Shared Sequencer vs. Dedicated Sequencer for AVS

Massive capital efficiency: Avoids the multi-billion dollar security cost of bootstrapping a new validator set (e.g., Celestia's $2B+ market cap). Projects like Dymension's RollApps leverage this model. Enables native cross-rollup composability via shared ordering, allowing atomic transactions across chains using Espresso's HotShot or Astria's shared sequencer set without complex bridging.

Introduces a liveness dependency on an external network. If Espresso or Astria halts, your rollup stops. Potential for higher latency in finality during peak load, as you compete for block space with other rollups (e.g., shared sequencer queue). Less control over MEV capture and transaction ordering strategies compared to running your own sequencer.

Maximum control and predictability: You own the sequencer stack (e.g., using OP Stack, Arbitrum Nitro, or Polygon CDK with your own validator set). This allows for custom fee markets, priority transaction ordering, and full MEV revenue capture. Guaranteed low-latency finality as you are not sharing block production resources with other chains.

High security and operational overhead: Requires bootstrapping and incentivizing a decentralized validator set, a capital-intensive process akin to launching a new L1. Leads to liquidity and user fragmentation: Users need separate bridges and liquidity pools for each dedicated chain, unlike the unified experience promised by shared sequencer ecosystems like the Astria Assembler.

Specific advantage: Leverage existing infrastructure like Espresso, Astria, or Radius. This eliminates the capital expenditure and engineering months required to build, secure, and maintain a sequencer network. This matters for early-stage protocols or rollups needing to launch quickly with a proven, decentralized ordering layer without upfront devops overhead.

Specific advantage: Native atomic composability across all rollups using the same shared sequencer set (e.g., transactions spanning an Arbitrum Orbit and a Polygon CDK chain). This matters for DeFi protocols and applications that require synchronous execution across multiple chains, enabling complex cross-rollup arbitrage, lending positions, and NFT marketplaces without fragmented liquidity.

Specific advantage: Full control over the mempool, transaction ordering logic (e.g., MEV strategies), and upgrade schedule. This matters for high-frequency trading DApps, gaming rollups needing deterministic latency, or enterprise chains with specific compliance requirements who cannot rely on a third-party sequencer's roadmap or governance.

Specific advantage: Retain 100% of sequencer fees and potential MEV revenue, rather than sharing with a network or paying fees to a shared sequencer service. For a rollup with high transaction volume (e.g., >50 TPS sustained), this can translate to millions in annualized revenue, directly subsidizing chain security and protocol treasury.

Specific advantage: Inherit the economic security and liveness guarantees of an established, staked network like Espresso (using EigenLayer) or a validator set like Astria. This matters for sovereign rollups and AVS that prioritize censorship resistance and high uptime from day one, avoiding the "validator bootstrap problem" of a new, small sequencer set.

Specific advantage: Guaranteed throughput and latency unaffected by congestion or failures on unrelated chains. This matters for mission-critical applications in payments or real-time gaming where performance SLAs (e.g., <100ms finality) are non-negotiable and cannot risk being impacted by a surge in activity on a shared sequencer's other customers.