Orbit deployment UI. The process is somewhat technical: one must set up an Arbitrum node with --l3 flags (if launching an L3) and configure the genesis, chain parameters, etc.. QuickNode and others have published guides (“How to deploy your own Arbitrum Orbit chain”). Additionally, Orbit partnerships with Caldera, AltLayer, and Conduit mean these third parties handle a lot of the heavy lifting. A developer can essentially fill out a form or run a wizard with those services to get a customized Arbitrum chain, instead of manually modifying the Nitro code. In terms of debugging and monitoring, Arbitrum chains can use Arbiscan (for those that have it) or community explorers. There’s also Grafana/Prometheus integrations for node metrics. One complexity is the fraud proof system – developers launching an Orbit chain should ensure there are validators (maybe themselves or trusted others) who run the off-chain validator software to watch for fraud. Offchain Labs likely provides default scripts for running such validators. But since fraud proofs rarely trigger, it’s more about having the security process in place. Arbitrum’s large developer community (projects building on Arbitrum One) is an asset – resources like tutorials, stackexchange answers, etc., often apply to Orbit as well. Also, Arbitrum is known for its strong developer education efforts (workshops, hackathons), which presumably extend to those interested in Orbit.

• Polygon CDK – Developer Experience: Polygon CDK is newer (announced mid/late 2023), but it builds on familiar components. For developers writing contracts, Polygon CDK chains use a zkEVM that’s intended to be equivalent to Ethereum’s EVM (Polygon’s Type 2 zkEVM is nearly identical with a few edge cases). So, Solidity and Vyper are the go-to languages, with full support for standard Ethereum dev tools. If you’ve deployed on Polygon zkEVM or Ethereum, you can deploy on a CDK chain similarly. The challenge is more on the chain operations side. Polygon’s CDK is open-source on GitHub and comes with documentation on how to configure a chain. It likely provides a command-line tool to scaffold a new chain (similar to how one might use Cosmos SDK’s starport or Substrate’s node template). Polygon Labs has invested in making the setup as easy as possible – one quote: “launch a high-throughput ZK-powered Ethereum L2 as easily as deploying a smart contract”. While perhaps optimistic, this indicates tools or scripts exist to simplify deployment. Indeed, there have been early adopters like Immutable (for gaming) and OKX (exchange chain) that have worked with Polygon to launch CDK chains, suggesting a fairly smooth process with Polygon’s team support. The CDK includes SDKs and libraries to interact with the bridge (for deposits/withdrawals) and to enable AggLayer if desired. Monitoring a CDK chain can leverage Polygon’s block explorer (Polygonscan) if they integrate it, or Blockscout. Polygon is also known for robust SDKs for gaming and mobile (e.g., Unity SDKs) – those can be used on any Polygon-based chain. Developer support is a big focus: Polygon has academies, grants, hackathons regularly, and their Developer Relations team helps projects one-on-one. An example of enterprise developer experience: Libre, an institutional chain launched with CDK, presumably had custom requirements – Polygon was able to accommodate things like identity modules or compliance features on that chain. This shows the CDK can be extended for specific use cases by developers with help from the framework. As for learning materials, Polygon’s docs site and blog have guides on CDK usage, and because CDK is essentially the evolution of their zkEVM, those familiar with Polygon’s zkEVM design can pick it up quickly. One more tooling aspect: Cross-chain tools – since many Polygon CDK chains will coexist, Polygon provides the AggLayer for messaging, but also encourages use of standard cross-chain messaging like LayerZero (indeed Rarible’s Orbit chain integrated LayerZero for NFT transfers and Polygon chains can too). So, devs have options to integrate interoperability plugins easily. All told, the CDK developer experience is aimed to be turnkey for launching Ethereum-level chains with ZK security, benefiting from Polygon’s years of L2 experience.

In conclusion, developer experience has dramatically improved for launching custom chains: what once required a whole team of protocol engineers can now be done with guided frameworks and support. Optimism’s and Arbitrum’s offerings leverage familiarity (EVM equivalence), zkSync and Polygon offer cutting-edge tech with increasing ease-of-use, and all have growing ecosystems of third-party tools to simplify development (from block explorers to monitoring dashboards and devops scripts). The documentation quality is generally high – official docs plus community guides (Medium articles, QuickNode/Alchemy guides) cover a lot of ground. There is still a non-trivial learning curve to go from smart contract developer to “rollup operator,” but it’s getting easier as best practices emerge and the community of rollup builders expands.

Ecosystem Support and Go-to-Market Strategies

Building a technology is one thing; building an ecosystem is another. Each of these frameworks is backed by an organization or community investing in growth through grants, funding, marketing, and partnership support. Here we compare their ecosystem support strategies – how they attract developers and projects, and how they help those projects succeed:

• OP Stack (Optimism) Ecosystem: Optimism has a robust ecosystem strategy centered on its Optimism Collective and ethos of public goods funding. They pioneered Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) – using OP token treasury to reward developers and projects that benefit the ecosystem. Through multiple RPGF rounds, Optimism has distributed millions in funding to infrastructure projects, dev tools, and applications on Optimism. Any project building with OP Stack (especially if aligning with the Superchain vision) is eligible to apply for grants from the Collective. Additionally, Optimism’s governance can authorize incentive programs (earlier in 2022, they had an airdrop and governance fund that projects could tap to distribute OP rewards to users). In 2024, Optimism established the Superchain Revenue Sharing model, where each OP Chain contributes a small portion of fees to a shared treasury. This creates a flywheel: as more chains (like Base, opBNB, Worldcoin’s chain, etc.) generate usage, they collectively fund more public goods that improve the OP Stack, which in turn attracts more chains. It’s a positive-sum approach unique to Optimism. On the go-to-market side, Optimism has actively partnered with major entities: getting Coinbase to build Base was a huge validation of OP Stack, and Optimism Labs provided technical help and support to Coinbase during that process. Similarly, they’ve worked with Worldcoin’s team, and Celo’s migration to an OP Stack L2 was done with consultation from OP Labs. Optimism does a lot of developer outreach – from running hackathons (often combined with ETHGlobal events) to maintaining a Developer Hub with tutorials. They also invest in tooling: e.g., funding teams to build alternative clients, monitoring tools, and providing an official faucet and block explorer integration for new chains. Marketing-wise, Optimism coined the term “Superchain” and actively promotes the vision of many chains uniting under one interoperable umbrella, which has attracted projects that want to be part of a broader narrative rather than an isolated appchain. There’s also the draw of shared liquidity: with the upcoming OPCraft (Superchain interoperability), apps on one OP Chain can easily interact with another, making it appealing to launch a chain that’s not an island. In essence, OP Stack’s ecosystem play is about community and collaboration – join the Superchain, get access to a pool of users (via easy bridging), funding, and collective branding. They even created a “Rollup Passport” concept where users can have a unified identity across OP Chains. All these efforts lower the barrier for new chains to find users and devs. Finally, Optimism’s own user base and reputation (being one of the top L2s) means any OP Stack chain can somewhat piggyback on that (Base did, by advertising itself as part of the Optimism ecosystem, for instance).

• zkSync (ZK Stack/Hyperchains) Ecosystem: Matter Labs (the team behind zkSync) secured large funding rounds (over $200M) to fuel its ecosystem. They have set up funds like the ** zkSync Ecosystem Fund**, often in collaboration with VCs, to invest in projects building on zkSync Era. For the ZK Stack specifically, they have started to promote the concept of Hyperchains to communities that need their own chain. One strategy is targeting specific verticals: for example, gaming. zkSync has highlighted how a game studio could launch its own Hyperchain to get customizability and still be connected to Ethereum. They are likely offering close support to initial partners (in the way Polygon did with some enterprises). The mention in the Zeeve article about a “Swiss bank; world’s largest bank” interested in ZK Stack suggests Matter Labs is courting enterprise use cases that need privacy (ZK proofs can ensure correctness while keeping some data private, a big deal for institutions). If zkSync lands a major enterprise chain, that would boost their credibility. Developer support on zkSync is quite strong: they run accelerators (e.g., an program with Blockchain Founders Fund was announced), hackathons (often zk themed ones), and have an active community on their Discord providing technical help. While zkSync doesn’t have a live token (as of 2025) for governance or incentives, there’s speculation of one, and projects might anticipate future incentive programs. Matter Labs has also been working on bridging support: they partnered with major bridges like Across, LayerZero, Wormhole to ensure assets and messages can move easily to and from zkSync and any hyperchains. In fact, Across Protocol integrated zkSync’s ZK Stack, boasting support across “all major L2 frameworks”. This interoperability focus means a project launching a hyperchain can readily connect to Ethereum mainnet and other L2s, crucial for attracting users (nobody wants to be siloed). Marketing-wise, zkSync pushes the slogan “Web3 without compromise” and emphasizes being first to ZK mainnet. They publish roadmaps (their 2025 roadmap blog) to keep excitement high. If we consider ecosystem funds: aside from direct Matter Labs grants, there’s also the Ethereum Foundation and other ZK-focused funds that favor zkSync development due to the general importance of ZK tech. Another strategy: zkSync is open source and neutral (no licensing fees), which appeals to projects that might be wary of aligning with a more centralized ecosystem. The ZK Stack is trying to position itself as the decentralizer’s choice – e.g., highlighting full decentralization and no training wheels, whereas OP Stack and others still have some centralization in practice. Time will tell if that resonates, but certainly within the Ethereum community, zkSync has supporters who want a fully trustless stack. Finally, Matter Labs and BitDAO’s Windranger have a joint initiative called “ZK DAO” which might deploy capital or incentives for the ZK Stack adoption. Overall, zkSync’s ecosystem efforts are a mix of technical superiority messaging (ZK is the future) and building practical bridges (both figurative and literal) for projects to come onboard.

• Arbitrum Orbit Ecosystem: Arbitrum has a huge existing ecosystem on its L2 (Arbitrum One), with the highest DeFi TVL among L2s in 2024. Offchain Labs leverages this by encouraging successful Arbitrum dApps to consider Orbit chains for sub-applications or L3 expansions. They announced that over 50 Orbit chains were in development by late 2023, expecting perhaps 100+ by end of 2024 – indicating substantial interest. To nurture this, Offchain Labs adopted a few strategies. First, partnerships with RaaS providers: They realized not every team can handle the rollup infra, so they enlisted Caldera, Conduit, and AltLayer to streamline it. These partners often have their own grant or incentive programs (sometimes co-sponsored by Arbitrum) to entice projects. For example, there might be an Arbitrum x AltLayer grant for gaming chains. Second, Offchain Labs provides direct technical support and co-development for key projects. The case of Xai Chain is illustrative: it’s a gaming L3 where Offchain Labs co-developed the chain and provides ongoing tech and even marketing support. They basically helped incubate Xai to showcase Orbit’s potential in gaming. Similarly, Rarible’s RARI NFT chain got integrated with many partners (Gelato for gasless, LayerZero for cross-chain NFTs, etc.) with presumably Arbitrum’s guidance. Offchain Labs also sometimes uses its war chest (Arbitrum DAO has a huge treasury of ARB tokens) to fund initiatives. While the Arbitrum DAO is separate, Offchain Labs can coordinate with it for ecosystem matters. For instance, if an Orbit chain heavily uses ARB token or benefits Arbitrum, the DAO could vote grants. However, a more direct approach: Offchain Labs launched Arbitrum Orbit Challenge hackathons and prizes to encourage developers to try making L3s. On marketing: Arbitrum’s brand is developer-focused, and they promote Orbit’s advantages like Stylus (fast, multi-language contracts) and no 7-day withdrawal (with fast bridging). They also highlight successful examples: e.g., Treasure DAO’s Bridgeworld announced an Orbit chain, etc. One more support angle: liquidity and Defi integration. Arbitrum is working with protocols so that if you launch an Orbit chain, you can tap into liquidity from Arbitrum One easily (via native bridging or LayerZero). The easier it is to get assets and users moving to your new chain, the more likely you’ll succeed. Arbitrum has a very large, active community (on Reddit, Discord, etc.), and by extending that to Orbit, new chains can market to existing Arbitrum users (for example, an Arbitrum user might get an airdrop on a new Orbit chain to try it out). In summary, Arbitrum’s ecosystem strategy for Orbit is about leveraging their L2 dominance – if you build an L3, you’re effectively an extension of the largest L2, so you get to share in that network effect. Offchain Labs is actively removing hurdles (technical and liquidity hurdles) and even directly helping build some early L3s to set precedents for others to follow.

• Polygon CDK (AggLayer) Ecosystem: Polygon has been one of the most aggressive in ecosystem and business development. They have a multi-pronged approach:

  • Grants and Funds: Polygon established a $100M Ecosystem Fund a while back, and has invested in hundreds of projects. They also had specific vertical funds (e.g., Polygon Gaming Fund, Polygon DeFi Fund). For CDK chains, Polygon announced incentives such as covering part of the cost of running a chain or providing liquidity support. The CoinLaw stats mention “More than 190 dApps are leveraging Polygon CDK to build their own chains” – which implies Polygon has gotten a vast pipeline of projects (likely many still in development). They’ve likely offered grants or resource sharing to these teams.
  • Enterprise and Institutional Onboarding: Polygon’s BizDev team has on-boarded major companies (Starbucks, Reddit, Nike, Disney for NFTs on Polygon POS). Now with CDK, they pitch enterprises to launch dedicated chains. E.g., Immutable (gaming platform) partnering to use CDK for game-specific chains, Franklin Templeton launching a fund on Polygon, and Walmart’s trial of a supply chain on a private Polygon chain. Polygon provides white-glove support to these partners: technical consulting, custom feature development (privacy, compliance), and co-marketing. The introduction of Libre (by JP Morgan/Siemens) built on Polygon CDK shows how they cater to financial institutions with specialized needs.
  • Go-to-Market and Interoperability: Polygon is creating the AggLayer as an interoperability and liquidity hub connecting all Polygon chains. This means if you launch a CDK chain, you’re not on your own – you become part of “Polygon 2.0,” a constellation of chains with unified liquidity. They promise things like one-click token transfer between CDK chains and Ethereum (via AggLayer). They are also not charging any protocol fees (no rent), which they tout as a competitive advantage against, say, Optimism’s fee sharing. Polygon’s marketing highlights that launching a CDK chain can give you “the best of both worlds”: custom sovereignty and performance plus access to the large user base and developer base of Polygon/Ethereum. They often cite that Polygon (POS+zkEVM) combined processed 30%+ of all L2 transactions, to assure potential chain builders that the flow of users on Polygon is huge.
  • Developer Support: Polygon runs perhaps the most hackathons and DevRel events in the blockchain space. They have a dedicated Polygon University, online courses, and they frequently sponsor ETHGlobal and other hackathons with challenges around using CDK, zkEVM, etc. So developers can win prizes building prototypes of CDK chains or cross-chain dapps. They also maintain a strong presence in developer communities and provide quick support (the Polygon Discord has channels for technical questions where core devs answer).
  • Community and Governance: Polygon is transitioning to Polygon 2.0 with a new POL token and community governance that spans all chains. This could mean community treasuries or incentive programs that apply to CDK chains. For example, there may be a Polygon Ecosystem Mining program where liquidity mining rewards are offered to projects that deploy on new CDK chains to bootstrap usage. The idea is to ensure new chains aren’t ghost towns.
  • Success Stories: Already, several CDK chains are live or announced: OKX’s OKB Chain (X Layer), Gnosis Pay’s chain, Astar’s zkEVM, Palm Network migrating, GameSwift (gaming chain), etc.. Polygon actively publicizes these and shares knowledge from them to others.

Overall, Polygon’s strategy is “we will do whatever it takes to help you succeed if you build on our stack.” That includes financial incentives, technical manpower, marketing exposure (speaking slots in conferences, press releases on CoinTelegraph like we saw), and integration into a larger ecosystem. It’s very much a business development-driven approach in addition to grassroots dev community, reflecting Polygon’s more corporate style relative to the others.

To summarize ecosystem support: All these frameworks understand that attracting developers and projects requires more than tech – it needs funding, hand-holding, and integration into a larger narrative. Optimism pushes a collaborative public-goods-focused narrative with fair revenue sharing. zkSync pushes the cutting-edge tech angle and likely will announce incentives aligned with a future token. Arbitrum leverages its existing dominance and provides partner networks to make launching easy, plus possibly the deepest DeFi liquidity to tap into. Polygon arguably goes the furthest in smoothing the path for both crypto-native and enterprise players, effectively subsidizing and co-marketing chains.

An illustrative comparative snapshot:

Framework	Notable Ecosystem Programs	Developer/Partner Support	Ecosystem Size (2025)
OP Stack (Optimism)	RetroPGF grants (OP token); Superchain fee sharing for public goods; Multiple grant waves for tooling & dapps.	OP Labs offers direct tech support to new chains (e.g. Base); strong dev community; Superchain branding & interoperability to attract users. Regular hackathons (often Optimism-sponsored tracks).	Optimism mainnet ~160+ dapps, Base gaining traction, 5+ OP Chains live (Base, opBNB, Worldcoin, Zora, others) and more announced (Celo). Shared $14k+ ETH revenue to Collective. Large community via Optimism and Coinbase users.
zkSync ZK Stack	zkSync Ecosystem Fund (>$200M raised for dev financing); possible future airdrops; targeted vertical programs (e.g. gaming, AI agents on Hyperchains).	Matter Labs provides technical onboarding for early Hyperchain pilots; detailed docs and open-source code. Partnered with bridge protocols for connectivity. Developer incentives mostly through hackathons and VC investments (no token incentives yet).	zkSync Era L2 has 160+ protocols, ~$100M TVL. Early hyperchains in test (no major live L3 yet). Enterprise interest signals future growth (e.g. pilot with a large bank). Strong ZK developer community and growing recognition.
Arbitrum Orbit	Arbitrum DAO $ARB treasury ($3B+) for potential grants; Offchain Labs partnership with RaaS (Caldera, AltLayer) subsidizing chain launches; Orbit Accelerator programs.	Offchain Labs co-developed flagship Orbit chains (Xai, etc.); assists with marketing (Binance Launchpad for Xai’s token). Dev support via Arbitrum’s extensive documentation and direct engineering help for integration (Stylus, custom gas). Fast bridge support for user experience.	Arbitrum One: largest L2 TVL (~$5B); ~50 Orbit chains in dev as of late 2023, ~16 launched by early 2025. Notable live chains: Xai, Rari Chain, Frame, etc. DeFi heavy ecosystem on L2 can extend liquidity to L3s. Large, loyal community (Arbitrum airdrop had >250k participants).
Polygon CDK (AggLayer)	Polygon Ecosystem Fund & many vertical funds (NFTs, gaming, enterprise); Polygon 2.0 Treasury for incentives; offering to cover certain infra costs for new chains. AggLayer liquidity/reward programs expected.	Polygon Labs team works closely with partners (e.g. Immutable, enterprises) for custom needs; extensive devrel (Polygon University, hackathons, tutorials). Integration of CDK chains with Polygon’s zkEVM and PoS infrastructure (shared wallets, bridges). Marketing via big brand partnerships (public case studies of Nike, Reddit on Polygon) to lend credibility.	Polygon PoS: huge adoption (4B+ txns); Polygon zkEVM growing (100+ dapps). CDK: 20+ chains either live (OKX, Gnosis Pay, etc.) or in pipeline by end 2024. ~190 projects exploring CDK. Enterprise adoption notable (financial institutions, retail giants). One of the largest developer ecosystems due to Polygon PoS history, now funneled into CDK.

As the table suggests, each ecosystem has its strengths – Optimism with collaborative ethos and Coinbase’s weight, zkSync with ZK leadership and innovation focus, Arbitrum with proven adoption and technical prowess (Stylus), Polygon with corporate connections and comprehensive support. All are pumping significant resources into growing their communities, because ultimately the success of a rollup framework is measured by the apps and users on the chains built with it.

Deployments and Adoption in 2025

Finally, let’s look at where these frameworks stand in terms of real-world adoption as of 2025 – both in the crypto-native context (public networks, DeFi/NFT/gaming projects) and enterprise or institutional use:

• OP Stack Adoption: The OP Stack has powered Optimism Mainnet, which itself is one of the top Ethereum L2s with a thriving DeFi ecosystem (Uniswap, Aave, etc.) and tens of thousands of daily users. In 2023–2024, OP Stack was chosen by Coinbase for their Base network – Base launched in August 2023 and quickly onboarded popular apps (Coinbase’s own wallet integration, friend.tech social app) and reached high activity (at times even surpassing Optimism in transactions). Base’s success validated OP Stack for many; Base had 800M transactions in 2024, making it the second-highest chain by tx count that year. Another major OP Stack deployment is opBNB – Binance’s BNB Chain team created an L2 using OP Stack (but settling to BNB Chain instead of Ethereum). opBNB went live in 2023, indicating OP Stack’s flexibility to use a non-Ethereum settlement. Worldcoin’s World ID chain went live on OP Stack (settling on Ethereum) in 2023 to handle its unique biometric identity transactions. Zora Network, an NFT-centric chain by Zora, launched on OP Stack as well, tailored for creator economy use cases. Perhaps the most ambitious is Celo’s migration: Celo voted to transition from an independent L1 to an Ethereum L2 built on OP Stack – as of 2025, this migration is underway, effectively bringing a whole existing ecosystem (Celo’s DeFi and phone-focused apps) into the OP Stack fold. We also have smaller projects like Mode (Bybit’s side chain), Mantle (BitDAO’s chain) – actually Mantle opted for a modified OP Stack too. And many more are rumored or in development, given Optimism’s open-source approach (anyone can fork and launch without permission). On enterprise side, we haven’t seen much explicit OP Stack enterprise chain (enterprises seem drawn more to Polygon or custom). However, Base is an enterprise (Coinbase) backing, and that’s significant. The Superchain vision implies that even enterprise chains might join as OP Chains to benefit from shared governance – for instance, if some fintech wanted to launch a compliant chain, using OP Stack and plugging into Superchain could give it ready connectivity. As of 2025, OP Stack chains collectively (Optimism, Base, others) handle a significant portion of L2 activity, and the Superchain aggregated throughput is presented as a metric (Optimism often publishes combined stats). With Bedrock upgrade and further improvements, OP Stack chains are proving high reliability (Optimism had negligible downtime). The key measure of adoption: OP Stack is arguably the most forked rollup framework so far, given Base, BNB, Celo, etc., which are high-profile. In total, ~5-10 OP Stack chains are live mainnets, and many more testnets. If we include devnets and upcoming launches, the number grows.

• zkSync Hyperchains Adoption: zkSync Era mainnet (L2) itself launched in March 2023 and by 2025 it’s among the top ZK rollups, with ~$100M TVL and dozens of projects. Notable apps like Curve, Uniswap, Chainlink deployed or announced deployment on zkSync. Now, regarding Hyperchains (L3 or sovereign chains), this is very cutting-edge. In late 2024, Matter Labs launched a program for teams to experiment with L3s on top of zkSync. One example: the Rollup-as-a-Service provider Decentriq was reportedly testing a private Hyperchain for data sharing. Also, Blockchain Capital (VC) hinted at experimenting with an L3. We have mention that an ecosystem of 18+ protocols is leveraging ZK Stack for things like AI agents and specialized use cases – possibly on testnets. No major Hyperchain is publicly serving users yet (as far as known by mid-2025). However, interest is high in specific domains: gaming projects have shown interest in ZK hyperchains for fast finality and customizability, and privacy-oriented chains (a Hyperchain could include encryption and use zkProofs to hide data – something an optimistic rollup can’t offer as easily). The comment about a “Swiss bank” suggests maybe UBS or a consortium is testing a private chain using ZK Stack, likely attracted by throughput (~10k TPS) and privacy. If that moves to production, it would be a flagship enterprise case. In summary, zkSync’s Hyperchain adoption in 2025 is in an early pilot stage: developer infrastructure is ready (as evidenced by documentation and some test deployments), but we’re waiting for the first movers to go live. It’s comparable to where Optimism was in early 2021 – proven tech but just starting adoption. By end of 2025, we could expect a couple of Hyperchains live, possibly one community-driven (maybe a gaming Hyperchain spun out of a popular zkSync game) and one enterprise-driven. Another factor: there’s talk of Layer3s on zkSync Era as well – essentially permissionless L3s where anyone can deploy an app-chain atop zkSync’s L2. Matter Labs has built the contracts to allow that, so we may see user-driven L3s (like someone launching a mini rollup for their specific app) which counts as adoption of the ZK Stack.

• Arbitrum Orbit Adoption: Arbitrum Orbit saw a surge of interest after its formal introduction in mid-2023. By late 2023, around 18 Orbit chains were publicly disclosed, and Offchain Labs indicated over 50 in progress. As of 2025, some of the prominent ones:

  • Xai Chain: A gaming-focused L3, now live (mainnet launched late 2023). It’s used by game developers (like Ex Populus studio) and had a token launch via Binance Launchpad. This indicates decent adoption (Binance Launchpad involvement suggests lots of user interest). Xai uses AnyTrust mode (for high TPS).
  • Rari Chain: An NFT-centric L3 by Rarible. Launched mainnet Jan 2024. It’s focused on NFT marketplaces with features like credit card payments for gas (via Stripe) and gasless listings. This chain is a good showcase of customizing user experience (as noted, Gelato provides gasless transactions, etc. on Rari Chain).
  • Frame: A creator-focused L2 (though called L2, it’s likely an Orbit chain settling on Ethereum or Arbitrum). It launched early 2024 after raising funding.
  • EduChain (by Camelot/GMX communities): The Zeeve article mentions an EDU chain with a large number of projects – possibly an ecosystem for on-chain education and AI, built on Orbit.
  • Ape Chain: Not explicitly mentioned above, but the context from Zeeve suggests an “Ape chain” (maybe Yuga Labs or ApeCoin DAO chain) exists with $9.86M TVL and uses APE for gas. That could be an Orbit chain in the ApeCoin ecosystem (this would be significant given Yuga’s influence in NFTs).
  • Other gaming chains: e.g., Cometh’s “Muster” L3 was announced (a gaming platform partnering with AltLayer). Syndr Chain for an options trading protocol is on testnet as Orbit L3. Meliora (DeFi credit protocol) building an Orbit L3.
  • Many of these are in early stages (testnet or recently launched mainnet), but collectively they indicate Orbit is gaining adoption among specialized dApps that outgrew a shared L2 environment or wanted their own governance.
  • On enterprise: not as much noise here. Arbitrum is known more for DeFi/gaming adoption. However, the technology could appeal to enterprise if they want an Ethereum-secured chain with flexible trust (via AnyTrust). It’s possible some enterprise quietly used Arbitrum technology for a private chain, but not publicized.
  • By the numbers, Arbitrum Orbit’s biggest user so far might be Ape Chain (if confirmed) with ~$10M TVL and 17 protocols on it (according to Zeeve). Another is EDU chain with 1.35M TVL and 30+ projects.
  • Arbitrum One and Nova themselves are part of this narrative – the fact Orbit chains can settle on Nova (ultra-cheap social/gaming chain) or One means adoption of Orbit also drives activity to those networks. Nova has seen usage for Reddit points etc. If Orbit chains plug into Nova’s AnyTrust committee, Nova’s role grows.
  • In sum, Arbitrum Orbit has moved beyond theory: dozens of real projects are building on it, focusing on gaming, social, and custom DeFi. Arbitrum’s approach of showing real use-cases (like Xai, Rari) has paid off, and we can expect by end of 2025 there will be possibly 50+ Orbit chains live, some with significant user bases (especially if one of the gaming chains hits a popular game release).

• Polygon CDK Adoption: Polygon only announced CDK in H2 2023, but it piggybacks on the success of Polygon’s existing networks. Already, Polygon zkEVM (mainnet beta) itself is essentially a CDK chain run by Polygon Labs. It has seen decent adoption (over $50M TVL, major protocols deployed). But beyond that, numerous independent chains are in motion:

  • Immutable X (a large Web3 gaming platform) declared support for Polygon CDK to let game studios spin up their own zk-rollups that connect to Immutable and Polygon liquidity. This alliance means possibly dozens of games using CDK via Immutable in 2025.
  • OKX (exchange) launched OKB Chain (aka X Chain) using Polygon CDK in late 2024. An exchange chain can drive a lot of transactions (cex-to-dex flows, etc.). OKX chose Polygon presumably for scalability and because many of their users already use Polygon.
  • Canto (DeFi chain) and Astar (Polkadot sidechain) are mentioned as migrating to or integrating with Polygon CDK. Canto moving from Cosmos to Polygon layer indicates the appeal of sharing security with Ethereum via Polygon’s ZK.
  • Gnosis Pay: launched Gnosis Card chain with CDK – it’s a chain to allow fast stablecoin payments connected to a Visa card. This is live and an innovative fintech use.
  • Palm Network: a NFT-specialized chain originally on Ethereum is moving to Polygon CDK (Palm was co-founded by ConsenSys for NFTs with DC Comics, etc.).
  • dYdX: This is interesting – dYdX was building its own Cosmos chain, but Zeeve’s info lists dYdX under AggLayer CDK chains. If dYdX were to consider Polygon instead, that would be huge (though as of known info, dYdX V4 is Cosmos-based; perhaps they plan cross-chain or future pivot).
  • Nubank: one of the largest digital banks in Brazil, appears in Zeeve’s list. Nubank had launched a token on Polygon earlier; a CDK chain for their rewards or CBDC-like program could be in testing.
  • Wirex, IDEX, GameSwift, Aavegotchi, Powerloom, Manta… these names in Zeeve’s list show how cross-ecosystem the CDK reach is: e.g., Manta (a Polkadot privacy project) might use CDK for an Ethereum-facing ZK solution; Aavegotchi (an NFT game originally on Polygon POS) might get its own chain for game logic.
  • The Celestia integration in early 2024 will likely attract projects that want the Polygon tech but with Celestia DA – possibly some Cosmos projects (since Celestia is Cosmos-based) will choose Polygon CDK for execution and Celestia for DA.
  • Enterprises: Polygon has a dedicated enterprise team. Apart from those mentioned (Stripe on stablecoins, Franklin Templeton fund on Polygon, country governments minting stamps, etc.), with CDK they can promise enterprises their own chain with custom rules. We might see pilots like “Polygon Siemens Chain” or government chains emerging, though often those start private.
  • Polygon’s approach of being chain-agnostic (they even support an “OP Stack mode” now in CDK per Zeeve!) and not charging rent, has meant a rapid onboarding – they claim 190+ projects using or considering CDK by Q1 2025. If even a quarter of those go live, Polygon will have an expansive network of chains. They envision themselves not just as one chain but as an ecosystem of many chains (Polygon 2.0), possibly the largest such network if successful.
  • By numbers: as of early 2025, 21+ chains are either in mainnet or testnet using CDK according to the AggLayer site. This should accelerate through 2025 as more migrate or launch.
  • We can expect some high-profile launches, e.g. a Reddit chain (Reddit’s avatars on Polygon POS were huge; a dedicated Polygon L2 for Reddit could happen). Also, if any central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) or government projects choose a scaling solution, Polygon is often in those conversations – a CDK chain could be their choice for a permissioned L2 with zk proofs.

In summary, 2025 adoption status: OP Stack and Arbitrum Orbit have multiple live chains with real users and TVL, zkSync’s hyperchains are on the cusp with strong test pilots, and Polygon CDK has many lined up and a few live successes in both crypto and enterprise. The space is evolving rapidly, and projects often cross-consider these frameworks before choosing. It’s not zero-sum either – e.g., an app might use an OP Stack chain and a Polygon CDK chain for different regions or purposes. The modular blockchain future likely involves interoperability among all these frameworks. It’s notable that efforts like LayerZero and bridge aggregators now ensure assets move relatively freely between Optimism, Arbitrum, Polygon, zkSync, etc., so users might not even realize which stack a chain is built on under the hood.

Conclusion

Rollups-as-a-Service in 2025 offers a rich menu of options. OP Stack provides a battle-tested optimistic rollup framework with Ethereum alignment and the backing of a collaborative Superchain community. ZK Stack (Hyperchains) delivers cutting-edge zero-knowledge technology with modular validity and data choices, aiming for massive scalability and new use-cases like private or Layer-3 chains. Arbitrum Orbit extends a highly optimized optimistic rollup architecture to developers, with flexibility in data availability and the exciting addition of Stylus for multi-language smart contracts. Polygon CDK empowers projects to launch zkEVM chains with out-of-the-box interoperability (AggLayer) and the full support of Polygon’s ecosystem and enterprise ties. zkSync Hyperchains (via ZK Stack) promise to unlock Web3 at scale – multiple hyperchains all secured by Ethereum, each optimized for its domain (be it gaming, DeFi, or social), with seamless connectivity through zkSync’s Elastic framework.

In comparing data availability, we saw all frameworks embracing modular DA – Ethereum for security, and newer solutions like Celestia, EigenDA, or committees for throughput. Sequencer designs are initially centralized but moving toward decentralization: Optimism and Arbitrum provide L1 fallback queues and are enabling multi-sequencer or permissionless validator models, while Polygon and zkSync allow custom consensus deployment for chains that desire it. Fee models differ mainly in ecosystem philosophy – Optimism’s revenue share vs others’ self-contained economies – but all allow custom tokens and aim to minimize user costs by leveraging cheaper DA and fast finality (especially ZK chains).

On ecosystem support, Optimism fosters a collective where each chain contributes to shared goals (funding public goods) and benefits from shared upgrades. Arbitrum leverages its thriving community and liquidity, actively helping projects launch Orbit chains and integrating them with its DeFi hub. Polygon goes all-in with resources, courting both crypto projects and corporates, providing perhaps the most hands-on support and boasting an extensive network of partnerships and funds. Matter Labs (zkSync) drives innovation and appeals to those who want the latest ZK tech, and while its incentive programs are less publicly structured (pending a token), it has significant funding to deploy and a strong pull for ZK-minded builders.

From a developer’s perspective, launching a rollup in 2025 is more accessible than ever. Whether one’s priority is EVM-equivalence and ease (OP Stack, Arbitrum) or maximum performance and future-proof tech (ZK Stack, Polygon CDK), the tools and documentation are in place. Even monitoring and dev-tools have grown to support these custom chains – for instance, Alchemy and QuickNode’s RaaS platforms support Optimism, Arbitrum, and zkSync stacks out-of-the-box. This means teams can focus on their application and leave much of the heavy lifting to these frameworks.

Looking at public and enterprise adoption, it’s clear that modular rollups are moving from experimental to mainstream. We have global brands like Coinbase, Binance, and OKX running their own chains, major DeFi protocols like Uniswap expanding to multiple L2s and possibly their own rollups, and even governments and banks exploring these technologies. The competition (and collaboration) between OP Stack, ZK Stack, Orbit, CDK, etc., is driving rapid innovation – ultimately benefiting Ethereum by scaling it to reach millions of new users through tailored rollups.

Each framework has its unique value proposition:

• OP Stack: Easy on-ramp to L2, shared Superchain network effects, and a philosophy of “impact = profit” via public goods.
• ZK Stack: Endgame scalability with ZK integrity, flexibility in design (L2 or L3, rollup or validium), and prevention of liquidity fragmentation through the Elastic chain model.
• Arbitrum Orbit: Proven tech (Arbitrum One never had a major failure), high performance (Nitro + Stylus), and the ability to customize trust assumptions (full rollup security or faster AnyTrust) for different needs.
• Polygon CDK: Turnkey zk-rollups backed by one of the largest ecosystems, with immediate connectivity to Polygon/Ethereum assets and the promise of future “unified liquidity” via AggLayer – effectively a launchpad not just for a chain, but for a whole economy on that chain.
• zkSync Hyperchains: A vision of Layer-3 scalability where even small apps can have their own chain secured by Ethereum, with minimal overhead, enabling Web2-level performance in a Web3 environment.

As of mid-2025, we are seeing the multi-chain modular ecosystem materialize: dozens of app-specific or sector-specific chains coexisting, many built with these stacks. L2Beat and similar sites now track not just L2s but L3s and custom chains, many of which use OP Stack, Orbit, CDK, or ZK Stack. Interoperability standards are being developed so that whether a chain uses Optimism or Polygon tech, they can talk to each other (projects like Hyperlane, LayerZero, and even OP and Polygon collaboration on shared sequencing).

In conclusion, Rollups-as-a-Service in 2025 has matured into a competitive landscape with OP Stack, ZK Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon CDK, and zkSync Hyperchains each offering robust, modular blockchain frameworks. They differ in technical approach (Optimistic vs ZK), but all aim to empower developers to launch scalable, secure chains tailored to their needs. The choice of stack may depend on a project’s specific priorities – EVM compatibility, finality speed, customization, community alignment, etc. – as outlined above. The good news is that there is no shortage of options or support. Ethereum’s rollup-centric roadmap is being realized through these frameworks, heralding an era where launching a new chain is not a monumental feat, but rather a strategic decision akin to choosing a cloud provider or tech stack in Web2. The frameworks will continue to evolve (e.g. we anticipate more convergence, like OP Stack embracing ZK proofs, Polygon’s AggLayer connecting to non-Polygon chains, etc.), but even now they collectively ensure that Ethereum’s scalability and ecosystem growth are limited only by imagination, not infrastructure.

Sources:

• Optimism OP Stack – Documentation and Mirror posts
• zkSync ZK Stack – zkSync docs and Matter Labs posts
• Arbitrum Orbit – Arbitrum docs, Offchain Labs announcements
• Polygon CDK – Polygon Tech docs, CoinTelegraph report
• General comparison – QuickNode Guides (Mar 2025), Zeeve and others for ecosystem stats, plus various project blogs as cited above.