Layer 2 Scaling SDKs (e.g., Polygon CDK, Arbitrum Orbit) excel at minimizing transaction costs while inheriting Ethereum's security. By processing transactions off-chain and settling proofs on Ethereum, they reduce fees to fractions of a cent. For example, Polygon zkEVM can process over 2,000 TPS with fees under $0.01, making it ideal for micro-transactions in gaming or social apps. Integration via SDKs like @polygon/client-sdk provides a familiar EVM environment with access to a mature ecosystem of tools like The Graph and OpenZeppelin.
LABS
Comparisons
Layer 2 Scaling SDK (e.g., Polygon, Arbitrum) vs Layer 1 API for Faster Payments
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects on integrating high-volume payment systems. Analyzes the trade-offs between native L2 development and abstracted L1 APIs for cost, speed, and complexity.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The High-Volume Payment Integration Dilemma
Choosing between a Layer 2 SDK and a high-performance Layer 1 API is a foundational decision that defines your payment stack's cost, speed, and complexity.
High-Throughput Layer 1 APIs (e.g., Solana RPC, Sui, Aptos) take a different approach by architecting for native speed and parallel execution. This results in sub-second finality and massive throughput—Solana's theoretical peak is 65,000 TPS. The trade-off is operating within a newer, more monolithic ecosystem with different development paradigms (e.g., Solana's Rust/Sealevel, Sui's Move). Direct API access offers raw performance but requires deeper protocol-specific integration compared to EVM-compatible L2s.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing cost and leveraging Ethereum's security and tooling for payments, choose a Layer 2 SDK. If you prioritize ultra-low latency finality and maximum throughput and can adopt a non-EVM stack, choose a high-performance Layer 1 API. Your decision hinges on whether ecosystem compatibility or raw performance is the primary constraint for your payment volume.
tldr-summary
Layer 2 SDK vs. Layer 1 API
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for building high-throughput payment applications.
01
L2 SDK (Polygon, Arbitrum) - Pros
Radically lower costs: Sub-cent transaction fees vs. Ethereum L1's $1-10+. This matters for microtransactions and high-frequency payments. High throughput: 2,000-7,000+ TPS vs. Ethereum's ~15. This matters for scaling to millions of users. EVM compatibility: Seamless deployment of Solidity smart contracts (Uniswap, Aave). This matters for leveraging existing tooling and developer talent.
02
L2 SDK (Polygon, Arbitrum) - Cons
Sequencer dependency: Relies on a centralized sequencer for fast confirmations, introducing a liveness assumption. This matters for absolute censorship resistance. Withdrawal delays: Moving assets to L1 (Ethereum) requires a 7-day challenge period (Optimistic Rollups) or proof generation time (ZK-Rollups). This matters for instant liquidity bridging. Fragmented liquidity: TVL is split across chains (Arbitrum: $2.5B, Polygon: $1B). This matters for deep, single-pool liquidity.
03
L1 API (Solana, Sui) - Pros
Settlement finality: ~400ms on Solana vs. L2's multi-step finality. This matters for instant, irreversible payment confirmation. Unified liquidity & state: All assets and apps exist in a single global state (Solana: $4B+ TVL). This matters for complex DeFi composability. No bridge risk: No smart contract bridges required for native asset transfers. This matters for eliminating a major hack vector (>$2.5B stolen from bridges).
04
L1 API (Solana, Sui) - Cons
Throughput variability: Solana can experience congestion and fee spikes during mempool floods. This matters for predictable performance SLAs. Ecosystem maturity: Smaller DeFi ecosystem (Solana TVL ~1/10th of Ethereum+ L2s). This matters for accessing mature lending/derivatives protocols. Architectural lock-in: Requires learning new languages (Rust, Move) and VM paradigms. This matters for team ramp-up time and hiring.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Layer 2 SDK vs. Layer 1 API: Head-to-Head Comparison
Direct comparison of key performance, cost, and ecosystem metrics for scaling payment applications.
| Metric | Layer 2 SDK (e.g., Polygon CDK, Arbitrum Orbit) | Layer 1 API (e.g., Solana, Sei) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Transaction Cost | $0.01 - $0.10 | < $0.001 |
Peak TPS (Sustained) | 1,000 - 4,000 | 10,000 - 65,000 |
Time to Finality | ~12 sec - 1 min | ~400ms - 2 sec |
EVM Compatibility | ||
Sovereign Control | ||
Mainnet Launch | 2020-2023 | 2020-2024 |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $5B+ | $4B+ |
pros-cons-a
Layer 2 SDK vs. Layer 1 API
Pros and Cons: Layer 2 Scaling SDK (Polygon, Arbitrum)
Key strengths and trade-offs for building high-throughput payment applications at a glance.
01
Layer 2 SDK: Cost Efficiency
Radically lower transaction fees: Sub-cent costs on Polygon PoS and Arbitrum Nova vs. $1-$50+ on Ethereum mainnet. This matters for micropayments, high-frequency transfers, and user onboarding where gas fees are a primary barrier.
02
Layer 2 SDK: Transaction Speed
Near-instant finality: 2-5 second block times on Polygon PoS and optimistic confirmation on Arbitrum, versus ~12 seconds on Ethereum L1. This matters for point-of-sale, gaming, and real-time settlement where user experience is critical.
03
Layer 2 SDK: Developer Complexity
Added infrastructure overhead: Requires managing bridge contracts, sequencer dependencies, and potential fraud/escape hatches for Optimistic Rollups. This matters for teams with limited DevOps resources or those requiring maximum simplicity.
04
Layer 2 SDK: Security Model
Inherited but delayed security: Rely on Ethereum for finality (7-day challenge period for Arbitrum, checkpointing for Polygon). This matters for high-value institutional transfers where immediate, unconditional finality is non-negotiable.
05
Layer 1 API: Maximum Security & Finality
Unconditional Ethereum-level security: Settles directly on the base layer with ~12-minute finality. This matters for bridging hubs, large NFT mints, and protocol treasuries where the value at risk justifies the cost.
06
Layer 1 API: Simpler Architecture
No cross-chain complexity: Interact directly with Ethereum's state using providers like Alchemy or Infura. This matters for prototyping, audits, and applications where minimizing moving parts and trust assumptions is a priority.
pros-cons-b
Layer 2 SDK vs. Layer 1 API
Pros and Cons: Layer 1 with Scaling API
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for high-throughput payment applications.
01
Layer 2 SDK (Polygon, Arbitrum) - Pros
Radically lower transaction costs: Sub-cent fees vs. Ethereum's $1-10+. This matters for microtransactions and high-frequency payments. Inherited security: Finality secured by Ethereum's ~$500B+ consensus, providing strong settlement guarantees. Rich ecosystem: Access to mature tooling like The Graph, Alchemy, and a vast pool of Solidity developers.
02
Layer 2 SDK (Polygon, Arbitrum) - Cons
Bridge complexity & risk: Users must bridge assets, introducing latency and smart contract risk (e.g., Nomad hack). Sequencer centralization: Most L2s use a single sequencer, creating a potential single point of failure for transaction ordering and censorship resistance. Protocol dependency: Your stack's performance is tied to the L2's roadmap and potential congestion (e.g., Arbitrum Nova sequencer delays).
03
Layer 1 API (Solana, Sui) - Pros
Native speed & finality: Sub-second finality and 2k-10k+ TPS at the base layer. This matters for real-time settlement (e.g., point-of-sale, gaming). Unified liquidity & state: No bridging needed; assets and data exist natively, simplifying user experience and composability. Deterministic cost structure: Fees are predictable and not subject to L1 gas auction volatility.
04
Layer 1 API (Solana, Sui) - Cons
Younger security model: Battle-tested for fewer years than Ethereum, with different trust assumptions (e.g., Solana's Tower BFT). Ecosystem maturity: Fewer audited DeFi primitives and developer tools compared to the EVM landscape. Throughput volatility: Under extreme load, networks like Solana have experienced partial outages, requiring validator coordination to restart.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Path
Layer 2 SDK (Polygon CDK, Arbitrum Orbit) for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for launching a dedicated, high-performance DeFi chain. Strengths: Full control over sequencer revenue, MEV capture, and governance. Enables custom gas tokens and fee structures. Native integration with the security of Ethereum (via rollups) and deep liquidity from the parent L2 (e.g., Arbitrum One). Ideal for protocols like Aave, Uniswap V3, or GMX that need predictable, ultra-low fees and a tailored environment. Trade-offs: Requires significant operational overhead to run validators/sequencers and bootstrap initial liquidity. Time-to-market is slower than using a shared L2 API.
Layer 1 API (Solana, Sui, Aptos) for DeFi
Verdict: Optimal for applications demanding sub-second finality and maximal composability within a single state machine. Strengths: Native, parallel execution (Sealevel, Block-STM) enables massive throughput for complex, interdependent transactions. Superior user experience with near-instant settlement. Strong for high-frequency DEXs (e.g., Orca, Raydium) and perpetual futures protocols. Trade-offs: Less direct control over chain economics. Reliant on the base layer's performance and security, which can vary (e.g., Solana's historical downtime).
LAYER 2 SDK VS L1 API
Technical Deep Dive: Security and Finality Models
Choosing between a Layer 2 SDK and a direct Layer 1 API involves fundamental trade-offs in security assumptions, finality speed, and cost. This section breaks down the key technical differentiators for payment-focused applications.
Layer 2 SDKs like Arbitrum Orbit or Polygon CDK offer significantly faster finality for users. They provide near-instant 'soft' confirmation (1-2 seconds) within the L2 environment, suitable for most payment interactions. However, full economic finality (when funds are securely withdrawable to L1) can take minutes to an hour, depending on the chosen L1 settlement layer (e.g., Ethereum, Celestia). Direct L1 API interactions on chains like Solana or Sui offer sub-second finality with no withdrawal delay, but at higher base-layer costs.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on choosing between a Layer 2 SDK and a Layer 1 API for high-throughput payment applications.
Layer 2 SDKs (Polygon CDK, Arbitrum Orbit) excel at achieving high throughput and ultra-low, predictable transaction fees by leveraging Ethereum's security for settlement. For example, an Arbitrum Nova-based application can process over 40,000 TPS with fees often below $0.01, a critical metric for micropayments or high-frequency transactions. This architecture provides a dedicated environment where your application's performance is insulated from mainnet congestion, offering a user experience comparable to Web2.
A direct Layer 1 API (e.g., Solana RPC, Sui, Aptos) takes a different approach by building scalability and speed into the base protocol itself. This results in a trade-off: you gain native, homogeneous speed—Solana consistently processes 2,000-3,000 TPS with sub-second finality—without the complexity of managing cross-chain bridges or a separate data availability layer, but you accept the security and decentralization model of that specific chain rather than inheriting Ethereum's established trust network.
The key architectural choice hinges on ecosystem alignment versus raw performance sovereignty. An L2 SDK is optimal if your priority is integration within the Ethereum ecosystem, leveraging its massive liquidity (over $50B TVL), tooling (Ethers.js, Hardhat), and user base while achieving scale. Choose a high-performance Layer 1 API if you prioritize maximum throughput and lowest latency as a first-order property, are building a novel application model (e.g., high-frequency on-chain gaming), and are willing to adopt a newer, more specialized toolchain.
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