Governance is not a product. Tokens like $ARB and $OP derive value from protocol control, but this creates a misalignment where the sequencer's profit (MEV, fees) is separate from the token's value capture.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Why ZK-Rollup Tokens Need Intrinsic Utility Beyond Governance
An analysis of why governance alone fails to create sustainable value for ZK-rollup tokens, using examples from Starknet, zkSync, and Arbitrum to argue for fee capture and staking mechanisms.
introduction
THE GOVERNANCE TRAP
Introduction
ZK-rollup tokens that rely solely on governance are structurally weak and vulnerable to disintermediation.
The fee switch is a trap. Activating a fee switch to share sequencer revenue with token holders introduces a tax, creating an immediate arbitrage opportunity for competing rollups like Starknet or zkSync that can offer lower fees.
Intrinsic utility is non-negotiable. A token must be a required input for the core protocol function, like paying for gas or securing data availability, as seen with $ETH on Ethereum or $TIA in Celestia's data availability market.
Evidence: The TVL-to-Market Cap ratio for major governance tokens is collapsing, with $ARB at ~0.05x, signaling the market discounts pure governance claims without embedded utility.
key-trends
THE GOVERNANCE TRAP
Executive Summary
ZK-Rollup tokens are failing to capture value because governance alone is insufficient for long-term security and sustainability.
01
The Problem: Fee Extraction is Impossible
The dominant L2 business model of taking a cut of transaction fees is structurally broken. Sequencers are permissioned and centralized, making a native token fee-share impossible without a decentralized sequencer set. This leaves tokens as pure governance vouchers with no cash flow.
- Result: Tokens trade on speculation, not fundamentals.
- Example: Arbitrum's ARB and Optimism's OP have $0 in protocol revenue accruing to token holders.
$0
Fee Accrual
100%
Speculative Value
02
The Solution: Intrinsic Security via Proof Submission
Force the token to be the only asset accepted for paying ZK proof verification costs on the L1. This creates mandatory, inelastic demand tied directly to chain usage.
- Mechanism: Validators/provers must bond/stake the native token to submit proofs.
- Analogy: Like ETH for gas, but for L1 settlement. zkSync and Starknet are exploring this model.
- Outcome: Token demand scales with transaction volume, not sentiment.
1:1
Usage Link
Inelastic
Demand Driver
03
The Precedent: Ethereum's Security Budget Crisis
Ethereum itself faces a declining security budget as fees burn post-EIP-1559. A rollup token with no utility exacerbates this for its own system, creating a double-layer security vacuum.
- Lesson: Value must be captured at the layer where security is needed.
- Requirement: A rollup's native token must fund its own data availability and proof verification costs on Ethereum.
- Failure Case: A governance-only token offers no protection against economic attacks on the bridge.
-90%
Issuance Decline
Critical
Security Risk
04
The Blueprint: Polygon zkEVM's Hybrid Model
Polygon zkEVM uses MATIC (now POL) for both governance and as the staking asset for its decentralized sequencer set, validium data availability committees, and proof submission. This creates a unified security model.
- Key Insight: A single token secures multiple layers of the stack.
- Advantage: Aligns incentives for sequencers, provers, and governors.
- Contrast: Fragmented models (e.g., separate prover tokens) dilute security and liquidity.
Multi-Role
Token Utility
Unified
Security Stack
05
The Threat: Alt-DA and Sovereign Rollups
The rise of EigenDA, Celestia, and sovereign rollups (e.g., Fuel) decouples security from Ethereum. If a ZK-rollup's token doesn't pay for its own DA and proof settlement, it becomes a pure appchain with no economic moat.
- Risk: Commoditization of execution layers.
- Imperative: The native token must be the staking asset for the chosen DA layer and proof network.
- Outcome: Tokens without this utility will be outcompeted by those with embedded security costs.
$10B+
DA Market
Existential
Competition
06
The Verdict: Utility or Obsolescence
The next generation of ZK-rollups (zkSync, Starknet, Scroll, Linea) must bake economic utility into their token's core mechanics. Governance is a feature, not a product.
- Mandatory Functions: Proof payment, sequencer/staker bonding, DA payment.
- Market Shift: Investors will discount pure governance tokens as high-risk liabilities.
- Prediction: The $50B+ L2 market will bifurcate into utility-rich tokens and worthless governance ghosts.
Utility-Rich
Winners
Governance-Only
Ghosts
thesis-statement
THE UTILITY IMPERATIVE
The Core Thesis: Governance is a Feature, Not a Product
ZK-rollup tokens require intrinsic economic utility to capture value and avoid governance-only obsolescence.
Governance-only tokens are worthless. They create a principal-agent problem where tokenholders vote on protocol changes but derive no direct economic benefit from its success, a flaw seen in early DAOs like MakerDAO's MKR before fee mechanisms.
Intrinsic utility drives demand. A token must be a required input for the core service, like paying for ZK-proof verification or securing data availability via EigenDA or Celestia. This creates a non-speculative demand sink.
Fee capture is non-negotiable. Protocols like Arbitrum redirect sequencer fees to token stakers. Without this, value accrues to Ethereum validators and Lido stETH holders, not the rollup's own stakeholders.
Evidence: The total value locked in governance-only DAOs stagnates, while systems with fee-sharing or staking, like dYdX's v4, demonstrate sustainable economic models that align incentives directly with network usage.
ZK-ROLLUP TOKEN DESIGN
The Governance-Utility Spectrum: A Comparative Snapshot
A comparison of token utility models for leading ZK-Rollups, highlighting the economic and security trade-offs of relying solely on governance rights.
| Core Utility Feature | Governance-Only Model | Hybrid Utility Model | Full Economic Utility Model |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Use Case | Voting on protocol upgrades | Voting + Fee Payment Discounts | Voting + Fee Payment + Sequencer/Prover Staking |
Direct Revenue Capture | Partial (via fee discounts) | ||
Sequencer Decentralization Lever | |||
Prover Decentralization Lever | |||
Tx Fee Discount Capability | |||
Base Layer Security Subsidy | None | None | Burns / Treasury from sequencer fees |
Example Protocol | Arbitrum (ARB) | zkSync Era (ZK) | Starknet (STRK), Polygon zkEVM (POL) |
Key Economic Risk | Pure speculation; governance apathy | Utility limited to power users | Complex tokenomics requiring sustained network activity |
deep-dive
THE VALUE DRAIN
The Mechanics of Value Leakage in Governance-Only Models
Governance-only tokens create a structural sell pressure that bleeds value from the rollup ecosystem to external validators and DeFi pools.
Governance is a pure cost center. Token holders pay for governance participation with no direct revenue stream, creating a structural sell pressure to fund operations. This pressure is amplified by the lack of intrinsic utility, forcing token value to be extracted from speculative demand alone.
Value leaks to external validators. Sequencers and provers (e.g., EigenLayer operators, Espresso Systems) capture the rollup's real economic value through transaction ordering and proof generation fees. The governance token becomes a coupon for subsidizing these external services rather than capturing their profit.
Liquidity migrates to productive assets. Capital flows to tokens with fee accrual or staked security models. Protocols like Lido and Aave demonstrate that sustainable value requires a direct claim on cash flows or network security, not just voting rights.
Evidence: The Arbitrum DAO Treasury holds over $3B in non-ARB assets (mostly ETH and stablecoins). This reveals the core flaw: the ecosystem's primary value accrues to assets it transacts with, not its own governance instrument.
case-study
WHY GOVERNANCE IS NOT ENOUGH
Case Studies: The Starknet Saga and The zkSync Example
The stark divergence in market reception between Starknet's STRK and zkSync's ZK tokens reveals a fundamental truth: governance rights without intrinsic utility are a failed token model.
01
The Starknet Problem: Governance as a Sink
STRK launched with a primary utility of paying gas fees and governance. The market priced it as a pure governance token, leading to a ~75% price decline from ATH and persistent sell pressure from airdrop farmers.
- Key Flaw: Fee payment was optional, creating no buy-side demand.
- Key Lesson: A token must be a required input for a core, high-frequency network function.
-75%
From ATH
Optional
Fee Utility
02
The zkSync Solution: Sequencer Revenue Share
zkSync's ZK token is designed with a hard-coded, on-chain mechanism where sequencer revenue is shared with stakers. This creates a direct, perpetual yield engine.
- Key Mechanism: Stakers earn a portion of all transaction fees paid in ETH.
- Key Result: Creates intrinsic, fee-based demand for the token independent of speculative governance votes.
ETH
Revenue Asset
On-Chain
Enforcement
03
The Universal Pattern: Fee Capture & Staking
Successful L1s (Ethereum) and L2s must align token value with network security and usage. This requires a staking-for-security model with fee capture.
- Arbitrum Example: ARB staking for sequencer approval, though its fee share model is still pending.
- First-Principle: A token is a claim on future cash flows. Without it, you're selling digital governance paperwork.
Security
Primary Use
Cash Flow
Token Value
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Counterpoint: Is Protocol-Enforced Utility Centralizing?
Mandating token use for core functions creates a centralizing force that contradicts the decentralization goals of ZK-rollups.
Protocol-enforced utility centralizes power. Forcing a token for gas or sequencing creates a single, privileged asset, concentrating economic and governance influence. This model mirrors the centralization critiques of platforms like Solana, where the native token dominates the stack.
Intrinsic utility must be emergent. Real value accrual, like Uniswap's fee switch or EigenLayer's restaking, emerges from network effects, not mandates. Tokens like ARB and STRK that lack this face constant sell pressure from airdrop farmers.
The sequencer is the choke point. A token-gated sequencer, as seen in early Optimism models, creates a permissioned validator set. This contradicts the ZK-rollup's trustless security promise, which derives from Ethereum, not a new token.
Evidence: dYdX's migration from StarkEx to a Cosmos appchain was driven by the need for a dedicated, fee-extractable sequencer, demonstrating the inherent centralization of a token-enforced execution layer.
takeaways
BEYOND VOTE-TO-EARN
The Builder's Checklist: Designing for Intrinsic Value
Governance alone creates a death spiral of mercenary capital. Here's how to anchor your token's value to the protocol's core economic engine.
01
The Problem: Governance is a Siren Song
Governance tokens are a liability, not an asset. They attract mercenary voters who extract value via inflationary emissions, creating a negative-sum game for long-term holders.
- Fee extraction: Voters approve high emissions to farm their own bags, diluting everyone else.
- Security theater: Low voter turnout and whale dominance make governance a centralized facade.
- Zero intrinsic demand: No one needs the token to use the chain, leading to pure speculation.
<10%
Avg. Voter Turnout
Inflationary
Value Accrual
02
The Solution: Enforce Token as the Economic Backbone
Mandate the token for a critical, in-protocol function that scales with usage. Follow the Ethereum (ETH) model: require it for the core service.
- Sequencer / Prover Payment: Force sequencers to post bonds and earn fees in the native token, creating a direct fee sink.
- Data Availability Payment: If using a custom DA layer, require payment in the token, linking security costs to usage.
- Verifiable Burn: Implement a burn mechanism tied to transaction fees or L1 settlement costs, creating deflationary pressure.
100%
Fee Capture
Deflationary
Net Supply
03
The Arbiter Example: Fee Token & Staking Slash
Arbitrum's ARB is the canonical governance-only failure. Contrast with Starknet's STRK, mandated for fee payment. The design choice dictates the economic flywheel.
- Arbitrum (ARB): Pure governance. Value relies on speculative airdrop farming and future promises.
- Starknet (STRK): Fee token. Demand scales with L2 activity; validators must stake it, creating a real security cost.
- zkSync Era (ZK): TBD, but must choose between being the next ARB or building a real economy.
$1.8B
ARB FDV (Speculative)
Usage-Backed
STRK Model
04
The Validator's Dilemma: Skin in the Game
If validators/sequencers don't risk the native token, they have no incentive to keep the chain secure and performant. This leads to downtime and exploits.
- Require Bonding: Force sequencers to post a substantial bond in the native token that can be slashed for liveness faults.
- Align Incentives: Sequencer profits (from MEV and fees) must be denominated in the token they have bonded, tying their success to the token's health.
- Avoid USDC Bonds: Using a stablecoin for bonding decouples security from the token's value, recreating the governance problem.
Slashable
Validator Bond
Aligned
Incentives
05
The Liquidity Trap: Avoiding DEX Pair Hell
A token whose primary utility is being traded on a DEX is a ponzi. Intrinsic utility creates organic buy pressure that isn't reliant on the next greater fool.
- Transaction Fee Payment: Every user action creates natural, non-speculative demand for the token.
- Staking for Services: Allow users to stake to access premium features (e.g., lower fees, priority transactions).
- Burn-on-Settle: Automatically burn a portion of fees used to pay L1 data costs, creating a deflationary loop tied to chain usage.
Organic
Demand Driver
Ponzi
Alternative
06
The Endgame: Protocol-Owned Liquidity
Use protocol revenue (from fees, MEV) to build a treasury denominated in the native token and other assets. This creates a perpetual buyback engine and stabilizes the token economy.
- Treasury Diversification: Convert a portion of fee revenue into ETH or stablecoins to fund grants and operations without selling the native token.
- Strategic Buybacks: Use treasury assets to buy back and burn the native token during low-activity periods, supporting the price floor.
- Avoid Selling Pressure: Do NOT fund the treasury solely by emitting and selling the native token; this is inflationary and destructive.
Self-Funding
Treasury
Price Support
Buyback Power
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall