OP Stack, powering networks like Base and Optimism, excels at predictable, low-cost transactions by leveraging Optimistic Rollup architecture. This design defers expensive state validation, allowing for high throughput and minimal fees for users. For example, Base regularly processes over 10 TPS with average transaction fees under $0.01, making it ideal for high-frequency consumer dApps. Its shared sequencing model via the Superchain aims to create a unified liquidity and user experience layer.
LABS
Comparisons
Fee Market Design Philosophy: OP Stack vs ZK Stack
A technical comparison of the fee market models in OP Stack and ZK Stack, analyzing the trade-offs between Ethereum-like simplicity and prover-aware complexity for rollup builders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Trade-Off in Rollup Economics
The fundamental choice between OP Stack and ZK Stack hinges on the balance between immediate cost efficiency and long-term security guarantees.
ZK Stack, the framework behind zkSync Era and Linea, takes a different approach by using Zero-Knowledge Proofs for each batch. This results in cryptographically secure, near-instant finality on Ethereum L1, but requires significant prover computation. The trade-off is a currently higher operational cost and proving latency, though advancements in hardware (like GPUs for STARKs) are rapidly closing this gap. This architecture is inherently trust-minimized from the start.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing user transaction costs and maximizing developer ecosystem compatibility today, choose the OP Stack. If you prioritize maximizing security, inheriting Ethereum's trust assumptions directly, and preparing for a multi-chain future with native interoperability, the ZK Stack's proof-based design is the strategic choice. The decision often boils down to optimizing for present-day UX versus building on the definitive long-term technical primitive.
tldr-summary
Fee Market Design Philosophy
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the economic models underpinning OP Stack's Optimism and ZK Stack's zkSync Era. The core trade-off is between predictable, simple costs and dynamic, protocol-captured value.
01
OP Stack: Predictable & Simple
Fixed overhead cost model: L2 batches pay a base cost to post data to Ethereum L1. This creates a stable, predictable fee environment for end-users and developers.
Matters for: Protocols requiring stable operating cost forecasts and applications where user experience depends on fee consistency.
02
OP Stack: Sequencer Profit as MEV
Sequencer retains all priority fees: The single sequencer (currently operated by the OP Labs team) collects transaction priority fees and any MEV (Miner Extractable Value) as profit. This revenue funds development but centralizes value capture.
Matters for: Teams evaluating the long-term decentralization roadmap and the economic incentives for future permissionless sequencer sets.
03
ZK Stack: Dynamic & Complex
Cost = L1 Data + Prover Fees: User fees cover both Ethereum calldata costs and the computational cost of generating validity proofs. This adds complexity but enables unique value flows.
Matters for: High-throughput applications where proof efficiency gains can outweigh fee complexity, and where verifier decentralization is a priority.
04
ZK Stack: Protocol-Captured Value
Prover fees fund ecosystem: A portion of transaction fees is directed to a decentralized network of proof providers (provers). This creates a sustainable, decentralized economic layer for the core infrastructure.
Matters for: Builders and token holders seeking aligned, long-term incentives and a credibly neutral infrastructure not reliant on a single entity's profit.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Fee Market Feature Comparison: OP Stack vs ZK Stack
Direct comparison of fee market design, cost structure, and user experience.
| Metric / Feature | OP Stack | ZK Stack |
|---|---|---|
Base Fee Auction Model | EIP-1559 (First-Price Auction) | Priority Fee + Proof Batching |
Primary Cost Driver | L1 Data Availability (Calldata) | ZK Proof Generation & Verification |
Fee Predictability | Moderate (L1 gas volatility) | High (sequencer-managed, stable L2 fee) |
MEV Resistance | Low (Centralized Sequencer) | High (ZK-Rollup cryptography) |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Fee Subsidy Models | EIP-4337 Bundlers | Paymasters & Session Keys |
Cross-Chain Fee Payment | Bridging Required | Native (via Hyperchains) |
pros-cons-a
Fee Market Design Philosophy: OP Stack vs ZK Stack
OP Stack Fee Market: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating L2 infrastructure.
01
OP Stack: Predictable, Simple Economics
Fixed overhead cost model: L2 transaction fees are primarily the cost to post data to Ethereum L1, plus a small sequencer profit margin. This creates a highly predictable and stable fee environment for end-users and dApps. This matters for consumer-facing applications like gaming or social platforms where user experience depends on consistent, low-cost transactions.
02
OP Stack: Protocol Revenue & MEV Management
Sequencer fee capture and MEV redistribution: The OP Stack's centralized sequencer (currently Optimism Foundation) captures all base fees and can implement MEV strategies. Revenue is funneled back to the ecosystem via Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF). This matters for protocols and DAOs seeking a sustainable, community-aligned economic model, as seen with Optimism's $40M+ in quarterly sequencer revenue.
03
ZK Stack: Dynamic, User-Pays-Computation
Prover cost-driven pricing: Fees are directly tied to the computational cost of generating a ZK-SNARK proof, which varies by transaction complexity. This creates a more granular and variable fee market. This matters for high-throughput, complex transaction applications like DeFi aggregators or privacy-focused dApps, where users pay for the specific proving work their action requires.
04
ZK Stack: Decentralized Sequencer Future & MEV Resistance
Architected for permissionless proving and sequencing: The ZK Stack's design inherently supports multiple provers and a path to decentralized sequencers via ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service (RaaS). Its cryptographic nature also provides stronger inherent resistance to certain MEV extraction techniques. This matters for institutions and builders prioritizing censorship resistance, maximal decentralization, and long-term alignment with Ethereum's values.
pros-cons-b
FEE MARKET DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
ZK Stack Fee Market: Pros and Cons
A tactical breakdown of the core trade-offs between OP Stack's EIP-4844 Blobs and ZK Stack's Unified L2 State models for sequencer revenue and user costs.
01
OP Stack: Predictable, Shared Cost Base
Leverages Ethereum as a data availability (DA) clearinghouse: All L2s (Optimism, Base, Mode) share the same blob fee market via EIP-4844. This creates cost predictability and benefits from Ethereum's massive validator security (900k+ ETH staked). Ideal for high-throughput, general-purpose chains where interoperability via the Superchain is a priority.
02
OP Stack: Limited Sequencer Profit Model
Sequencer revenue is primarily MEV and base fee surplus. With blob costs passed directly to users and a likely decentralized sequencer set sharing profits, margins are thin. This design prioritizes low and stable user fees over sequencer profitability. Best for ecosystems focused on mass adoption over maximizing validator/sequencer yield.
03
ZK Stack (zkSync): Unified State, Captive Economics
Bundles proofs for all L2s into a single Ethereum transaction. This aggregates and amortizes L1 settlement costs across the entire ZK Stack ecosystem (zkSync Era, Lite, etc.). Enables hyper-efficient cross-rollup interoperability and allows the sequencer to capture value from the entire network's activity, not just one chain.
04
ZK Stack: Complex Sequencer Incentive Engineering
Requires careful tokenomics (ZK token) to align sequencers, provers, and validators. The system's efficiency depends on high activity across all connected L2s to amortize proof costs. Risk of higher volatility in user fees during low-activity periods on a single chain. Suited for closely integrated app-chains willing to bet on shared network effects.
FEE MARKET DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
Technical Deep Dive: How Each Model Works
Understanding the core architectural choices behind OP Stack's and ZK Stack's transaction pricing and block building reveals their distinct priorities for builders and users.
OP Stack offers a simpler, more predictable fee model for end-users. It inherits Ethereum's EIP-1559 mechanism, where users pay a base fee plus a priority tip. ZK Stack introduces complexity with two separate fees: one for L2 execution and a mandatory, variable cost for generating the ZK validity proof, which can fluctuate with proof market conditions.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?
OP Stack for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic, battle-tested choice for established protocols. Strengths:
- Predictable Costs: First-price auction model is simple to forecast for users and integrators like Uniswap and Aave.
- Proven Scale: Base and Optimism mainnet demonstrate high TVL resilience (>$1.5B) and handle DeFi's bursty traffic.
- EVM-Equivalence: Simplifies deployment of complex smart contracts from Ethereum mainnet. Considerations: MEV extraction is more pronounced, requiring integration with services like Flashbots SUAVE.
ZK Stack for DeFi
Verdict: The high-security frontier for trust-minimized finance. Strengths:
- Censorship Resistance: Leaderless/proposer sequencing (e.g., zkSync Era) reduces centralization risks for assets.
- Atomic Finality: Near-instant L1 confirmation (minutes vs. hours) benefits cross-chain arbitrage and dYdX-style perpetuals.
- Native Account Abstraction: Lowers gas fees for users via sponsored transactions, improving UX for wallets like Argent. Considerations: Proving costs add overhead; best for applications where security premium justifies cost.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict: Choosing Your Rollup's Economic Foundation
A direct comparison of the fee market philosophies underpinning OP Stack and ZK Stack, guiding your infrastructure choice.
OP Stack's fee market excels at predictability and simplicity because it inherits Ethereum's first-price auction model via EIP-1559. This provides a stable, familiar environment for users and developers. For example, Base, the leading OP Stack chain, has maintained sub-cent average transaction fees for standard transfers, demonstrating the model's efficiency at scale. This design prioritizes a smooth user experience and straightforward integration for protocols migrating from Ethereum L1.
ZK Stack takes a different approach by enabling sovereign, customizable fee markets. Chains built with ZK Stack, like zkSync Era, can implement their own fee logic, including potential EIP-4844 blob fee sharing or MEV redistribution models. This results in a trade-off of complexity for flexibility; teams gain powerful economic levers but must design and secure a custom fee mechanism, adding to initial development overhead and long-term governance responsibility.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment with a battle-tested, low-maintenance economic model that users intuitively understand, choose OP Stack. Its design is optimized for mainstream adoption. If you prioritize maximum economic sovereignty and the ability to innovate on tokenomics or capture value from novel fee structures, choose ZK Stack. This path is for teams willing to invest in designing a custom economic engine from the ground up.
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