24 posts tagged with "Ethereum"

Ethereum's next decade will not be defined by a single breakthrough, but by the convergence of infrastructure maturity, institutional adoption, programmable trust, and a developer ecosystem primed for mass-market applications. As Ethereum marks its 10th anniversary with $25 trillion in annual settlements and essentially flawless uptime, four key leaders—Joseph Lubin (Consensys), Tomasz Stanczak (Ethereum Foundation), Sreeram Kannan (EigenLayer), and Kartik Talwar (ETHGlobal)—offer complementary visions that together paint a picture of blockchain technology evolving from experimental infrastructure to the foundation of the global economy. Where Joseph Lubin predicts ETH will 100x from current prices as Wall Street adopts decentralized rails, Stanczak commits to making Ethereum 100x faster within four years, Kannan extends Ethereum's trust network to enable "cloud-scale programmability," and Talwar's community of 100,000+ builders demonstrates the grassroots innovation that will power this transformation.

Wall Street meets blockchain: Lubin's institutional transformation thesis​

Joseph Lubin's vision represents perhaps the boldest prediction among Ethereum's thought leaders: the entire global financial system will operate on Ethereum within 10 years. This isn't hyperbole from the Consensys founder and Ethereum co-founder—it's a carefully constructed argument backed by infrastructure development and emerging market signals. Lubin points to $160 billion in stablecoins on Ethereum as proof that "when you're talking about stablecoins, you're talking about Ethereum," and argues the GENIUS Act providing stablecoin regulatory clarity marks a watershed moment.

The institutional adoption pathway Lubin envisions goes far beyond treasury strategies. He articulates that Wall Street firms will need to stake ETH, run validators, operate L2s and L3s, participate in DeFi, and write smart contract software for their agreements and financial instruments. This isn't optional—it's a necessary evolution as Ethereum replaces "the many siloed stacks they operate on," as Lubin noted when discussing JPMorgan's multiple acquired banking systems. Through SharpLink Gaming, where he serves as Chairman with 598,000-836,000 ETH holdings (making it the world's second-largest corporate Ethereum holder), Lubin demonstrates this thesis in practice, emphasizing that unlike Bitcoin, ETH is a yielding asset on a productive platform with access to staking, restaking, and DeFi mechanisms for growing investor value.

Lubin's most striking announcement came with SWIFT building its blockchain payment settlement platform on Linea, Consensys's L2 network, to handle approximately $150 trillion in annual global payments. With Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and 30+ other institutions participating, this represents the convergence of traditional finance and decentralized infrastructure Lubin has championed. He frames this as bringing "the two streams, DeFi and TradFi, together," enabling user-generated civilization built from the bottom up rather than top-down banking hierarchies.

The Linea strategy exemplifies Lubin's infrastructure-first approach. The zk-EVM rollup processes transactions at one-fifteenth the cost of Ethereum's base layer while maintaining its security guarantees. More significantly, Linea commits to burning 20% of net transaction fees paid in ETH directly, making it the first L2 to strengthen rather than cannibalize L1 economics. Lubin argues forcefully that "the narrative of L2s cannibalizing L1 will very soon be shattered," as mechanisms like Proof of Burn and ETH-native staking tie L2 success directly to Ethereum's prosperity.

His price prediction of ETH reaching 100x from current levels—potentially surpassing Bitcoin's market cap—rests on viewing Ethereum not as a cryptocurrency but as infrastructure. Lubin contends that "nobody on the planet can currently fathom how large and fast a rigorously decentralized economy, saturated with hybrid human-machine intelligence, operating on decentralized Ethereum Trustware, can grow." He describes trust as "a new kind of virtual commodity" and ETH as the "highest octane decentralized trust commodity" that will eventually surpass all other commodities globally.

Protocol evolution at breakneck speed: Stanczak's technical acceleration​

Tomasz Stanczak's appointment as Co-Executive Director of the Ethereum Foundation in March 2025 marked a fundamental shift in how Ethereum approaches development—from deliberate caution to aggressive execution. The founder of Nethermind execution client and early Flashbots team member brings a builder's mentality to protocol governance, setting concrete, time-bound performance targets unprecedented in Ethereum's history: 3x faster by 2025, 10x faster by 2026, and 100x faster over four years.

This isn't aspirational rhetoric. Stanczak has implemented a six-month hard fork cadence, dramatically accelerating from Ethereum's historical 12-18 month upgrade cycle. The Pectra upgrade launched May 7, 2025, introducing account abstraction enhancements via EIP-7702 and increasing blob capacity from 3 to 6 per block. Fusaka, targeting Q3-Q4 2025, will implement PeerDAS (Peer-to-Peer Data Availability Sampling) with a goal of 48-72 blobs per block—an 8x-12x increase—and potentially 512 blobs with full DAS implementation. Glamsterdam, scheduled for June 2026, aims to deliver the substantial L1 scaling improvements that materialize the 3x-10x performance gains.

Stanczak's emphasis on "speed of execution, accountability, clear goals, objectives, and metrics to track" represents cultural transformation as much as technical advancement. He conducted over 200 conversations with community members in his first two months, openly acknowledging that "everything people complain about is very real," addressing criticisms about Ethereum Foundation's execution speed and perceived disconnection from users. His restructuring empowered 40+ team leads with greater decision-making authority and refocused developer calls on product delivery rather than endless coordination.

The Co-Executive Director's stance on Layer 2 networks addresses what he identified as critical communication failures. Stanczak declares unequivocally that L2s are "a critical part of Ethereum's moat," not freeloaders using Ethereum's security but integral infrastructure providing application layers, privacy enhancements, and user experience improvements. He emphasizes the Foundation will "begin by celebrating rollups" before working on fee-sharing structures, prioritizing scaling as the immediate need while treating ETH value accrual as a long-term focus.

Stanczak's vision extends to the $1 Trillion Security (1TS) initiative, aiming to achieve $1 trillion in on-chain security by 2030—whether through a single smart contract or aggregate security across Ethereum. This ambitious target reinforces Ethereum's security model while driving mainstream adoption through demonstrable guarantees. He maintains that Ethereum's foundational principles—censorship resistance, open source innovation, privacy protection, and security—must remain inviolable even as the protocol accelerates development and embraces diverse stakeholders from DeFi protocols to institutions like BlackRock.

Programmable trust at cloud scale: Kannan's infrastructure expansion​

Sreeram Kannan views blockchains as "humanity's coordination engine" and "the biggest upgrade to human civilization since the U.S. Constitution," bringing a philosophical depth to his technical innovations. The EigenLayer founder's core insight centers on coordination theory: the internet solved global communication, but blockchains provide the missing piece—trustless commitments at scale. His framework holds that "coordination is communication plus commitments," and without trust, coordination becomes impossible.

EigenLayer's restaking innovation fundamentally unbundles cryptoeconomic security from the EVM, enabling what Kannan describes as 100x faster innovation on consensus mechanisms, virtual machines, oracles, bridges, and specialized hardware. Rather than forcing every new idea to bootstrap its own trust network or constrain itself within Ethereum's single product (block space), restaking allows projects to borrow Ethereum's trust network for novel applications. As Kannan explains, "I think one thing that EigenLayer did is by creating this new category... it internalizes all the innovation back into Ethereum, or aggregates all the innovation back into Ethereum, rather than each innovation requiring a whole new system."

The scale of adoption validates this thesis. Within one year of launching in June 2023, EigenLayer attracted $20 billion in deposits (stabilizing at $11-12 billion) and spawned 200+ AVSs (Autonomous Verifiable Services) either live or in development, with AVS projects collectively raising over $500 million. Major adopters include Kraken, LayerZero Labs, and 100+ companies, making it the fastest-growing developer ecosystem in crypto during 2024.

EigenDA addresses Ethereum's critical data bandwidth constraint. Kannan notes that "Ethereum's current data bandwidth is 83 kilobytes per second, which is not enough to run the world economy on a common decentralized trust infrastructure." EigenDA launched with 10 megabytes per second throughput, targeting gigabytes per second in the future—a necessity for the transaction volumes required by mainstream adoption. The strategic positioning differs from competitors like Celestia and Avail because EigenDA leverages Ethereum's existing consensus and ordering rather than building standalone chains.

The EigenCloud vision announced in June 2024 extends this further: "cloud-scale programmability with crypto-grade verifiability." Kannan articulates that "Bitcoin established verifiable money and Ethereum established verifiable finance. EigenCloud's goal is to make every digital interaction verifiable." This means anything programmable on traditional cloud infrastructure should be programmable on EigenCloud—but with blockchain's verifiability properties. Applications unlocked include disintermediated digital marketplaces, onchain insurance, fully onchain games, automated adjudication, powerful prediction markets, and crucially, verifiable AI and autonomous AI agents.

The October 2025 launch of EigenAI and EigenCompute tackles what Kannan identifies as "AI's trust problem." He argues that "until issues of transparency and deplatforming risk are addressed, AI agents will remain functional toys rather than powerful peers we can hire, invest in, and trust." EigenCloud enables AI agents with cryptoeconomic proof of behavior, verifiable LLM inference, and autonomous agents that can hold property on-chain without deplatforming risk—integrating with initiatives like Google's Agent Payments Protocol (AP2).

Kannan's perspective on Ethereum versus competitors like Solana centers on long-term flexibility over short-term convenience. In his October 2024 debate with Solana Foundation's Lily Liu, he argued Solana's approach to "build a state machine that synchronizes with as low a latency as possible globally" creates "a complex Pareto point that will neither be as performant as Nasdaq nor as programmable as the cloud." Ethereum's modular architecture, by contrast, enables asynchronous composability which "most applications in the real world require," while avoiding single points of failure.

Developer innovation from the ground up: Talwar's ecosystem intelligence​

Kartik Talwar's unique vantage point comes from facilitating the growth of over 100,000 builders through ETHGlobal since its founding in October 2017. As both Co-Founder of the world's largest Ethereum hackathon network and General Partner at A.Capital Ventures, Talwar bridges grassroots developer engagement with strategic ecosystem investment, providing early visibility into trends that shape Ethereum's future. His perspective emphasizes that breakthrough innovations emerge not from top-down mandates but from giving developers space to experiment.

The numbers tell the story of sustained ecosystem building. By October 2021, just four years after founding, ETHGlobal had onboarded 30,000+ developers who created 3,500 projects, won $3 million in prizes, watched 100,000+ hours of educational content, and raised $200+ million as companies. Hundreds secured jobs through connections made at events. The November 2024 ETHGlobal Bangkok hackathon alone saw 713 project submissions competing for a $750,000 prize pool—the largest in ETHGlobal history—with judges including Vitalik Buterin, Stani Kulechov (Aave), and Jesse Pollak (Base).

Two dominant trends emerged across 2024 hackathons: AI agents and tokenization. Base core developer Will Binns observed at Bangkok that "there are two distinct trends I'm seeing in the hundreds of projects I'm looking at—Tokenization and AI Agents." Four of the top 10 Bangkok projects focused on gaming, while AI-powered DeFi interfaces, voice-activated blockchain assistants, natural language processing for trading strategies, and AI agents automating DAO operations dominated submissions. This grassroots innovation validates the convergence Kannan describes between crypto and AI, showing developers organically building the infrastructure for autonomous agents before EigenCloud's formal launch.

Talwar's strategic focus for 2024-2025 centers on "bringing developers onchain"—moving from event-focused activities to building products and infrastructure that integrate community activities with blockchain technology. His March 2024 hiring announcement sought "founding engineers to work directly with myself to ship products for 100,000+ developers building onchain apps & infra." This represents ETHGlobal's evolution into a product company, not just an event organizer, creating tools like ETHGlobal Packs that simplify navigation of ecosystem experiences and help onboard developers across both onchain and offchain activities.

The Pragma summit series, where Talwar serves as primary host and interviewer, curates high-level discussions shaping Ethereum's strategic direction. These invite-only, single-track events have featured Vitalik Buterin, Aya Miyaguchi (Ethereum Foundation), Juan Benet (Protocol Labs), and Stani Kulechov (Aave). Key insights from Pragma Tokyo (April 2023) included predictions that L1s and L2s will "recombine in super interesting ways," the need to reach "billions or trillions of transactions per second" for mainstream adoption with the goal of "all of Twitter built onchain," and visions of users contributing improvements to protocols like making pull requests in open-source software.

Talwar's investment portfolio through A.Capital Ventures—including Coinbase, Uniswap, OpenSea, Optimism, MakerDAO, Near Protocol, MegaETH, and NEBRA Labs—reveals which projects he believes will shape Ethereum's next chapter. His Forbes 30 Under 30 recognition in Venture Capital (2019) and track record of originating 20+ blockchain investments at SV Angel demonstrate an ability to identify promising projects at the intersection of what developers want to build and what markets need.

The accessibility-first approach distinguishes ETHGlobal's model. All hackathons remain free to attend, made possible through partner support from organizations like the Ethereum Foundation, Optimism, and 275+ ecosystem sponsors. With events across six continents and participants from 80+ countries, 33-35% of attendees are typically new to Web3, demonstrating effective onboarding regardless of financial barriers. This democratized access ensures the best talent can participate based on merit rather than resources.

The convergence: Four perspectives on Ethereum's unified future​

While each leader brings distinct expertise—Lubin on infrastructure and institutional adoption, Stanczak on protocol development, Kannan on extending trust networks, and Talwar on community building—their visions converge on several critical dimensions that together define Ethereum's next frontier.

Scaling is solved, programmability is the bottleneck. Stanczak's 100x performance roadmap, Kannan's EigenDA providing megabytes-to-gigabytes per second data bandwidth, and Lubin's L2 strategy with Linea collectively address throughput constraints. Yet all four emphasize that raw speed alone won't drive adoption. Kannan argues Ethereum "solved crypto's scalability challenges years ago" but hasn't solved the "lack of programmability" creating a stagnant application ecosystem. Talwar's observation that developers increasingly build natural language interfaces and AI-powered DeFi tools shows the shift from infrastructure to accessibility and user experience.

The L2-centric architecture strengthens rather than weakens Ethereum. Lubin's Linea burning ETH with every transaction, Stanczak's Foundation commitment to "celebrating rollups," and the 250+ ETHGlobal projects deployed to Optimism Mainnet demonstrate L2s as Ethereum's application layer rather than competitors. The six-month hard fork cadence and blob scaling from 3 to potentially 512 per block provide the data availability L2s need to scale, while mechanisms like Proof of Burn ensure L2 success accrues value to L1.

AI and crypto convergence defines the next application wave. Every leader identified this independently. Lubin predicts "Ethereum has the ability to secure and verify all transactions, whether initiated between humans or AI agents, with the vast majority of future transactions being in the latter category." Kannan launched EigenAI to solve "AI's trust problem," enabling autonomous agents with cryptoeconomic behavior proofs. Talwar reports AI agents dominating 2024 hackathon submissions. Stanczak's recent blog post on privacy realigned community values around infrastructure supporting both human and AI agent interactions.

Institutional adoption accelerates through clear regulatory frameworks and proven infrastructure. Lubin's SWIFT-Linea partnership, the GENIUS Act providing stablecoin clarity, and SharpLink's corporate ETH treasury strategy create blueprints for traditional finance integration. The $160 billion in stablecoins on Ethereum and $25 trillion in annual settlements provide the track record institutions require. Yet Stanczak emphasizes maintaining censorship resistance, open source development, and decentralization even as BlackRock and JPMorgan participate—Ethereum must serve diverse stakeholders without compromising core values.

Developer experience and community ownership drive sustainable growth. Talwar's 100,000-builder community creating 3,500+ projects, Stanczak bringing application developers into early protocol planning, and Kannan's permissionless AVS framework demonstrate that innovation emerges from enabling builders rather than controlling them. Lubin's progressive decentralization of Linea, MetaMask, and even Consensys itself—creating what he calls a "Network State"—extends ownership to community members who create value.

The $1 trillion question: Will the vision materialize?​

The collective vision articulated by these four leaders is extraordinary in scope—the global financial system operating on Ethereum, 100x performance improvements, cloud-scale verifiable computing, and hundreds of thousands of developers building mass-market applications. Several factors suggest this isn't mere hype but a coordinated, executable strategy.

First, the infrastructure exists or is actively deploying. Pectra launched with account abstraction and increased blob capacity. Fusaka targets 48-72 blobs per block by Q4 2025. EigenDA provides 10 MB/s data bandwidth now with gigabytes per second targeted. Linea processes transactions at one-fifteenth L1 cost while burning ETH. These aren't promises—they're shipping products with measurable performance gains.

Second, market validation is occurring in real-time. SWIFT building on Linea with 30+ major banks, $11-12 billion deposited in EigenLayer, 713 projects submitted to a single hackathon, and ETH stablecoin supply reaching all-time highs demonstrate actual adoption, not speculation. Kraken, LayerZero, and 100+ companies building on restaking infrastructure show enterprise confidence.

Third, the six-month fork cadence represents institutional learning. Stanczak's acknowledgment that "everything people complain about is very real" and his restructuring of Foundation operations show responsiveness to criticism. Lubin's 10-year view, Kannan's "30-year goal" philosophy, and Talwar's consistent community building demonstrate patience alongside urgency—understanding that paradigm shifts require both rapid execution and sustained commitment.

Fourth, the philosophical alignment around decentralization, censorship resistance, and open innovation provides coherence amid rapid change. All four leaders emphasize that technical advancement cannot compromise Ethereum's core values. Stanczak's vision of Ethereum serving "both crypto anarchists and large banking institutions" within the same ecosystem, Lubin's emphasis on "rigorous decentralization," Kannan's focus on permissionless participation, and Talwar's free-access hackathon model demonstrate shared commitment to accessibility and openness.

The risks are substantial. Regulatory uncertainty beyond stablecoins remains unresolved. Competition from Solana, newer L1s, and traditional financial infrastructure intensifies. The complexity of coordinating protocol development, L2 ecosystems, restaking infrastructure, and community initiatives creates execution risk. Lubin's 100x price prediction and Stanczak's 100x performance target set exceptionally high bars that could disappoint if not achieved.

Yet the synthesis of these four perspectives reveals that Ethereum's next frontier is not a single destination but a coordinated expansion across multiple dimensions simultaneously—protocol performance, institutional integration, programmable trust infrastructure, and grassroots innovation. Where Ethereum spent its first decade proving the concept of programmable money and verifiable finance, the next decade aims to realize Kannan's vision of making "every digital interaction verifiable," Lubin's prediction that "the global financial system will be on Ethereum," Stanczak's commitment to 100x faster infrastructure supporting billions of users, and Talwar's community of developers building the applications that fulfill this promise. The convergence of these visions—backed by shipping infrastructure, market validation, and shared values—suggests Ethereum's most transformative chapter may lie ahead rather than behind.

Overview​

Digital asset treasuries (DATs) are publicly listed corporations whose primary business model is to accumulate and manage crypto‑tokens such as ETH or SOL. They raise capital through stock offerings or convertible bonds and use the proceeds to purchase tokens, stake them to earn yield, and grow tokens per share via savvy financial engineering. DATs blend features of corporate treasuries, investment trusts and DeFi protocols; they let mainstream investors gain exposure to crypto without holding the coins directly and operate like “on‑chain banks.” The following sections synthesise the visions of four influential leaders—Tom Lee (Fundstrat/BitMine), Joseph Lubin (Consensys/SharpLink), Sam Tabar (Bit Digital) and Cosmo Jiang (Pantera Capital)—who are shaping this emerging sector.

Tom Lee – Fundstrat Co‑founder & BitMine Chairman​

Long‑term thesis: Ethereum as the neutral chain for the AI–crypto super‑cycle​

• In 2025 Tom Lee pivoted the former Bitcoin miner BitMine into an Ethereum treasury company. He argues that AI and crypto are the two major investment narratives of the decade and both require neutral public blockchains, with Ethereum offering high reliability and a decentralised settlement layer. Lee describes ETH’s current price as a “discount to the future”—he believes that the combination of institutional finance and artificial intelligence will eventually need Ethereum’s neutral public blockchain to operate at scale, making ETH “one of the biggest macro trades of the next decade”.
• Lee believes tokenised real‑world assets, stablecoins and on‑chain AI will drive unprecedented demand for Ethereum. In a Daily Hodl interview he said ETH treasuries added over 234 k ETH in one week, pushing BitMine’s holdings above 2 million ETH. He explained that Wall Street and AI moving on‑chain will transform the financial system and most of this will happen on Ethereum, hence BitMine aims to acquire 5 % of ETH’s total supply, dubbed the “alchemy of 5 %”. He also expects ETH to remain the preferred chain because of pro‑crypto legislation (e.g., CLARITY & GENIUS Acts) and described Ethereum as the “neutral chain” favoured by both Wall Street and the White House.

DAT mechanics: building shareholder value​

• In Pantera’s 2025 blockchain letter, Lee explained how DATs can create value beyond token price appreciation. By issuing stock or convertible bonds to raise capital, staking their ETH, using DeFi to earn yield and acquiring other treasuries, they can increase tokens per share and maintain a NAV premium. He views stablecoins as the “ChatGPT story of crypto” and believes on‑chain cash flows from stablecoin transactions will support ETH treasuries.
• Lee emphasises that DATs have multiple levers that make them more attractive than ETFs: staking yields, velocity (rapid issuance of shares to acquire tokens) and liquidity (ability to raise capital quickly). In a Bankless discussion he noted that BitMine moved 12 × faster than MicroStrategy in accumulating crypto and described BitMine’s liquidity advantage as critical for capturing a NAV premium.
• He also stresses risk management. Market participants must differentiate between credible leaders and those issuing aggressive debt; investors should focus on execution, clear strategy and risk controls. Lee warns that mNAV premiums compress as more companies adopt the model and that DATs need to deliver performance beyond simply holding tokens.

Vision for the future​

Lee predicts a long super‑cycle in which Ethereum underpins tokenised AI economies and digital asset treasuries become mainstream. He foresees ETH reaching US $10–12 k in the near term and much higher over a 10–15 year time horizon. He also notes that major institutions like Cathie Wood and Bill Miller are already investing in DATs and expects more Wall Street firms to view ETH treasuries as a core holding.

Joseph Lubin – Consensys Founder & SharpLink Chairman​

ETH treasuries as storytelling and yield machines​

• Lubin argues that Ethereum treasury companies are more powerful than Bitcoin treasuries because ETH is productive. By staking tokens and using DeFi, treasuries can generate yield and grow ETH per share, making them “more powerful than Bitcoin treasuries”. SharpLink converts capital into ETH daily and stakes it immediately, creating compounding growth.
• He sees DATs as a way to tell the Ethereum story to Wall Street. On CNBC he explained that Wall Street pays attention to making money; by offering a profitable equity vehicle, DATs can communicate ETH’s value better than simple messaging about smart contracts. While Bitcoin’s narrative is easy to grasp (digital gold), Ethereum spent years building infrastructure—treasury strategies highlight its productivity and yield.
• Lubin stresses that ETH is high‑powered, uncensorable money. In an August 2025 interview he said SharpLink’s goal is to build the largest trusted ETH treasury and keep accumulating ETH, with one million ETH merely a near‑term signpost. He calls Ethereum the base layer for global finance, citing that it settled over US $25 trillion in transactions in 2024 and hosts most real‑world assets and stablecoins.

Competitive landscape and regulation​

• Lubin welcomes new entrants into the ETH treasury race because they amplify Ethereum’s credibility; however, he believes SharpLink holds an advantage due to its ETH‑native team, staking know‑how and institutional credibility. He predicts ETFs will eventually be allowed to stake, but until then treasury companies like SharpLink can fully stake ETH and earn yield.
• In a CryptoSlate interview he noted that the supply–demand imbalance for ETH and daily purchases by treasuries will accelerate adoption. He emphasised that decentralisation is the direction of travel and expects both ETH and BTC to continue rising as the world becomes more decentralised.

SharpLink’s execution​

• SharpLink quietly shifted its focus from sports betting technology to Ethereum in early 2025. According to shareholder filings, it converted significant portions of its liquid reserves into ETH—176 270 ETH for $462.9 million in July 2025 and another 77 210 ETH for $295 million a day later. An August 2025 direct offering raised $400 million and a $200 million at‑the‑market facility, pushing SharpLink’s reserves beyond 598 800 ETH.
• Lubin says SharpLink accumulates tens of millions of dollars in ETH daily and stakes it via DeFi to generate yield. Standard Chartered analysts have noted that ETH treasuries like SharpLink remain undervalued relative to their holdings.

Sam Tabar – CEO of Bit Digital​

Rationale for pivoting to Ethereum​

• After profitably running a Bitcoin mining and AI infrastructure business, Sam Tabar led Bit Digital’s complete pivot into an Ethereum treasury and staking company. He sees Ethereum’s programmable smart‑contract platform, growing adoption and staking yields as capable of rewriting the financial system. Tabar asserts that if BTC and ETH had launched simultaneously, Bitcoin might not exist because Ethereum enables trustless value exchange and complex financial primitives.
• Bit Digital sold 280 BTC and raised around $172 million to purchase over 100 k ETH. Tabar has emphasised that Ethereum is no longer a side asset but the centerpiece of Bit Digital’s balance sheet and that the firm intends to continue acquiring ETH to become the leading corporate holder. The company announced a direct offering of 22 million shares priced at $3.06 to raise $67.3 million for further ETH purchases.

Financing strategy and risk management​

• Tabar is a strong proponent of using unsecured convertible debt rather than secured loans. He warns that secured debt could “destroy” ETH treasury companies in a bear market because creditors might seize the tokens when prices fall. By issuing unsecured convertible notes, Bit Digital retains flexibility and avoids encumbering its assets.
• In a Bankless interview he compared the ETH treasury race to Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin playbook but noted that Bit Digital is a real business with cash flows from AI infrastructure and mining; it aims to leverage those profits to grow its ETH holdings. He described competition among ETH treasuries as friendly but emphasised that mindshare is limited—companies must aggressively accumulate ETH to attract investors, yet more treasuries ultimately benefit Ethereum by raising its price and awareness.

Vision for the future​

Tabar envisions a world where Ethereum replaces much of the existing financial infrastructure. He believes regulatory clarity (e.g., the GENIUS Act) has unlocked the path for companies like Bit Digital to build compliant ETH treasuries and sees the staking yield and programmability of ETH as core drivers of future value. He also highlights that DATs open the door for public‑market investors who cannot buy crypto directly, democratizing access to the Ethereum ecosystem.

Cosmo Jiang – General Partner at Pantera Capital​

Investment thesis: DATs as on‑chain banks​

• Cosmo Jiang views DATs as sophisticated financial institutions that operate more like banks than passive token holders. In an Index Podcast summary he explained that DATs are evaluated like banks: if they generate a return above their cost of capital, they trade above book value. According to Jiang, investors should focus on NAV‑per‑share growth—analogous to free cash‑flow per share—rather than token price, because execution and capital allocation drive returns.
• Jiang argues that DATs can generate yield by staking and lending, increasing asset value per share and producing more tokens than simply holding spot. One determinant of success is the long‑term strength of the underlying token; this is why Pantera’s Solana Company (HSDT) uses Solana as its treasury reserve. He contends that Solana offers fast settlement, ultra‑low fees and a monolithic design that is faster, cheaper and more accessible—echoing Jeff Bezos’s “holy trinity” of consumer wants.
• Jiang also notes that DATs effectively lock up supply because they operate like closed‑end funds; once tokens are acquired, they rarely sell, reducing liquid supply and potentially supporting prices. He sees DATs as a bridge that brings tens of billions of dollars from traditional investors who prefer equities over direct crypto exposure.

Building the pre‑eminent Solana treasury​

• Pantera has been a pioneer in DATs, anchoring early launches such as DeFi Development Corp (DFDV) and Cantor Equity Partners (CEP) and investing in BitMine. Jiang writes that they have reviewed over fifty DAT pitches and that their early success has positioned Pantera as a first call for new projects.
• In September 2025 Pantera announced Solana Company (HSDT) with more than $500 million in funding, designed to maximize SOL per share and provide public‑market exposure to Solana. Jiang’s DAT thesis states that owning a DAT could offer higher return potential than holding tokens directly or via an ETF because DATs grow NAV per share through yield generation. The fund aims to scale institutional access to Solana and leverage Pantera’s track record to build the pre‑eminent Solana treasury.
• He emphasises that the timing is critical: digital asset equities have enjoyed a tailwind as investors search for crypto exposure beyond ETFs. However, he warns that excitement will invite competition; some DATs will succeed while others fail. Pantera’s strategy is to back high‑quality teams, filter for incentive‑aligned management and support consolidation (M&A or buybacks) in downside scenarios.

Conclusion​

Collectively, these leaders see digital asset treasuries as a bridge between traditional finance and the emerging token economy. Tom Lee envisions ETH treasuries as vehicles to capture the AI–crypto super‑cycle and aims to accumulate 5 % of Ethereum’s supply; he stresses velocity, yield and liquidity as key drivers of NAV premiums. Joseph Lubin views ETH treasuries as yield‑generating machines that tell the Ethereum story to Wall Street while pushing DeFi and staking into mainstream finance. Sam Tabar is betting that Ethereum’s programmability and staking yields will rewrite financial infrastructure and warns against secured debt, promoting aggressive yet prudent accumulation through unsecured financing. Cosmo Jiang frames DATs as on‑chain banks whose success depends on capital allocation and NAV‑per‑share growth; he is building the pre‑eminent Solana treasury to showcase how DATs can unlock new growth cycles. All four anticipate that DATs will continue to proliferate and that public‑market investors will increasingly choose them as vehicles for exposure to crypto’s next chapter.

The Blockchain Application Stanford Summit (BASS) kicked off the week of the Science of Blockchain Conference (SBC), bringing together innovators, researchers, and builders to explore the cutting edge of the ecosystem. Organizers Gil, Kung, and Stephen welcomed attendees, highlighting the event's focus on entrepreneurship and real-world applications, a spirit born from its close collaboration with SBC. With support from organizations like Blockchain Builders and the Cryptography and Blockchain Alumni of Stanford, the day was packed with deep dives into celestial blockchains, the future of Ethereum, institutional DeFi, and the burgeoning intersection of AI and crypto.

Dalia Maliki: Building an Orbital Root of Trust with Space Computer​

Dalia Maliki, a professor at UC Santa Barbara and an advisor to Space Computer, opened with a look at a truly out-of-this-world application: building a secure computing platform in orbit.

What is Space Computer? In a nutshell, Space Computer is an "orbital root of trust," providing a platform for running secure and confidential computations on satellites. The core value proposition lies in the unique security guarantees of space. "Once a box is launched securely and deployed into space, nobody can come later and hack into it," Maliki explained. "It's purely, perfectly tamper-proof at this point." This environment makes it leak-proof, ensures communications cannot be easily jammed, and provides verifiable geolocation, offering powerful decentralization properties.

Architecture and Use Cases The system is designed with a two-tier architecture:

• Layer 1 (Celestial): The authoritative root of trust runs on a network of satellites in orbit, optimized for limited and intermittent communication.
• Layer 2 (Terrestrial): Standard scaling solutions like rollups and state channels run on Earth, anchoring to the celestial Layer 1 for finality and security.

Early use cases include running highly secure blockchain validators and a true random number generator that captures cosmic radiation. However, Maliki emphasized the platform's potential for unforeseen innovation. "The coolest thing about building a platform is always that you build a platform and other people will come and build use cases that you never even dreamed of."

Drawing a parallel to the ambitious Project Corona of the 1950s, which physically dropped film buckets from spy satellites to be caught mid-air by aircraft, Maliki urged the audience to think big. "By comparison, what we work with today in space computer is a luxury, and we're very excited about the future."

Tomasz Stanczak: The Ethereum Roadmap - Scaling, Privacy, and AI​

Tomasz Stanczak, Executive Director of the Ethereum Foundation, provided a comprehensive overview of Ethereum's evolving roadmap, which is heavily focused on scaling, enhancing privacy, and integrating with the world of AI.

Short-Term Focus: Supporting L2s The immediate priority for Ethereum is to solidify its role as the best platform for Layer 2s to build upon. Upcoming forks, Fusaka and Glumpsterdom, are centered on this goal. "We want to make much stronger statements that yes, [L2s] innovate, they extend Ethereum, and they will have a commitment from protocol builders that Layer 1 will support L2s in the best way possible," Stanczak stated.

Long-Term Vision: Lean Ethereum and Real-Time Proving Looking further ahead, the "Lean Ethereum" vision aims for massive scalability and security hardening. A key component is the ZK-EVM roadmap, which targets real-time proving with latencies under 10 seconds for 99% of blocks, achievable by solo stakers. This, combined with data availability improvements, could push L2s to a theoretical "10 million TPS." The long-term plan also includes a focus on post-quantum cryptography through hash-based signatures and ZK-EVMs.

Privacy and the AI Intersection Privacy is another critical pillar. The Ethereum Foundation has established the Privacy and Scaling Explorations (PSC) team to coordinate efforts, support tooling, and explore protocol-level privacy integrations. Stanczak sees this as crucial for Ethereum's interaction with AI, enabling use cases like censorship-resistant financial markets, privacy-preserving AI, and open-source agentic systems. He emphasized that Ethereum's culture of connecting multiple disciplines—from finance and art to robotics and AI—is essential for navigating the challenges and opportunities of the next decade.

Sreeram Kannan: The Trust Framework for Ambitious Crypto Apps with EigenCloud​

Sreeram Kannan, founder of Eigen Labs, challenged the audience to think beyond the current scope of crypto applications, presenting a framework for understanding crypto's core value and introducing EigenCloud as a platform to realize this vision.

Crypto's Core Thesis: A Verifiability Layer "Underpinning all of this is a core thesis that crypto is the trust or verifiability layer on top of which you can build very powerful applications," Kannan explained. He introduced a "TAM vs. Trust" framework, illustrating that the total addressable market (TAM) for a crypto application grows exponentially as the trust it underwrites increases. Bitcoin's market grows as it becomes more trusted than fiat currencies; a lending platform's market grows as its guarantee of borrower solvency becomes more credible.

EigenCloud: Unleashing Programmability Kannan argued that the primary bottleneck for building more ambitious apps—like a decentralized Uber or trustworthy AI platforms—is not performance but programmability. To solve this, EigenCloud introduces a new architecture that separates application logic from token logic.

"Let's keep the token logic on-chain on Ethereum," he proposed, "but the application logic is moved outside. You can actually now write your core logic in arbitrary containers... execute them on any device of your choice, whether it's a CPU or a GPU... and then bring these results verifiably back on-chain."

This approach, he argued, extends crypto from a "laptop or server scale to cloud scale," allowing developers to build the truly disruptive applications that were envisioned in crypto's early days.

Panel: A Deep Dive into Blockchain Architecture​

A panel featuring Leiyang from MegaETH, Adi from Realo, and Solomon from the Solana Foundation explored the trade-offs between monolithic, modular, and "super modular" architectures.

• MegaETH (Modular L2): Leiyang described MegaETH's approach of using a centralized sequencer for extreme speed while delegating security to Ethereum. This design aims to deliver a Web2-level real-time experience for applications, reviving the ambitious "ICO-era" ideas that were previously limited by performance.
• Solana (Monolithic L1): Solomon explained that Solana's architecture, with its high node requirements, is deliberately designed for maximum throughput to support its vision of putting all global financial activity on-chain. The current focus is on asset issuance and payments. On interoperability, Solomon was candid: "Generally speaking, we don't really care about interoperability... It's about getting as much asset liquidity and usage on-chain as possible."
• Realo ("Super Modular" L1): Adi introduced Realo's "super modular" concept, which consolidates essential services like oracles directly into the base layer to reduce developer friction. This design aims to natively connect the blockchain to the real world, with a go-to-market focus on RWAs and making the blockchain invisible to end-users.

Panel: The Real Intersection of AI and Blockchain​

Moderated by Ed Roman of HackVC, this panel showcased three distinct approaches to merging AI and crypto.

• Ping AI (Bill): Ping AI is building a "personal AI" where users maintain self-custody of their data. The vision is to replace the traditional ad-exchange model. Instead of companies monetizing user data, Ping AI's system will reward users directly when their data leads to a conversion, allowing them to capture the economic value of their digital footprint.
• Public AI (Jordan): Described as the "human layer of AI," Public AI is a marketplace for sourcing high-quality, on-demand data that can't be scraped or synthetically generated. It uses an on-chain reputation system and staking mechanisms to ensure contributors provide signal, not noise, rewarding them for their work in building better AI models.
• Gradient (Eric): Gradient is creating a decentralized runtime for AI, enabling distributed inference and training on a network of underutilized consumer hardware. The goal is to provide a check on the centralizing power of large AI companies by allowing a global community to collaboratively train and serve models, retaining "intelligent sovereignty."

More Highlights from the Summit​

• Orin Katz (Starkware) presented building blocks for "compliant on-chain privacy," detailing how ZK-proofs can be used to create privacy pools and private tokens (ZRC20s) that include mechanisms like "viewing keys" for regulatory oversight.
• Sam Green (Cambrian) gave an overview of the "Agentic Finance" landscape, categorizing crypto agents into trading, liquidity provisioning, lending, prediction, and information, and highlighted the need for fast, comprehensive, and verifiable data to power them.
• Max Siegel (Privy) shared lessons from onboarding over 75 million users, emphasizing the need to meet users where they are, simplify product experiences, and let product needs inform infrastructure choices, not the other way around.
• Nil Dalal (Coinbase) introduced the "Onchain Agentic Commerce Stack" and the open standard X42, a crypto-native protocol designed to create a "machine-payable web" where AI agents can seamlessly transact using stablecoins for data, APIs, and services.
• Gordon Liao & Austin Adams (Circle) unveiled Circle Gateway, a new primitive for creating a unified USDC balance that is chain-abstracted. This allows for near-instant (<500ms) deployment of liquidity across multiple chains, dramatically improving capital efficiency for businesses and solvers.

The day concluded with a clear message: the foundational layers of crypto are maturing, and the focus is shifting decisively towards building robust, user-friendly, and economically sustainable applications that can bridge the gap between the on-chain world and the global economy.

Ethereum is targeting 10x Layer 1 scaling by 2026, driven by Co-Executive Director Tomasz Stanczak's operational transformation of the Ethereum Foundation. The Glamsterdam hard fork, planned for mid-2026, will deliver Verkle Trees, enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation, and progressive gas limit increases to 150 million units—representing the most ambitious single-year upgrade in Ethereum's history. This isn't just technical evolution; it's a fundamental shift in how the Foundation operates, moving from long-term theorizing to aggressive six-month upgrade cycles under Stanczak's mandate to make Ethereum competitive now, not later.

Since becoming Co-Executive Director in March 2025 alongside Hsiao-Wei Wang, Stanczak has restructured the Foundation around three strategic pillars: scaling Ethereum mainnet, expanding blob capacity for Layer 2 growth, and dramatically improving user experience through unified cross-chain interactions. His background building Nethermind from a project to the third-largest Ethereum execution client, combined with Wall Street experience at Citibank's FX trading desk, positions him uniquely to bridge Ethereum's decentralized developer community with traditional financial institutions increasingly eyeing blockchain infrastructure. The 2026 roadmap reflects his operational philosophy: "no amount of talking about Ethereum's roadmap and vision matters if we cannot achieve coordination levels that consistently meet goals on schedule."

A Wall Street veteran reimagining Ethereum Foundation leadership​

Tomasz Stanczak's journey from traditional finance to blockchain leadership shapes his approach to Ethereum's 2026 challenges. After building trading platforms at Citibank London (2011-2016) and discovering Ethereum at a London meetup in 2015, he founded Nethermind in 2017, growing it into one of Ethereum's top three execution clients—critical infrastructure that processed transactions during The Merge. This entrepreneurial success informs his Foundation leadership style: where predecessor Aya Miyaguchi focused on long-term research and hands-off coordination, Stanczak conducts over 200 stakeholder conversations, appears on major podcasts monthly, and publicly tracks upgrade timelines on social media.

His co-directorship with Wang divides responsibilities strategically. Wang stewards Ethereum's core principles—decentralization, censorship resistance, privacy—while Stanczak owns operational execution and timeline management. This structure aims to free Vitalik Buterin for deep research on single-slot finality and post-quantum cryptography rather than daily coordination. Stanczak explicitly states: "Following the recent changes in leadership at the Ethereum Foundation, we aimed, among other things, to free more of Vitalik's time for research and exploration, rather than day-to-day coordination or crisis response."

The organizational transformation includes empowering 40+ team leads with greater decision-making authority, restructuring developer calls toward product delivery rather than endless discussion, integrating application builders into early planning stages, and implementing dashboard tracking for measurable progress. In June 2025, Stanczak laid off 19 employees as part of streamlining efforts—controversial but consistent with his mandate to accelerate execution. He positions this urgency in market context: "The ecosystem called out. You're operating too disorganised, you need to operate a bit more centralised and way more accelerated to be there for this critical period."

Three strategic pillars define Ethereum's next 12 months​

Stanczak and Wang outlined three core objectives in their April 2025 Foundation blog post "The Next Chapter," establishing the framework for 2026 deliverables.

Scaling Ethereum mainnet represents the primary technical focus. The current 30-45 million gas limit will increase to 150 million by Glamsterdam, enabling roughly 5x more transactions per block. This combines with stateless client capabilities via Verkle Trees, allowing nodes to verify blocks without storing Ethereum's entire 50+ GB state. Stanczak emphasizes this isn't just capacity expansion—it's making mainnet "a solid rock and nimble network" that institutions can trust with trillion-dollar contracts. The aggressive target emerged from extensive community consultation, with Vitalik Buterin noting that validators show roughly 50% support for immediate increases, providing social consensus for the technical roadmap.

Scaling blobs addresses Layer 2 ecosystem needs directly. Proto-danksharding launched in March 2024 with 3-6 blobs per block, each carrying 128 KB of rollup transaction data. By mid-2026, PeerDAS (Peer Data Availability Sampling) will enable 48 blobs per block—an 8x increase—by allowing validators to sample just 1/16th of blob data rather than downloading everything. Automated Blob Parameter Only hard forks will progressively increase capacity: 10-15 blobs by December 2025, 14-21 blobs by January 2026, then continued growth toward the 48-blob ceiling. This blob scaling directly translates to lower L2 transaction costs, with Layer 2 fees already down 70-95% post-Dencun and targeting further 50-70% reductions through 2026.

Improving user experience tackles Ethereum's fragmentation problem. With 55+ Layer 2 rollups holding $42 billion in liquidity but creating disjointed user experiences, the Ethereum Interoperability Layer launches Q1 2026 to "make Ethereum feel like one chain again." The Open Intents Framework enables users to declare desired outcomes—swap token X for token Y—while solvers handle the complex routing across chains invisibly. Meanwhile, the Fast Confirmation Rule reduces perceived finality from 13-19 minutes to 15-30 seconds, a 98% latency reduction that makes Ethereum competitive with traditional payment systems for the first time.

Glamsterdam upgrade represents 2026's pivotal technical milestone​

The Glamsterdam hard fork, targeted for Q1-Q2 2026 approximately six months after the December 2025 Fusaka upgrade, packages the most significant protocol changes since The Merge. Stanczak repeatedly emphasizes timeline discipline, warning in August 2025: "Glamsterdam may be getting some attention (it is a fork for Q1/Q2 2026). In the meantime, we should be more concerned about any potential delays to Fusaka... I would love to see a broad agreement that the timelines matter a lot. A lot."

Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (EIP-7732) represents the upgrade's headline consensus layer change. Currently, block building occurs off-protocol through MEV-Boost, with three builders controlling roughly 75% of block production—a centralization risk. ePBS integrates PBS directly into Ethereum's protocol, eliminating trusted relays and enabling any entity to become a builder by staking requirements. Builders construct optimized blocks and bid for inclusion, validators select the highest bid, and attester committees verify commitments cryptographically. This provides an 8-second execution window (up from 2 seconds), enabling more sophisticated block construction while maintaining censorship resistance. However, ePBS introduces technical complexity including the "free option problem"—builders might withhold blocks after winning bids—requiring threshold encryption solutions still under development.

Fork-Choice enforced Inclusion Lists (FOCIL, EIP-7805) complements ePBS by preventing transaction censorship. Validator committees generate mandatory inclusion lists of transactions that builders must incorporate, ensuring users cannot be indefinitely censored even if builders coordinate to exclude specific addresses. Combined with ePBS, FOCIL creates what researchers call the "holy trinity" of censorship resistance (alongside future encrypted mempools), directly addressing regulatory concerns about blockchain neutrality.

Verkle Trees transition from Merkle Patricia Trees enables stateless clients, reducing proof sizes from roughly 1 KB to 150 bytes. This allows nodes to verify blocks without storing Ethereum's entire state, lowering hardware requirements dramatically and enabling lightweight verification. The full transition may extend into late 2026 or early 2027 given complexity, but partial implementation begins with Glamsterdam. Notably, debate continues about whether to complete Verkle Trees or skip directly to STARK-based proofs for quantum resistance—a decision that will clarify during 2026 based on Glamsterdam's performance.

Six-second slot times (EIP-7782) propose cutting block times from 12 to 6 seconds, halving confirmation latency across the board. This tightens DEX pricing mechanisms, reduces MEV opportunities, and improves user experience. However, it increases centralization pressure by requiring validators to process blocks twice as fast, potentially favoring professional operators with superior infrastructure. The proposal remains "draft phase" with uncertain inclusion in Glamsterdam, reflecting ongoing community debate about performance-decentralization tradeoffs.

Beyond these headliners, Glamsterdam packages numerous execution layer improvements: block-level access lists enabling parallelized validation, continuous gas limit increases (EIP-7935), history expiry reducing node storage requirements (EIP-4444), delayed execution for better resource allocation (EIP-7886), and potentially EVM Object Format bringing 16 EIPs for bytecode improvements. The scope represents what Stanczak calls the Foundation's shift from "ivory tower" research to pragmatic delivery.

Data availability sampling unlocks the path to 100,000+ TPS​

While Glamsterdam delivers Layer 1 improvements, 2026's scaling story centers on blob capacity expansion through PeerDAS technology deployed in December 2025's Fusaka upgrade but maturing throughout 2026.

PeerDAS implements data availability sampling, a cryptographic technique allowing validators to verify blob data exists and is retrievable without downloading entire datasets. Each blob gets extended via erasure coding and divided into 128 columns. Individual validators sample just 8 of 128 columns (1/16th of data), and if enough validators collectively sample all columns with high probability, the data is confirmed available. KZG polynomial commitments prove each sample's validity cryptographically. This reduces bandwidth requirements by 90% while maintaining security guarantees.

The technical breakthrough enables aggressive blob scaling through automated Blob Parameter Only hard forks. Unlike traditional upgrades requiring months of coordination, BPO forks adjust blob counts based on network monitoring—essentially turning a dial rather than orchestrating a complex deployment. The Foundation targets 14-21 blobs by January 2026 via the second BPO fork, then progressive increases toward 48 blobs by mid-2026. At 48 blobs per block (approximately 2.6 MB per slot), Layer 2 rollups gain roughly 512 KB/second of data throughput, enabling 12,000+ TPS across the combined L2 ecosystem.

Stanczak frames this as essential infrastructure for Layer 2 success: "Ahead of us lies one year of scaling—scaling Ethereum mainnet (L1), supporting the success of L2 chains by providing them with the best architecture to scale, to secure their networks, and to bring confidence to their users." He shifted the narrative from viewing L2s as parasitic to positioning them as Ethereum's protective "moat," emphasizing that scaling comes before fee-sharing mechanisms.

Beyond 2026, research continues on FullDAS (led by Francesco D'Amato) exploring next-generation data availability with highly diverse participant sharding. Full Danksharding—the ultimate vision of 64 blobs per block enabling 100,000+ TPS—remains several years away, requiring 2D erasure coding and complete ePBS maturity. But 2026's PeerDAS deployment provides the foundation, with Stanczak emphasizing measured progress: careful scaling, extensive testing, and avoiding the destabilization that plagued earlier Ethereum transitions.

Layer 2 unification tackles Ethereum's fragmentation crisis​

Ethereum's rollup-centric roadmap created a fragmentation problem: 55+ Layer 2 chains with $42 billion in liquidity but no standardized interoperability, forcing users to manually bridge assets, maintain separate wallets, and navigate incompatible interfaces. Stanczak identifies this as a critical 2026 priority: making Ethereum "feel like one chain again."

The Ethereum Interoperability Layer, designed publicly in October 2025 and implementing Q1 2026, provides trustless, censorship-resistant cross-chain infrastructure adhering to "CROPS values" (Censorship-Resistance, Open-source, Privacy, Security). Unlike centralized bridges or trusted intermediaries, EIL operates as a prescriptive execution layer where users specify exact transactions rather than declaring abstract intents that third parties fulfill opaquely. This maintains Ethereum's core philosophy while enabling seamless cross-L2 operations.

The Open Intents Framework forms EIL's technical foundation, with production-ready smart contracts already deployed. OIF uses a four-layer architecture: origination (where intents are created), fulfillment (solver execution), settlement (on-chain confirmation), and rebalancing (liquidity management). The framework is modular and lightweight, allowing different L2s to customize mechanisms—Dutch auctions, first-come-first-serve, or novel designs—while maintaining interoperability through common standards like ERC-7683. Major ecosystem players including Across, Arbitrum, Hyperlane, LI.FI, OpenZeppelin, Taiko, and Uniswap contributed to the specification.

Fast confirmation rules complement cross-chain improvements by addressing latency. Currently, strong transaction finality requires 64-95 slots (13-19 minutes), making cross-chain operations painfully slow. The Fast L1 Confirmation Rule, targeting Q1 2026 availability across all consensus clients, provides strong probabilistic confirmation in 15-30 seconds using accumulated attestations. This 98% latency reduction makes cross-chain swaps competitive with centralized exchanges for the first time. Stanczak emphasizes that perception matters: users experience transactions as "confirmed" when they see strong probabilistic security, even if cryptographic finality comes later.

For Layer 2 settlement improvements, zksettle mechanisms enable optimistic rollups to settle in hours rather than 7-day challenge windows by using ZK-proofs for faster validation. The "2-out-of-3" mechanism combines ZK-based real-time proving with traditional challenge periods, providing maximal user protection at minimal cost. These improvements integrate directly with OIF, reducing rebalancing costs for solvers and enabling cheaper fees for intent protocol users.

Quantifying 2026's performance revolution in concrete metrics​

Stanczak's scaling targets translate to specific, measurable improvements across latency, throughput, cost, and decentralization dimensions.

Throughput scaling combines Layer 1 and Layer 2 gains. L1 capacity increases from 30-45 million gas to 150+ million gas, enabling roughly 50-100 TPS on mainnet (from current 15-30 TPS). Layer 2 rollups collectively scale from 1,000-2,000 TPS to 12,000+ TPS via blob expansion. Smart contract size limits double from 24 KB to 48 KB, enabling more complex applications. The combined effect: Ethereum's total transaction processing capability increases by roughly 6-12x during 2026, with potential for 100,000+ TPS as full Danksharding research matures post-2026.

Latency improvements fundamentally change user experience. Fast confirmation drops from 13-19 minutes to 15-30 seconds—a 98% reduction in perceived finality. If EIP-7782's 6-second slot times get approved, block inclusion times halve. Layer 2 settlement compression from 7 days to hours represents an 85-95% reduction. These changes make Ethereum competitive with traditional payment systems and centralized exchanges for user experience while maintaining decentralization and security.

Cost reductions cascade through the stack. Layer 2 gas fees already dropped 70-95% post-Dencun with proto-danksharding; further 50-80% blob fee reductions emerge as capacity scales to 48 blobs. Layer 1 gas costs potentially decrease 30-50% via gas limit increases spreading fixed validator costs across more transactions. Cross-chain bridging costs approach zero through EIL's trustless infrastructure. These reductions enable entirely new use cases—micropayments, gaming, social media onchain—previously uneconomical.

Decentralization metrics improve counterintuitively despite scaling. Verkle Trees reduce node storage requirements from 150+ GB to under 50 GB, lowering barriers to running validators. The increased maximum effective balance from 32 ETH to 2,048 ETH per validator (deployed in Pectra May 2025) enables institutional staking efficiency without requiring separate validator instances. ePBS eliminates trusted MEV-Boost relays, distributing block building opportunities more widely. The validator set could grow from roughly 1 million to 2 million validators during 2026 as barriers decrease.

Stanczak emphasizes that these aren't just technical achievements—they enable his vision of "10-20% of the global economy onchain, and it may happen faster than people think." The quantitative targets directly support qualitative goals: tokenized securities, stablecoin dominance, real-world asset markets, and AI agent coordination all require this performance baseline.

Account abstraction matures from research concept to mainstream feature​

While scaling grabs headlines, user experience improvements through account abstraction represent equally transformative 2026 developments, directly addressing Ethereum's reputation for poor onboarding and complex wallet management.

ERC-4337, deployed March 2023 and maturing throughout 2024-2025, establishes smart contract wallets as first-class citizens. Rather than requiring users to manage private keys and pay gas in ETH, UserOperation objects flow through alternative mempools where bundlers aggregate transactions and paymasters sponsor fees. This enables gas payment in any ERC-20 token (USDC, DAI, project tokens), social recovery via trusted contacts, transaction batching for complex operations, and custom validation logic including multisig, passkeys, and biometric authentication.

EIP-7702, deployed in May 2025's Pectra upgrade, extends these benefits to existing Externally Owned Accounts. Through temporary code delegation, EOAs gain smart account features without migrating to new addresses—preserving transaction history, token holdings, and application integrations while accessing advanced functionality. Users can batch approval and swap operations into single transactions, delegate spending permissions temporarily, or implement time-locked security policies.

Stanczak personally tested wallet onboarding flows to identify friction points, bringing product-thinking from his Nethermind entrepreneurship. His emphasis: "We will focus on speed of execution, accountability, clear goals, objectives, and metrics to track" extends beyond protocol development to application-layer experience. The Foundation shifted from pure grants to actively connecting founders with resources, talent, and partners—infrastructure that supports account abstraction's mainstream adoption during 2026.

Privacy enhancements complement account abstraction through the Kohaku privacy wallet project, led by Nicolas Consigny and Vitalik Buterin, developing through 2026. Kohaku provides SDK exposing privacy and security primitives—native private balances, private addresses, Helios light client integration—with a power-user browser extension demonstrating capabilities. The four-layer privacy model addresses private payments (integrated privacy tools like Railgun), partial dApp activity obscuring (separate addresses per application), hidden read-access (TEE-based RPC privacy transitioning to Private Information Retrieval), and network-level anonymization. These capabilities position Ethereum for institutional compliance requirements while maintaining censorship resistance—a balance Stanczak identifies as critical for "winning RWA and stables."

Operational transformation reflects lessons from traditional finance and startups​

Stanczak's leadership style derives directly from Wall Street and entrepreneurial experience, contrasting sharply with Ethereum's historically academic, consensus-driven culture.

His restructuring establishes clear accountability. The 40+ team leads model distributes decision-making authority rather than bottlenecking through central committees, mirroring how trading desks operate autonomously within risk parameters. Developer calls shifted focus from endless specification discussions to shipping current testnets, with fewer future fork calls until present work completes. This parallels agile methodologies from software startups: tight iteration cycles, concrete deliverables, public tracking.

The six-month upgrade cadence itself represents dramatic acceleration. Ethereum historically launched major upgrades every 12-18 months, with frequent delays. Stanczak targets Pectra (May 2025), Fusaka (December 2025), and Glamsterdam (Q1-Q2 2026)—three significant upgrades in 12 months. His public statements emphasize timeline discipline: "I know that some extremely talented people are now working on resolving the issues that caused teams to suggest moving the dates. I would love to see a broad agreement that the timelines matter a lot. A lot." This urgency acknowledges competitive pressure from Solana, Aptos, and other chains shipping features faster.

The Foundation's communication strategy transformed from infrequent blog posts to active social media engagement, conference appearances (Devcon, Token 2049, Paris Blockchain Week, Point Zero Forum), podcast circuits (Bankless, Unchained, The Defiant), and direct institutional outreach. Stanczak conducted over 200 conversations with ecosystem stakeholders during his first months, treating Co-Executive Director as a customer-facing role rather than pure technical leadership. This accessibility mirrors startup founder patterns—constantly in market, gathering feedback, adjusting strategy.

However, his dual role as Ethereum Foundation Co-Executive Director and Nethermind founder creates ongoing controversy. Nethermind remains the third-largest Ethereum execution client, and critics question whether Stanczak can fairly allocate Foundation grants to competing clients like Geth, Besu, and Erigon. A June 2025 conflict with Péter Szilágyi (Geth lead) over Foundation-funded Geth fork development highlighted these tensions. Stanczak maintains he's transitioning out of Nethermind's CEO role but retains significant involvement, requiring careful navigation of perceived conflicts.

The layoffs of 19 employees in June 2025 proved equally controversial in a community valuing decentralization and collective decision-making. Stanczak frames this as necessary streamlining, implementing "more hands-on hiring review process" and focusing resources on execution-critical teams. The move signals that Foundation leadership now prioritizes operational efficiency over consensus-building, accepting criticism as the cost of faster delivery.

Single-slot finality and quantum resistance remain active research beyond 2026​

While 2026 focuses on deliverable upgrades, Stanczak emphasizes the Foundation's continued commitment to long-term protocol evolution, explicitly positioning near-term execution within broader strategic context.

Single-slot finality research aims to reduce Ethereum's current 12.8-minute finality (64 slots across 2 epochs) to 12 seconds—finalizing blocks in the same slot they're proposed. This eliminates short-range reorganization vulnerability and simplifies the complex fork-choice/finality interface. However, achieving SSF with 1-2 million validators requires processing massive attestations per slot. Proposed solutions include brute-force BLS signature aggregation using ZK-SNARKs, Orbit SSF with validator sub-sampling, and two-tiered staking systems separating high-stake validators from broader participation.

Intermediate solutions deploy during 2026. The Fast Confirmation Rule provides 15-30 second strong probabilistic security using accumulated attestations—not technically finality but achieving 98% latency reduction for user experience. Research tracks including 3-Slot Finality (3SF) and alternative consensus protocols (Kudzu, Hydrangea, Alpenglow) continue exploration, led by Francesco D'Amato, Luca Zanolini, and EF Protocol Consensus team. Stanczak's operational changes deliberately free Vitalik Buterin to focus on this deep research rather than daily coordination: "Vitalik's proposals will always carry weight, but they are intended to start conversations and encourage progress in difficult research areas."

Verkle Trees versus STARKs represents another long-term decision point. Verkle Trees deploy partially in 2026 for stateless clients, reducing proof sizes and enabling lightweight verification. However, Verkle's polynomial commitments are vulnerable to quantum computing attacks, while STARK-based proofs provide quantum resistance. The community debates whether completing Verkle Trees then migrating to STARKs adds unnecessary complexity versus skipping directly to STARKs. Stanczak's pragmatism suggests shipping Verkle Trees for near-term benefits while monitoring quantum computing progress and STARK-proof performance, maintaining optionality.

Beam Chain and "Ethereum 3.0" discussions explore comprehensive consensus layer redesign incorporating lessons from years of proof-of-stake operation. These conversations remain speculative but inform incremental improvements during 2026. Stanczak's "secondary roadmap" posted in April 2025 outlines aspirational goals beyond core protocol work: winning real-world assets, dominating stablecoin infrastructure, greatly increasing security expectations for "quadrillion economy" scale, and positioning Ethereum for AI/agentic protocol integration as "long term which will be so cool that it will attract the greatest thinkers over long time."

This balance—aggressive near-term execution while funding long-term research—defines Stanczak's approach. He repeatedly emphasizes that Ethereum must deliver now to maintain ecosystem momentum, but not at the cost of foundational principles. His April 2025 blog post with Wang states: "The values remain unchanged: open source, censorship resistance, privacy, and security... Ethereum mainnet will remain a global, neutral network, a protocol trusted to be trustless."

Navigating institutional adoption while preserving decentralization's core​

Stanczak's background in traditional finance uniquely positions him to engage institutions exploring blockchain infrastructure, but this creates tension with Ethereum's cypherpunk roots.

His European institutional tour in April 2025, direct engagement with financial services firms, and emphasis on being "face of the organization" represent departure from Ethereum's historically faceless, community-driven ethos. He acknowledges this explicitly: "Institutions need someone to be the face of the organisation that is representing Ethereum." This positioning responds to competitive dynamics—Solana, Ripple, and other chains have centralized leadership structures institutions understand. Stanczak argues Ethereum needs similar interfaces without abandoning decentralization.

The Foundation's strategic priorities reflect this institutional focus: "Win RWA (Real World Assets), Win stables (stablecoins)" appear prominently in Stanczak's secondary roadmap. Real-world asset tokenization—equities, bonds, real estate, commodities—requires performance, compliance capabilities, and institutional-grade security Ethereum historically lacked. Stablecoin dominance, with USDC and USDT representing massive onchain value, positions Ethereum as settlement layer for global finance. Stanczak frames this as existential: "Suddenly you have 10% or 20% of the whole economy onchain. It may happen faster than people think."

His "Trillion Dollar Security" initiative envisions infrastructure where billions of people hold $1,000+ onchain securely, and institutions trust single smart contracts with $1 trillion. This requires not just technical scaling but security standards, auditing practices, incident response capabilities, and regulatory clarity Ethereum's decentralized development process struggles to provide. Stanczak's operational changes—clear leadership, accountability, public tracking—aim to demonstrate Ethereum can deliver institutional-grade reliability while maintaining neutrality.

Critics worry this institutional focus could compromise censorship resistance. Stanczak's response emphasizes technical solutions: ePBS eliminates trusted relays that could be pressured to censor transactions, FOCIL ensures inclusion lists prevent indefinite censorship, encrypted mempools hide transaction contents until inclusion. The "holy trinity" of censorship resistance protects Ethereum's neutrality even as institutions adopt the platform. He states: "The focus is now on interoperability, tools and standards that can bring more cohesion to the Ethereum network—without compromising its core principles, such as decentralization and neutrality."

The tension remains unresolved. Stanczak's dual role at Nethermind, close institutional relationships, and emphasis on centralized execution for "critical period" acceleration represent pragmatic adaptation to competitive pressures. Whether this compromises Ethereum's founding values or successfully bridges decentralization with mainstream adoption will become clear through 2026's execution.

2026 marks a definitive test of Ethereum's scaling promises​

Ethereum enters 2026 at an inflection point. After years of research, specification, and delayed timelines, the Glamsterdam upgrade represents a concrete commitment: deliver 10x scaling, deploy ePBS and FOCIL, enable stateless clients, unify Layer 2 fragmentation, and achieve 15-30 second confirmations—all while maintaining decentralization and security. Stanczak's leadership transformation provides the operational structure to execute this roadmap, but success requires coordinating 23+ client teams, managing complex protocol changes, and shipping on aggressive six-month cycles without destabilizing the $300+ billion network.

The quantitative targets are explicit and measurable. Gas limits must reach 150 million or higher. Blob capacity must scale to 48 blobs per block through automated BPO forks. Fast confirmation rules must deploy across all consensus clients by Q1 2026. EIL must unify 55+ Layer 2s into seamless user experience. Glamsterdam must activate mid-2026 without significant delays. Stanczak stakes his credibility and the Foundation's reputation on meeting these deadlines: "no amount of talking about Ethereum's roadmap and vision matters if we cannot achieve coordination levels that consistently meet goals on schedule."

His vision extends beyond technical metrics to ecosystem transformation. Institutional adoption of tokenized assets, stablecoin infrastructure dominance, AI agent coordination, and autonomous machine integration all require the performance baseline 2026 delivers. The shift from Ethereum as "world computer" research project to Ethereum as global financial infrastructure reflects Stanczak's Wall Street perspective—systems must work reliably at scale, with clear accountability and measurable results.

The operational changes—accelerated timelines, empowered team leads, public tracking, institutional engagement—represent permanent cultural shift, not temporary response to competitive pressure. Stanczak and Wang's co-directorship model balances execution urgency with values preservation, but the emphasis clearly lies on delivery. The community's acceptance of this more centralized coordination structure, the June 2025 layoffs, and aggressive deadlines indicates broad recognition that Ethereum must evolve or lose market position to faster-moving competitors.

Whether 2026 validates or undermines this approach depends on execution. If Glamsterdam ships on time with promised improvements, Ethereum cements its position as the dominant smart contract platform, and Stanczak's operational model becomes the template for decentralized protocol governance at scale. If delays occur, complexity overwhelms client teams, or security issues emerge from rushed deployment, the community will question whether speed was prioritized over the careful, conservative approach that made Ethereum secure for a decade. Stanczak's repeated warnings about timeline discipline suggest he understands these stakes completely—2026 is the year Ethereum must deliver, not plan, not research, but ship working infrastructure that scales.

The technical roadmap is comprehensive, the leadership committed, and the ecosystem aligned behind these goals. Stanczak brings unique capabilities from traditional finance, client implementation, and entrepreneurial success to marshal resources toward concrete objectives. His vision of Ethereum processing 10-20% of global economic activity onchain within years, not decades, provides ambitious North Star. The 2026 roadmap represents the first major test of whether that vision can materialize through disciplined execution rather than remaining perpetual future promise. As Stanczak emphasizes: "People say we need the Foundation now." The next 12 months will demonstrate whether Ethereum Foundation's operational transformation can deliver on that urgent demand while maintaining the credible neutrality, censorship resistance, and open development that define Ethereum's foundational principles.

TL;DR​

Memecoins are crypto tokens born from internet culture, jokes, and viral moments. Their value is driven by attention, community coordination, and speed, not fundamentals. The category began with Dogecoin in 2013 and has since exploded with tokens like SHIB, PEPE, and a massive wave of assets on Solana and Base. This sector now represents tens of billions in market value and can significantly impact network fees and on-chain volumes. However, most memecoins lack intrinsic utility; they are extremely volatile, high-turnover assets. The risks of "rug pulls" and flawed presales are exceptionally high. If you engage, use a strict checklist to evaluate liquidity, supply, ownership controls, distribution, and contract security.

The 10-Second Definition​

A memecoin is a cryptocurrency inspired by an internet meme, a cultural inside joke, or a viral social event. Unlike traditional crypto projects, it is typically community-driven and thrives on social media momentum rather than underlying cash flows or protocol utility. The concept began with Dogecoin, which was launched in 2013 as a lighthearted parody of Bitcoin. Since then, waves of similar tokens have emerged, riding new trends and narratives across different blockchains.

How Big Is This, Really?​

Don't let the humorous origins fool you—the memecoin sector is a significant force in the crypto market. On any given day, the aggregate market capitalization of memecoins can reach tens of billions of dollars. During peak bull cycles, this category has accounted for a material share of the entire non-BTC/ETH crypto economy. This scale is easily visible on data aggregators like CoinGecko and in the dedicated "meme" categories featured on major crypto exchanges.

Where Do Memecoins Live?​

While memecoins can exist on any smart contract platform, a few ecosystems have become dominant hubs.

• Ethereum: As the original smart contract chain, Ethereum hosts many iconic memecoins, from $DOGE-adjacent ERC-20s to tokens like $PEPE. During periods of intense speculative frenzy, the trading activity from these tokens has been known to cause significant spikes in network gas fees, even boosting validator revenue.
• Solana: In 2024 and 2025, Solana became the ground zero for memecoin creation and trading. A Cambrian explosion of new tokens pushed the network to record-breaking fee generation and on-chain volume, birthing viral hits like $BONK and $WIF.
• Base: Coinbase's Layer 2 network has cultivated its own vibrant meme sub-culture, with a growing list of tokens and dedicated community tracking on platforms like CoinGecko.

How a Memecoin Is Born (2025 Edition)​

The technical barrier to launching a memecoin has dropped to near zero. Today, two paths are most common:

1. Classic DEX Launch (EVM or Solana)​

In this model, a creator mints a supply of tokens, creates a liquidity pool (LP) on a decentralized exchange (like Uniswap or Raydium) by pairing the tokens with a base asset (like $ETH, $SOL, or $USDC), and then markets the token with a story or meme. The primary risks here hinge on who controls the token contract (e.g., can they mint more?) and the LP tokens (e.g., can they pull the liquidity?).

2. Bonding-Curve “Factory” (e.g., pump.fun on Solana)​

This model, which surged in popularity on Solana, standardizes and automates the launch process. Anyone can instantly launch a token with a fixed supply (often one billion) onto a linear bonding curve. The price is automatically quoted based on how much has been bought. Once the token reaches a certain market cap threshold, it "graduates" to a major DEX like Raydium, where the liquidity is automatically created and locked. This innovation dramatically lowered the technical barrier, shaping the culture and accelerating the pace of launches.

Why builders care: These new launchpads compress what used to be days of work into minutes. The result is massive, unpredictable traffic spikes that hammer RPC nodes, clog mempools, and challenge indexers. At their peak, these memecoin launches on Solana generated transaction volumes that matched or exceeded all previous network records.

Where "Value" Comes From​

Memecoin value is a function of social dynamics, not financial modeling. It typically derives from three sources:

• Attention Gravity: Memes, celebrity endorsements, or viral news stories act as powerful magnets for attention and, therefore, liquidity. In 2024–2025, tokens themed around celebrities and political figures saw massive, albeit often short-lived, trading flows, particularly on Solana DEXs.
• Coordination Games: A strong community can rally around a narrative, a piece of art, or a collective stunt. This shared belief can create powerful reflexive price movements, where buying begets more attention, which begets more buying.
• Occasional Utility Add-Ons: Some successful memecoin projects attempt to "bolt on" utility after gaining traction, introducing swaps, Layer 2 chains, NFT collections, or games. However, the vast majority remain purely speculative, trade-only assets.

The Risks You Can’t Ignore​

The memecoin space is rife with dangers. Understanding them is non-negotiable.

Contract and Control Risk​

• Mint/Freeze Authority: Can the original creator mint an infinite supply of new tokens, diluting holders to zero? Can they freeze transfers, trapping your funds?
• Ownership/Upgrade Rights: A contract with "renounced" ownership, where the admin keys are burned, reduces this risk but doesn't eliminate it entirely. Proxies or other hidden functions can still pose a threat.

Liquidity Risk​

• Locked Liquidity: Is the initial liquidity pool locked in a smart contract for a period of time? If not, the creator can perform a "rug pull" by removing all the valuable assets from the pool, leaving the token worthless. Thin liquidity also means high slippage on trades.

Presales and Soft Rugs​

• Even without a malicious contract, many projects fail. Teams can abandon a project after raising funds in a presale, or insiders can slowly dump their large allocations on the market. The infamous $SLERF launch on Solana showed how even an accidental mistake (like burning the LP tokens) can vaporize millions while paradoxically creating a volatile trading environment.

Market and Operational Risk​

• Extreme Volatility: Prices can swing 90%+ in either direction within minutes. Furthermore, the network effects of a frenzy can be costly. During $PEPE's initial surge, Ethereum gas fees skyrocketed, making transactions prohibitively expensive for late buyers.

Scams and Legal Exposure​

• Rug pulls, pump-and-dumps, phishing links disguised as airdrops, and fake celebrity endorsements are everywhere. Study how common scams work to protect yourself. This content does not constitute legal or investment advice.

A 5-Minute Memecoin Checklist (DYOR in Practice)​

Before interacting with any memecoin, run through this basic due diligence checklist:

1. Supply Math: What is the total supply vs. the circulating supply? How much is allocated to the LP, the team, or a treasury? Are there any vesting schedules?
2. LP Health: Is the liquidity pool locked? For how long? What percentage of the total supply is in the LP? Use a blockchain explorer to verify these details on-chain.
3. Admin Powers: Can the contract owner mint new tokens, pause trading, blacklist wallets, or change transaction taxes? Has ownership been renounced?
4. Distribution: Check the holder distribution. Is the supply concentrated in a few wallets? Look for signs of bot clusters or insider wallets that received large, early allocations.
5. Contract Provenance: Is the source code verified on-chain? Does it use a standard, well-understood template, or is it full of custom, unaudited code? Beware of honeypot patterns designed to trap funds.
6. Liquidity Venues: Where does it trade? Is it still on a bonding curve, or has it graduated to a major DEX or CEX? Check the slippage for the trade size you are considering.
7. Narrative Durability: Does the meme have genuine cultural resonance, or is it a fleeting joke destined to be forgotten by next week?

What Memecoins Do to Blockchains (and Infra)​

Memecoin frenzies are a powerful stress test for blockchain infrastructure.

• Fee and Throughput Spikes: Sudden, intense demand for blockspace stresses RPC gateways, indexers, and validator nodes. In March 2024, Solana recorded its highest-ever daily fees and billions in on-chain volume, driven almost entirely by a memecoin surge. Infrastructure teams must plan capacity for these events.
• Liquidity Migration: Capital rapidly concentrates around a few hot DEXs and launchpads, reshaping Miner Extractable Value (MEV) and order-flow patterns on the network.
• User Onboarding: For better or worse, memecoin waves often serve as the first point of contact for new crypto users, who may later explore other dApps in the ecosystem.

Canonical Examples (For Context, Not Endorsement)​

• $DOGE: The original (2013). A proof-of-work currency that still trades primarily on its brand recognition and cultural significance.
• $SHIB: An Ethereum ERC-20 token that evolved from a simple meme into a large, community-driven ecosystem with its own swap and L2.
• $PEPE: A 2023 phenomenon on Ethereum whose explosive popularity significantly impacted on-chain economics for validators and users.
• BONK & WIF (Solana): Emblematic of the 2024-2025 Solana wave. Their rapid rise and subsequent listings on major exchanges catalyzed massive activity on the network.

For Builders and Teams​

If you must launch, default to fairness and safety:

• Provide clear and honest disclosures. No hidden mints or team allocations.
• Lock a meaningful portion of the liquidity pool and publish proof of the lock.
• Avoid presales unless you have the operational security to administer them safely.
• Plan your infrastructure. Prepare for bot activity, rate-limit abuse, and have a clear communication plan for volatile periods.

If you integrate memecoins into your dApp, sandbox flows and protect users:

• Display prominent warnings about contract risks and thin liquidity.
• Clearly show slippage and price impact estimates before a user confirms a trade.
• Expose key metadata—like supply figures and admin rights—directly in your UI.

For Traders​

• Treat position sizing like leverage: use only a small amount of capital you are fully prepared to lose.
• Plan your entry and exit points before you trade. Do not let emotion drive your decisions.
• Automate your security hygiene. Use hardware wallets, regularly review token approvals, use allow-listed RPCs, and practice identifying phishing attempts.
• Be extremely cautious of spikes caused by celebrity or political news. These are often highly volatile and revert quickly.

Quick Glossary​

• Bonding Curve: An automated mathematical formula that sets a token's price as a function of its purchased supply. Common in pump.fun launches.
• LP Lock: A smart contract that time-locks liquidity pool tokens, preventing the project creator from removing liquidity and "rugging" the project.
• Renounced Ownership: The act of surrendering the admin keys to a smart contract, which reduces (but doesn't entirely eliminate) the risk of malicious changes.
• Graduation: The process of a token moving from an initial bonding curve launchpad to a public DEX with a permanent, locked liquidity pool.

Sources & Further Reading​

• Binance Academy: "What Are Meme Coins?" and "Rug pull" definitions.
• Wikipedia & Binance Academy: DOGE and SHIB origins.
• CoinGecko: Live memecoin market statistics by sector.
• CoinDesk: Reporting on Solana fee spikes, PEPE’s impact on Ethereum, and the SLERF case study.
• Decrypt & Wikipedia: Explanations of pump.fun mechanics and its cultural impact.
• Investopedia: Overview of common crypto scams and defenses.

Disclosure: This post is for educational purposes and is not investment advice. Crypto assets are extremely volatile. Always verify data on-chain and from multiple sources before making any decisions.

TL;DR​

Ethereum just got two powerful primitives that push user experience past seed phrases and bookmarkable dapps toward “clickable on-chain experiences.”

• ERC-4337 brings account abstraction to today’s Ethereum without core protocol changes. This makes features like smart contract accounts, gas sponsorship, batched calls, and passkey-style authentication native to wallets.
• ERC-4804 introduces web3:// URLs—human-readable links that resolve directly to contract read calls and can even render on-chain HTML or SVG, all without a traditional web server acting as a middleman. Think of it as “HTTP for the EVM.”

When used together, ERC-4337 handles actions, while ERC-4804 handles addresses. This combination allows you to share a link that verifiably pulls its user interface from a smart contract. When a user is ready to act, the flow hands off to a smart account that can sponsor gas and batch multiple steps into a single, seamless click.

Why This Matters Now​

This isn't just a theoretical future; these technologies are live and gaining significant traction. ERC-4337 is already scaled and proven in the wild. The canonical EntryPoint contract was deployed on the Ethereum mainnet on March 1, 2023, and has since powered tens of millions of smart contract accounts and processed over 100 million user operations.

Simultaneously, the core protocol is converging with these ideas. The Pectra upgrade, shipped in May 2025, included EIP-7702, which allows standard externally owned accounts (EOAs) to temporarily behave like smart accounts. This complements ERC-4337 by easing the transition for existing users, rather than replacing the standard.

On the addressing front, web3:// is now formalized. ERC-4804 specifies exactly how a URL translates into an EVM call, and web3 has been listed by IANA as a provisional URI scheme. The tooling and gateways needed to make these URLs practical are now available, turning on-chain data into shareable, linkable resources.

Primer: ERC-4337 in One Page​

At its core, ERC-4337 introduces a parallel transaction rail to Ethereum, built for flexibility. Instead of traditional transactions, users submit UserOperation objects into an alternative mempool. These objects describe what the account wants to do. Specialized nodes called "Bundlers" pick up these operations and execute them through a global EntryPoint contract.

This enables three key components:

1. Smart Contract Accounts (SCAs): These accounts contain their own logic. They define what makes a transaction valid, allowing for custom signature schemes (like passkeys or multisig), session keys for games, spending limits, and social recovery mechanisms. The account, not the network, enforces the rules.
2. Paymasters: These special contracts can sponsor gas fees for users or allow them to pay in ERC-20 tokens. This is the key to unlocking true “no-ETH-in-wallet” onboarding and creating one-click experiences by batching multiple calls into a single operation.
3. DoS Safety & Rules: The public ERC-4337 mempool is protected by standardized off-chain validation rules (defined in ERC-7562) that prevent Bundlers from wasting resources on operations that are destined to fail. While alternative mempools can exist for specialized use cases, these shared rules keep the ecosystem coherent and secure.

Mental model: ERC-4337 turns wallets into programmable apps. Instead of just signing raw transactions, users submit "intents" that their account's code validates and the EntryPoint contract executes—safely and atomically.

Primer: ERC-4804 in One Page​

ERC-4804 provides a simple, direct mapping from a web3:// URL to a read-only EVM call. The URL grammar is intuitive: web3://<name-or-address>[:chainId]/<method>/<arg0>?returns=(types). Names can be resolved via systems like ENS, and arguments are automatically typed based on the contract's ABI.

Here are a couple of examples:

• web3://uniswap.eth/ would call the contract at the uniswap.eth address with empty calldata.
• web3://.../balanceOf/vitalik.eth?returns=(uint256) would ABI-encode a call to the balanceOf function with Vitalik's address and return a properly typed JSON result.

Crucially, this standard is currently for read-only calls (equivalent to Solidity's view functions). Any action that changes state still requires a transaction—which is exactly where ERC-4337 or EIP-7702 come in. With web3 registered as a provisional URI scheme with IANA, the path is paved for native browser and client support, though for now, it often relies on extensions or gateways.

Mental model: ERC-4804 turns on-chain resources into linkable web objects. “Share this contract view as a URL” becomes as natural as sharing a link to a dashboard.

Together: "Clickable On-chain Experiences"​

Combining these two standards unlocks a powerful new pattern for building decentralized applications today.

First, you deliver a verifiable UI via web3://. Instead of hosting your frontend on a centralized server like S3, you can store a minimal HTML or SVG interface directly on-chain. A link like web3://app.eth/render allows a client to resolve the URL and render the UI directly from the contract, ensuring the user sees exactly what the code dictates.

From that verifiable interface, you can trigger a one-click action via ERC-4337. A "Mint" or "Subscribe" button can compile a UserOperation that a paymaster sponsors. The user approves with a passkey or a simple biometric prompt, and the EntryPoint contract executes a batched call that deploys their smart account (if it's their first time) and completes the desired action in a single, atomic step.

This creates a seamless deep-link handoff. The UI can embed intent-based links that are handled directly by the user's wallet, eliminating the need to send them to an external site they may not trust. The content is the contract, and the action is the account.

This unlocks:

• Gasless trials and "just works" onboarding: New users don't need to acquire ETH to get started. Your application can sponsor their first few interactions, dramatically reducing friction.
• Shareable state: A web3:// link is a query into the blockchain's state. This is perfect for dashboards, proofs of ownership, or any content that must be verifiably tamper-evident.
• Agent-friendly flows: AI agents can fetch verifiable state via web3:// URLs and submit transactional intents through ERC-4337 using scoped session keys, all without brittle screen scraping or insecure private key handling.

Design Notes for Builders​

When implementing these standards, there are a few architectural choices to consider. For ERC-4337, it's wise to start with minimal smart contract account templates and add capabilities through guarded modules to keep the core validation logic simple and secure. Your paymaster policy should be robust, with clear caps on sponsored gas and whitelists for approved methods to prevent griefing attacks.

For ERC-4804, prioritize human-readable links by using ENS names. Be explicit about chainId to avoid ambiguity and include the returns=(…) parameter to ensure clients receive typed, predictable responses. While you can render full UIs, it’s often best to keep on-chain HTML/SVG minimal, using them as verifiable shells that can fetch heavier assets from decentralized storage like IPFS.

Finally, remember that EIP-7702 and ERC-4337 work together, not against each other. With EIP-7702 now active in the Pectra upgrade, existing EOA users can delegate actions to contract logic without deploying a full smart account. The tooling in the account abstraction ecosystem is already aligning to support this, smoothing the migration path for everyone.

Security, Reality, and Constraints​

While powerful, these systems have trade-offs. The EntryPoint contract is a central chokepoint by design; it simplifies the security model but also concentrates risk. Always stick to audited, canonical versions. The mempool validation rules from ERC-7562 are a social convention, not an on-chain enforced rule, so don't assume every alternative mempool offers the same censorship resistance or DoS protection.

Furthermore, web3:// is still maturing. It remains a read-only standard, and any write operation requires a transaction. While the protocol itself is decentralized, the gateways and clients that resolve these URLs can still be potential points of failure or censorship. True "unblockability" will depend on widespread native client support.

A Concrete Blueprint​

Imagine you want to build an NFT-powered membership club with a shareable, verifiable UI and a one-click join process. Here’s how you could ship it this quarter:

1. Share the UI: Distribute a link like web3://club.eth/home. When a user opens it, their client resolves the URL, calls the contract, and renders an on-chain UI that displays the current member allowlist and mint price.
2. One-Click Join: The user clicks a "Join" button. Their wallet compiles an ERC-4337 UserOperation that is sponsored by your paymaster. This single operation batches three calls: deploying the user's smart account (if they don't have one), paying the mint fee, and registering their profile data.
3. Verifiable Receipt: After the transaction confirms, the user is shown a confirmation view that is just another web3:// link, like web3://club.eth/receipt/<tokenId>, creating a permanent, on-chain link to their membership proof.

The Bigger Arc​

These two standards signal a fundamental shift in how we build on Ethereum. Accounts are becoming software. ERC-4337 and EIP-7702 are turning "wallet UX" into a space for real product innovation, moving us beyond lectures about key management. At the same time, links are becoming queries. ERC-4804 restores the URL as a primitive for addressing verifiable facts on-chain, not just the frontends that proxy them.

Together, they shrink the gap between what users click and what contracts do. That gap was once filled by centralized web servers and trust assumptions. Now, it can be filled by verifiable code paths and open, permissionless mempools.

If you're building consumer crypto applications, this is your chance to make the user's first minute delightful. Share a link, render the truth, sponsor the first action, and keep your users inside a verifiable loop. The rails are here—now it's time to ship the experiences.

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:

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:

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:

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.

On May 7, 2025, Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade (Prague + Electra) hit mainnet. Among its most developer-visible changes is EIP-7702, which lets an externally owned account (EOA) "mount" smart-contract logic—without migrating funds or changing addresses. If you build wallets, dapps, or relayers, this unlocks a simpler path to smart-account UX.

Below is a concise, implementation-first guide: what actually shipped, how 7702 works, when to choose it over pure ERC-4337, and a cut-and-paste scaffold you can adapt today.

What Actually Shipped​

• EIP-7702 is in Pectra’s final scope. The meta-EIP for the Pectra hard fork officially lists 7702 among the included changes.
• Activation details: Pectra activated on mainnet at epoch 364032 on May 7, 2025, following successful activations on all major testnets.
• Toolchain note: Solidity v0.8.30 updated its default EVM target to prague for Pectra compatibility. You'll need to upgrade your compilers and CI pipelines, especially if you pin specific versions.

EIP-7702—How It Works (Nuts & Bolts)​

EIP-7702 introduces a new transaction type and a mechanism for an EOA to delegate its execution logic to a smart contract.

• New Transaction Type (0x04): A Type-4 transaction includes a new field called an authorization_list. This list contains one or more authorization tuples—(chain_id, address, nonce, y_parity, r, s)—each signed by the EOA's private key. When this transaction is processed, the protocol writes a delegation indicator to the EOA’s code field: 0xef0100 || address. From that point forward, any calls to the EOA are proxied to the specified address (the implementation), but they execute within the EOA’s storage and balance context. This delegation remains active until it's explicitly changed.
• Chain Scope: An authorization can be chain-specific by providing a chain_id, or it can apply to all chains if chain_id is set to 0. This allows you to deploy the same implementation contract across multiple networks without requiring users to sign a new authorization for each one.
• Revocation: To revert an EOA back to its original, non-programmable behavior, you simply send another 7702 transaction where the implementation address is set to the zero address. This clears the delegation indicator.
• Self-Sponsored vs. Relayed: An EOA can submit the Type-4 transaction itself, or a third-party relayer can submit it on the EOA's behalf. The latter is common for creating a gasless user experience. Nonce handling differs slightly depending on the method, so it's important to use libraries that correctly manage this distinction.

Security Model Shift: Because the original EOA private key still exists, it can always override any smart contract rules (like social recovery or spending limits) by submitting a new 7702 transaction to change the delegation. This is a fundamental shift. Contracts that rely on tx.origin to verify that a call is from an EOA must be re-audited, as 7702 can break these assumptions. Audit your flows accordingly.

7702 or ERC-4337? (And When to Combine)​

Both EIP-7702 and ERC-4337 enable account abstraction, but they serve different needs.

• Choose EIP-7702 when…
  • You want to provide instant smart-account UX for existing EOAs without forcing users to migrate funds or change addresses.
  • You need consistent addresses across chains that can be progressively upgraded with new features.
  • You want to stage your transition to account abstraction, starting with simple features and adding complexity over time.
• Choose pure ERC-4337 when…
  • Your product requires full programmability and complex policy engines (e.g., multi-sig, advanced recovery) from day one.
  • You are building for new users who don't have existing EOAs, making new smart-account addresses and the associated setup acceptable.
• Combine them: The most powerful pattern is to use both. An EOA can use a 7702 transaction to designate an ERC-4337 wallet implementation as its logic. This makes the EOA behave like a 4337 account, allowing it to be bundled, sponsored by paymasters, and processed by the existing 4337 infrastructure—all without the user needing a new address. This is a forward-compatible path explicitly encouraged by the EIP's authors.

Minimal 7702 Scaffold You Can Adapt​

Here’s a practical example of an implementation contract and the client-side code to activate it.

1. A Tiny, Auditable Implementation Contract​

This contract code will execute in the EOA’s context once designated. Keep it small, auditable, and consider adding an upgrade mechanism.

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

/// @notice Executes calls from the EOA context when designated via EIP-7702.
contract DelegatedAccount {
    // Unique storage slot to avoid collisions with other contracts.
    bytes32 private constant INIT_SLOT =
        0x3fb93b3d3dcd1d1f4b4a1a8db6f4c5d55a1b7f9ac01dfe8e53b1b0f35f0c1a01;

    event Initialized(address indexed account);
    event Executed(address indexed to, uint256 value, bytes data, bytes result);

    modifier onlyEOA() {
        // Optional: add checks to restrict who can call certain functions.
        _;
    }

    function initialize() external payable onlyEOA {
        // Set a simple one-time init flag in the EOA's storage.
        bytes32 slot = INIT_SLOT;
        assembly {
            if iszero(iszero(sload(slot))) { revert(0, 0) } // Revert if already initialized
            sstore(slot, 1)
        }
        emit Initialized(address(this));
    }

    function execute(address to, uint256 value, bytes calldata data)
        external
        payable
        onlyEOA
        returns (bytes memory result)
    {
        (bool ok, bytes memory ret) = to.call{value: value}(data);
        require(ok, "CALL_FAILED");
        emit Executed(to, value, data, ret);
        return ret;
    }

    function executeBatch(address[] calldata to, uint256[] calldata value, bytes[] calldata data)
        external
        payable
        onlyEOA
    {
        uint256 n = to.length;
        require(n == value.length && n == data.length, "LENGTH_MISMATCH");
        for (uint256 i = 0; i < n; i++) {
            (bool ok, ) = to[i].call{value: value[i]}(data[i]);
            require(ok, "CALL_FAILED");
        }
    }
}

2. Designate the Contract on an EOA (Type-4 tx) with viem​

Modern clients like viem have built-in helpers to sign authorizations and send Type-4 transactions. In this example, a relayer account pays the gas to upgrade an eoa.

import { createWalletClient, http, encodeFunctionData } from "viem";
import { sepolia } from "viem/chains";
import { privateKeyToAccount } from "viem/accounts";
import { abi, implementationAddress } from "./DelegatedAccountABI";

// 1. Define the relayer (sponsors gas) and the EOA to be upgraded
const relayer = privateKeyToAccount(process.env.RELAYER_PK as `0x${string}`);
const eoa = privateKeyToAccount(process.env.EOA_PK as `0x${string}`);

const client = createWalletClient({
  account: relayer,
  chain: sepolia,
  transport: http(),
});

// 2. The EOA signs the authorization pointing to the implementation contract
const authorization = await client.signAuthorization({
  account: eoa,
  contractAddress: implementationAddress,
  // If the EOA itself were sending this, you would add: executor: 'self'
});

// 3. The relayer sends a Type-4 transaction to set the EOA's code and call initialize()
const hash = await client.sendTransaction({
  to: eoa.address, // The destination is the EOA itself
  authorizationList: [authorization], // The new EIP-7702 field
  data: encodeFunctionData({ abi, functionName: "initialize" }),
});

// 4. Now, the EOA can be controlled via its new logic without further authorizations
// For example, to execute a transaction:
// await client.sendTransaction({
//   to: eoa.address,
//   data: encodeFunctionData({ abi, functionName: 'execute', args: [...] })
// });

3. Revoke Delegation (Back to Plain EOA)​

To undo the upgrade, have the EOA sign an authorization that designates the zero address as the implementation and send another Type-4 transaction. Afterward, a call to eth_getCode(eoa.address) should return empty bytes.

Integration Patterns That Work in Production​

• Upgrade in Place for Existing Users: In your dapp, detect if the user is on a Pectra-compatible network. If so, display an optional "Upgrade Account" button that triggers the one-time authorization signature. Maintain fallback paths (e.g., classic approve + swap) for users with older wallets.
• Gasless Onboarding: Use a relayer (either your backend or a service) to sponsor the initial Type-4 transaction. For ongoing gasless transactions, route user operations through an ERC-4337 bundler to leverage existing paymasters and public mempools.
• Cross-Chain Rollouts: Use a chain_id = 0 authorization to designate the same implementation contract across all chains. You can then enable or disable features on a per-chain basis within your application logic.
• Observability: Your backend should index Type-4 transactions and parse the authorization_list to track which EOAs have been upgraded. After a transaction, verify the change by calling eth_getCode and confirming the EOA's code now matches the delegation indicator (0xef0100 || implementationAddress).

Threat Model & Gotchas (Don’t Skip This)​

• Delegation is Persistent: Treat changes to an EOA's implementation contract with the same gravity as a standard smart contract upgrade. This requires audits, clear user communication, and ideally, an opt-in flow. Never push new logic to users silently.
• tx.origin Landmines: Any logic that used msg.sender == tx.origin to ensure a call came directly from an EOA is now potentially vulnerable. This pattern must be replaced with more robust checks, like EIP-712 signatures or explicit allowlists.
• Nonce Math: When an EOA sponsors its own 7702 transaction (executor: 'self'), its authorization nonce and transaction nonce interact in a specific way. Always use a library that correctly handles this to avoid replay issues.
• Wallet UX Responsibility: The EIP-7702 specification warns that dapps should not ask users to sign arbitrary designations. It is the wallet's responsibility to vet proposed implementations and ensure they are safe. Design your UX to align with this principle of wallet-mediated security.

When 7702 is a Clear Win​

• DEX Flows: A multi-step approve and swap can be combined into a single click using the executeBatch function.
• Games & Sessions: Grant session-key-like privileges for a limited time or scope without requiring the user to create and fund a new wallet.
• Enterprise & Fintech: Enable sponsored transactions and apply custom spending policies while keeping the same corporate address on every chain for accounting and identity.
• L2 Bridges & Intents: Create smoother meta-transaction flows with a consistent EOA identity across different networks.

These use cases represent the same core benefits promised by ERC-4337, but are now available to every existing EOA with just a single authorization.

Ship Checklist​

Protocol​

• Ensure nodes, SDKs, and infrastructure providers support Type-4 transactions and Pectra's "prague" EVM.
• Update indexers and analytics tools to parse the authorization_list field in new transactions.

Contracts​

• Develop a minimal, audited implementation contract with essential features (e.g., batching, revocation).
• Thoroughly test revoke and re-designate flows on testnets before deploying to mainnet.

Clients​

• Upgrade client-side libraries (viem, ethers, etc.) and test the signAuthorization and sendTransaction functions.
• Verify that both self-sponsored and relayed transaction paths handle nonces and replays correctly.

Security​

• Remove all assumptions based on tx.origin from your contracts and replace them with safer alternatives.
• Implement post-deployment monitoring to detect unexpected code changes at user addresses and alert on suspicious activity.

Bottom line: EIP-7702 provides a low-friction on-ramp to smart-account UX for the millions of EOAs already in use. Start with a tiny, audited implementation, use a relayed path for gasless setup, make revocation clear and easy, and you can deliver 90% of the benefits of full account abstraction—without the pain of address churn and asset migration.

For years, the conventional wisdom in the blockchain space has been that bigger is better. The Ethereum Global Network (EGN), the vast peer-to-peer (P2P) layer supporting thousands of services from the Ethereum mainnet to countless other projects, was built on this very idea[cite: 4, 25]. The theory was simple: a massive, blended network where everyone shares the same space would boost node discovery and make the ecosystem more resilient to attacks[cite: 34, 35].

However, a critical research paper, "A Place for Everyone vs Everyone in its Place: Measuring and Attacking the Ethereum Global Network," challenges this foundational belief. The study reveals that this "place for everyone" architecture, rather than being a source of strength, introduces severe inefficiencies and alarming security vulnerabilities that could impact services with a collective market cap of over $500 billion[cite: 6, 24].

The Efficiency Nightmare: Shouting into a Crowd​

The promise of EGN was that nodes could easily find and connect with peers offering the same service[cite: 34]. The reality is the complete opposite. The study found that nodes desperately struggle to find their counterparts in the vast, noisy sea of the EGN[cite: 8].

The inefficiency is staggering:

• Wasted Connections: Over 75% of a node's connection attempts are directed at peers from entirely different services[cite: 8].
• Extreme Connection Costs: In one startling case, a node had to make an average of 45,908 connection attempts just to find a single valid neighbor[cite: 9]. This stands in stark contrast to Bitcoin's estimated success rate of one in four[cite: 54].
• A Step Backward: The newer discovery protocol, Discv5, which was intended to be an improvement, performs even more poorly. In a 12-hour test, nodes using Discv5 established three or fewer connections, largely because a crucial "topic discovery mechanism" designed to advertise services remains unimplemented in all major clients[cite: 57, 59].

The core issue is that the vast majority of nodes in the EGN have routing tables (their "address books") filled with irrelevant peers. The research found that most Discv4 nodes maintain less than 5% of same-service peers in their DHTs (Distributed Hash Tables)[cite: 44].

The Security Illusion: A Vulnerable Giant​

The second pillar of the "bigger is better" argument was security—that EGN's sheer size would dilute any attacker's influence[cite: 35]. The paper demolishes this assumption by simulating a DHT pollution attack, a foundational attack where malicious nodes flood the network's address books with their own entries[cite: 61, 62].

The results show that EGN's blended nature is not a defense, but a critical vulnerability[cite: 10, 65]:

• Devastatingly Effective: With just 300 malicious nodes (less than 0.3% of the network), an attacker can pollute the network so effectively that connection success rates for most services plummet to below 1%[cite: 11, 63].
• Mass Isolation: After just 24 hours, this small-scale attack was able to successfully partition the network, isolating thousands of honest nodes from their services[cite: 11, 64].
• Design, Not a Flaw: This vulnerability isn't due to a bug but is an inherent consequence of the blended architecture[cite: 65]. When the same attack was simulated on separate, dedicated networks for each service, it proved "largely ineffective" because the routing tables were clean and filled only with relevant peers[cite: 66].

The Path Forward: "Everyone in its Place"​

The research concludes that the EGN's blended architecture is detrimental, especially to smaller services that become collateral damage in this inefficient and insecure environment[cite: 37]. The solution is not to abandon the global network but to organize it better, shifting from "a place for everyone" to ensuring "everyone is in its place"[cite: 522].

The paper proposes two key solutions:

1. Service-Specific DHTs: Mandate that all nodes include their service information directly in their Ethereum Node Record (ENR)[cite: 490, 491]. This simple change would allow nodes to filter for and prioritize same-service peers, dramatically improving discovery efficiency and security without sacrificing decentralization[cite: 495].
2. More Reliable Bootnodes: The simulations highlighted the critical role of bootnodes as a last line of defense against network partitioning[cite: 496]. The paper recommends that services increase the number of their bootnodes and configure them to prioritize storing same-service peers, creating a resilient backbone for network recovery[cite: 499].

For developers and the health of the entire ecosystem, these findings are a crucial wake-up call. A robust and efficient P2P layer is the bedrock of any decentralized service. By implementing these proposed fixes, the community can move toward a more organized, secure, and truly global network that works for everyone.