The Future of Value Capture in the ZK-Rollup Stack

Centralized sequencing is the current default, but its value capture is fragile. The real moat is proposer-builder separation (PBS) and MEV redistribution. Future sequencers will be commoditized execution layers.

• Key Benefit: Unbundling allows for specialized, competitive block building.
• Key Benefit: Enables credible neutrality and fair value distribution back to users/protocols.

ZK-proof generation is the core computational work. This market will evolve like cloud computing: a low-margin, scale-driven business dominated by specialized hardware (ASICs, GPUs). The value accrues to the proving marketplace, not the rollup.

• Key Benefit: Drives down transaction costs through hyper-competition.
• Key Benefit: Enables universal settlement layers (e.g., Ethereum) to verify all chains.

Maximal value capture shifts to the application layer. Sovereign rollups (like dYdX, Lyra) own their stack and monetize their own block space. The winning interoperability layer (Polygon AggLayer, Avail, Espresso) that securely connects them captures the network effect tax.

• Key Benefit: Apps control their economic destiny and user experience.
• Key Benefit: Interop layers become the Visa network for modular chains.

All rollups are Data Availability (DA) consumers. The market will bifurcate: secure DA (Ethereum) for high-value chains, and cost-effective DA (Celestia, EigenDA, Avail) for volume. DA is a recurring, inelastic fee—the toll booth of the modular highway.

• Key Benefit: Ethereum DA provides maximal security and consensus.
• Key Benefit: External DA can reduce costs by >95%, enabling new use cases.

Security is not a service you "share"—it's a property you inherit from a stronger ledger (Ethereum). The real value is native, cross-rollup liquidity without bridges. Solutions like ZK-based native bridges and universal state proofs will unlock composable capital as the primary moat.

• Key Benefit: Eliminates bridge risk, the #1 exploit vector.
• Key Benefit: Creates a unified financial layer across the stack.

The stack will consolidate into a few dominant ZK-rollup frameworks (zkSync Hyperchains, Starknet Appchains, Polygon CDK). Value capture shifts upstream to the framework provider who sets standards, takes a fee, and controls the developer ecosystem. Rollups become a feature, not a company.

• Key Benefit: Dramatically reduced time-to-chain for developers.
• Key Benefit: Framework fees create a scalable, protocol-level revenue model.

General-purpose ZK-rollups compete on thin margins, with value accruing to the underlying L1 (Ethereum) for data and settlement. The sequencer, the sole profit center, is a centralized point of failure and capture.

• Revenue Leakage: ~80% of user fees go to L1 data costs.
• Centralization Risk: Single sequencer models dominate, creating MEV and censorship risks.
• Low Differentiation: Throughput and cost converge, turning rollups into interchangeable commodities.

Decentralized sequencing layers abstract block production, allowing rollups to share security, liquidity, and cross-chain atomic composability. This creates a new inter-rollup market for block space.

• New Revenue Stream: Sequencers earn fees from multiple rollups, not just one.
• Atomic Composability: Enables native cross-rollup DeFi without bridges, challenging LayerZero and Axelar.
• MEV Redistribution: Democratizes MEV capture, moving value from validators to dApps and users.

Decoupling the proof generation layer from the rollup client creates a competitive marketplace for proving power. Rollups become clients, paying for proofs-as-a-service, while provers compete on cost and speed.

• Capital Efficiency: Rollups avoid massive capex on specialized proving hardware.
• Proof Aggregation: A single proof can batch multiple rollups, driving costs toward zero.
• Vertical Integration Risk: This model directly challenges integrated stacks like zkSync and StarkNet.

A multi-rollup future means users hold assets across dozens of chains. Native bridges are slow and insecure, while third-party bridges like Across and Stargate extract rent as toll booths, fracturing liquidity.

• Capital Inefficiency: Billions in TVL sit idle in bridge contracts.
• Security Holes: Bridges are the #1 attack vector, with >$2B stolen.
• Poor UX: Users manually bridge and wait for confirmations, killing composability.

Next-gen bridges transform locked capital into productive assets. They use intent-based architectures (pioneered by UniswapX and CowSwap) and delegated security models to offer instant, economically guaranteed settlements.

• Yield Generation: Bridge liquidity earns yield via DeFi strategies, subsidizing user fees.
• Intent-Based Routing: Solvers compete to fulfill cross-chain swaps, improving pricing.
• Unified Security: Leverages existing validator sets (e.g., EigenLayer) instead of new trust assumptions.

The winning stack won't sell infrastructure. It will sell a complete product: an app-chain with built-in shared sequencing, a prover marketplace, and a native bridge—all with a single fee token. Think dYdX Chain, but generalized.

• Vertical Value Capture: The stack captures fees from execution, sequencing, proving, and bridging.
• Developer Lock-in: Seamless experience creates powerful moats against best-of-breed competitors.
• The Real Customers: Are not developers, but users and liquidity providers who pay for a unified experience.

Centralized sequencers are the single point of failure and value extraction. Without credible decentralization, they become rent-seeking bottlenecks.

• MEV capture is the primary revenue stream, estimated at $100M+ annually for major rollups.
• Censorship risk increases as sequencers can front-run or block transactions.
• Network downtime is dictated by a single operator, undermining liveness guarantees.

ZK-proof generation is becoming a low-margin utility service. Value accrues to hardware operators, not protocol tokens.

• Proof marketplaces like RiscZero and =nil; Foundation drive costs toward ~$0.01 per proof.
• Rollup tokens fail to capture this infrastructure value, leading to fee abstraction.
• Vertical integration by sequencers (e.g., StarkWare, zkSync) locks out independent prover networks.

EigenDA, Celestia, and Avail compete with Ethereum for DA, fracturing security and composability.

• Security budget dilution: Moving data off Ethereum reduces its $50B+ staking security.
• Cross-rollup bridging becomes exponentially harder with multiple DA layers, increasing bridge hack risk.
• Sovereign rollups on Celestia create isolated ecosystems, undermining the unified liquidity of Ethereum L2s.

Projects like Astria, Espresso, and Radius aim to become the meta-layer for rollup sequencing, creating a new centralization point.

• Cross-rollup MEV becomes extractable by a single network, potentially exceeding $1B annually.
• Protocol capture: If successful, they dictate transaction ordering for hundreds of rollups.
• Economic abstraction separates transaction fees from the rollup's native token, further eroding its value.

Rollups built on Celestia or as EigenLayer AVS can fork away from their host chain, creating existential risk for investors and users.

• Token value detachment: A rollup's token has zero claim on the underlying DA or security layer's revenue.
• Sudden forking can orphan applications and liquidity, similar to a chain halt.
• This model favors application-specific chains over a cohesive L2 ecosystem, reducing network effects.

Cross-rollup messaging layers like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole become systemically critical. Their security models are opaque and often rely on ~20-50 node operators.

• Single point of failure: A compromise can drain $10B+ in bridged assets across all connected chains.
• Opaque governance: Token holders often have minimal control over validator sets or security upgrades.
• This recreates the oracle problem at the interoperability layer, the most lucrative attack vector.

Sequencing is becoming a low-margin, high-competition service. The real value is in the data and the execution environment, not just ordering transactions.

• MEV capture is the primary revenue stream, but is contested and volatile.
• Pure sequencing fees are being driven to near-zero by rollup-as-a-service providers like AltLayer and Caldera.
• Strategic risk: Being a 'dumb pipe' leaves you vulnerable to being forked or replaced.

The cryptographic proof is the ultimate trust anchor. Controlling the proving network creates a defensible, fee-generating moat.

• Recursive proof aggregation (e.g., zkSync's Boojum, Polygon zkEVM) enables scale and creates a natural monopoly for the most efficient prover.
• Proof marketplace models (like RiscZero's Bonsai) allow the rollup to tax all proof generation on its chain.
• Hardware advantage: ASIC/GPU-optimized provers (see Ulvetanna) can lock in long-term cost leadership.

Relying on a shared settlement layer (like Ethereum) for security creates a bottleneck and leaks value upstream. Your rollup's economic security is capped by another chain's capacity.

• High fixed costs: You pay Ethereum's base fee for all data and proofs, a cost passed to users.
• Sovereignty loss: Upgrade cycles and feature sets are constrained by the settlement layer's governance.
• Value leakage: The settlement layer captures the premium for ultimate security, not your rollup.

The endgame is sovereign rollups or validiums that outsource security, not sovereignty. This combines self-determination with robust crypto-economic guarantees.

• EigenLayer's restaking provides a marketplace for decentralized sequencer sets and attestation committees.
• Celestia's data availability separates DA from execution, reducing fixed costs by >90%.
• App-chains (via Polygon CDK, Arbitrum Orbit) let applications own their stack and capture 100% of their fees and MEV.

Rollups that treat bridges as a peripheral feature will become isolated islands of liquidity. Native, trust-minimized cross-rollup communication is a core primitive.

• Vulnerability surface: Third-party bridges (like LayerZero, Axelar) are massive attack vectors and extract rent.
• Poor UX: Multi-step, slow bridges kill composability and fragment user experience.
• Liquidity fragmentation: Capital is trapped in silos, reducing utility and fee generation for the rollup.

Build interoperability directly into the protocol using ZK proofs for state verification. Move towards intent-based architectures that abstract away chain boundaries.

• Native verification: Rollups like zkSync and Starknet can verify each other's state proofs, enabling ~1-minute trustless bridges.
• Intent-based flow: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap solve cross-chain swaps at the application layer, routing users optimally.
• Unified liquidity: Shared liquidity pools across rollups (conceptually like Chainlink CCIP) turn fragmentation into a network effect.