OP Stack, through its primary implementation on Optimism, has established a mature, pragmatic model for MEV and fees. It utilizes a centralized but permissioned sequencer (currently operated by the Optimism Foundation) that captures MEV and distributes net sequencer fees back to the ecosystem via retroactive public goods funding (RPGF). This has resulted in over $40M in cumulative MEV revenue and significant, measurable funding for protocols like Velodrome and Synthetix through governance-directed distributions.
LABS
Comparisons
MEV Capture & Fee Distribution: OP Stack vs ZK Stack
A technical analysis comparing how the Optimism and zkSync rollup stacks approach MEV extraction, sequencer economics, and the distribution of fees and revenues to network participants.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The MEV and Fee Landscape for Rollup SDKs
A critical comparison of how OP Stack and ZK Stack approach MEV capture and sequencer fee distribution, the core economic models for rollup sustainability.
ZK Stack, as exemplified by zkSync Era, takes a more market-driven and decentralized approach from the outset. Its architecture is designed for a decentralized sequencer set and a native L1 settlement fee sharing model. While its MEV capture mechanisms are still evolving, its focus is on enabling a competitive validator market where fees and MEV are distributed to node operators and stakers, aligning more closely with Ethereum's own economic security model. The trade-off is a currently less proven and distributed revenue stream compared to OP Stack's centralized funnel.
The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate, predictable revenue recycling into your ecosystem's development and you are comfortable with a transitional centralized sequencer, choose OP Stack. If you prioritize long-term credibly neutral, decentralized fee distribution and are building for a multi-sequencer future, choose ZK Stack.
tldr-summary
MEV Capture & Fee Distribution
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for protocol revenue and user experience.
01
OP Stack: Centralized MEV Capture
Sequencer-centric model: The single sequencer (often the L2 team) captures all MEV and transaction fees. This provides a predictable revenue stream for the chain operator, crucial for funding development and security. However, it centralizes economic power and can lead to user-visible MEV extraction (e.g., frontrunning).
02
ZK Stack: Decentralized Prover Market
Prover competition: Multiple provers compete to generate validity proofs, creating a decentralized fee market for proving. This can drive down costs over time. MEV strategies are less defined but may shift to application-layer solutions (e.g., CowSwap on zkSync) or shared sequencer networks, distributing value more broadly.
03
OP Stack: Simple, Predictable Economics
Direct fee funnel: All L2 fees (base + priority) flow to the sequencer, which then pays L1 data/security costs. The surplus is clear. This model is ideal for chains prioritizing operator sustainability and straightforward treasury management, like Base or OP Mainnet.
04
ZK Stack: Complex, Evolving Incentives
Multi-party fee split: Fees are distributed between sequencers, provers, and potentially stakers. While more complex, this aligns with long-term decentralization goals. Early chains like zkSync Era use a managed sequencer, but the stack is built for a future with permissionless proving and shared sequencing via EigenLayer.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
MEV & Fee Distribution: Feature Comparison Matrix
Direct comparison of MEV capture mechanisms and fee distribution models.
| Metric / Feature | OP Stack (Optimism) | ZK Stack (zkSync) |
|---|---|---|
Native MEV Auction (PBS) | ||
Sequencer Fee Recipient | Protocol Treasury (RetroPGF) | Sequencer Operator |
MEV-Boost Compatibility | ||
Priority Fee Distribution | To builder via auction | To sequencer |
Proposer-Builder Separation | ||
Avg. Priority Fee (Last 30d) | ~$0.05 | ~$0.02 |
MEV Redistribution Program | Retroactive Public Goods Funding | Not applicable |
pros-cons-a
OP Stack vs ZK Stack
OP Stack: Pros and Cons for MEV & Fees
Key strengths and trade-offs for MEV capture and fee distribution at a glance.
01
OP Stack: Proven MEV Distribution
Established, battle-tested sequencer model: OP Mainnet's sequencer has distributed over $200M in MEV to the protocol treasury via public auctions. This provides a clear, sustainable revenue stream for protocol development and public goods funding. This matters for chains prioritizing immediate, predictable on-chain revenue.
02
OP Stack: Lower Fixed Costs
Optimistic proofs are computationally cheaper: No need for expensive ZK-SNARK proving hardware. This translates to lower fixed operational overhead for the sequencer, allowing for more flexible fee structuring and potentially lower base fees for users. This matters for chains where minimizing initial infrastructure capex is critical.
03
ZK Stack: MEV Resistance & Fair Ordering
ZK-Rollups enable pre-confirmation privacy: Projects like zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM can implement fair sequencing services (FSS) where transaction order is determined before content is revealed. This mitigates front-running and sandwich attacks, creating a fairer environment for users. This matters for DeFi protocols where maximal extractable value (MEV) protection is a top priority.
04
ZK Stack: Precise Fee Capture & Bundling
Native support for transaction bundling: The ZK proof mechanism naturally aggregates many transactions into a single proof. This allows sequencers to capture and optimize MEV from complex, multi-step arbitrage bundles more efficiently. This matters for chains aiming to attract sophisticated high-frequency trading (HFT) and arbitrage bots as a core user segment.
pros-cons-b
OP Stack vs ZK Stack
ZK Stack: Pros and Cons for MEV & Fees
A technical breakdown of how each stack's architecture fundamentally shapes MEV capture strategies and fee distribution models.
01
OP Stack: Optimistic MEV Capture
Sequencer-based architecture enables direct, predictable MEV extraction. The centralized sequencer (e.g., Base, OP Mainnet) can run auctions via tools like SUAVE or MEV-Share. This creates a clear revenue stream for the sequencer operator, which can be shared with the protocol treasury or L1 via MEV burn. This model is proven and operational today.
>95%
Sequencer Centralization
02
OP Stack: Predictable Fee Economics
EVM-equivalent design means fee markets and gas estimation behave identically to Ethereum L1. This allows for simple, L1-style fee distribution: priority fees to the sequencer, base fees potentially burned or shared. The model is easy to understand and integrate for existing dApps and wallets, reducing migration friction.
03
ZK Stack: Native MEV Resistance
ZK-proof finality and potential for decentralized sequencer sets (e.g., zkSync Era's PoS consensus) make traditional front-running and sandwich attacks more difficult. MEV opportunities shift towards arbitrage and liquidation, which are less harmful. Projects like Espresso Systems are building decentralized sequencing with fair ordering to further mitigate negative MEV.
~10 min
Finality Time (vs 7 days)
04
ZK Stack: Complex Fee & Reward Distribution
The prover/sequencer split introduces complexity. While sequencers collect fees, a significant portion must cover costly proof generation on L1. Distributing rewards fairly between sequencers, provers, and the DA layer (e.g., EigenDA) is an unsolved economic challenge. This can lead to higher operational overhead and less predictable net revenue for node operators.
MEV CAPTURE & FEE DISTRIBUTION
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture Dictates Economics
The underlying architecture of a rollup stack fundamentally shapes its economic model. This comparison examines how the OP Stack's optimistic design and ZK Stack's zero-knowledge proofs lead to divergent strategies for MEV capture, fee distribution, and validator incentives.
The ZK Stack offers stronger inherent MEV protection for users. Its architecture, with frequent validity proofs, makes transaction reordering and censorship within a batch more difficult. The OP Stack's longer fraud proof window (7 days) creates a larger window for MEV extraction via transaction ordering. However, projects on both stacks can implement additional protection like encrypted mempools (e.g., Shutter Network) or fair ordering protocols to mitigate this risk.
MEV CAPTURE & FEE DISTRIBUTION
Decision Framework: Which Stack For Your Use Case?
OP Stack for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic, high-liquidity choice for established protocols. Strengths:
- Proven MEV-Boost Integration: Seamlessly inherits Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) ecosystem via the Optimism Bedrock architecture. This provides access to a mature network of builders and relays like Flashbots, bloXroute, and Eden Network.
- Superchain Shared Sequencing: Future roadmap includes a cross-chain MEV auction via a shared sequencer set, potentially creating a more efficient, unified market for Arbitrum, Base, and OP Mainnet.
- Immediate Fee Capture: Sequencer fees and MEV revenue are directed to the Protocol Treasury (governed by the Optimism Collective), funding retroactive public goods grants. Considerations: MEV extraction is largely outsourced to the Ethereum builder market, offering less customizability for chain-specific strategies.
ZK Stack for DeFi
Verdict: The architect's choice for maximal sovereignty and tailored economics. Strengths:
- Sequencer Sovereignty: As a ZK Rollup, the chain operator (often the app team) has full control over the sequencer. This allows for bespoke MEV capture strategies (e.g., order flow auctions, sealed-bid blocks) and direct fee distribution.
- Native Account Abstraction: Deep integration with EIP-4337 enables sophisticated fee monetization models, like sponsored transactions or Paymasters that capture value.
- EVM-Equivalence: Projects like zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM, and Scroll offer a familiar environment to deploy complex DeFi smart contracts with strong finality. Considerations: Requires in-house expertise to design and secure a profitable sequencer operation and MEV strategy, moving from a consumer to a builder of infrastructure.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between OP Stack and ZK Stack for MEV and fees depends on your protocol's core values: immediate, predictable revenue versus long-term, credibly neutral decentralization.
OP Stack excels at providing a clear, immediate path to MEV capture and fee distribution through its established Sequencer Fee Vault model. For example, on Optimism Mainnet, 100% of priority fees and a portion of base fees are directed to the protocol treasury, creating a predictable revenue stream for development. This model is battle-tested, integrates seamlessly with tools like Flashbots Protect and Blocknative, and offers builders a straightforward economic model for sustainability.
ZK Stack takes a fundamentally different approach by prioritizing credible neutrality and decentralization over immediate protocol capture. Its architecture, as seen in zkSync Era, is designed for a multi-sequencer, proof-of-stake future where MEV is minimized through encrypted mempools and fair ordering. This results in a trade-off: protocol-level fee revenue is less defined today, but the stack is future-proofed for a more trustless, competitive validator ecosystem that could reduce extractive MEV long-term.
The key trade-off: If your priority is predictable protocol revenue, fast time-to-market, and leveraging the mature OP Stack tooling (like the Cannon fault proof system), choose OP Stack. If you prioritize building on a credibly neutral foundation, future-proofing for decentralized sequencing, and aligning with a long-term vision of minimized MEV, choose ZK Stack. For projects like a high-frequency DEX needing clear fee splits now, OP Stack is optimal. For a foundational DeFi primitive valuing maximal censorship resistance, ZK Stack's architectural choices are decisive.
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