L2s are the new ISPs. They provide the essential bandwidth and compute for decentralized applications, just as ISPs provided the physical pipes for the early web. This shift moves critical infrastructure from centralized cloud providers to specialized, decentralized node networks.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
Why L2 Node Operators Are the New Internet Service Providers
A deep dive into how L2 node operators have become the indispensable utility layer for rollup ecosystems like Arbitrum and Optimism, creating predictable, fee-based business models by providing critical data availability and execution services.
introduction
THE INFRASTRUCTURE SHIFT
Introduction
L2 node operators are becoming the new internet service providers by controlling the fundamental data and execution layers of decentralized networks.
Node operators control state. Unlike ISPs that route generic packets, L2 operators like those on Arbitrum or Optimism validate and sequence transactions, directly influencing network liveness and censorship resistance. Their role is more akin to a cloud provider and a telecom combined.
The revenue model is inverted. ISPs charged end-users; L2 sequencers capture value from MEV and transaction fees. This creates a powerful, protocol-aligned economic engine where operator profit scales with network usage, as seen in the fee structures of Arbitrum and Starknet.
Evidence: Over 90% of Ethereum's transaction volume now occurs on L2s, with networks like Base and Arbitrum processing billions in weekly value. The operators securing these chains are the new gatekeepers of decentralized finance and social applications.
thesis-statement
THE ANALOGY
The Core Argument: Infrastructure as a Utility
Layer 2 node operators are the new internet service providers, commoditizing access to a new economic layer.
The ISP Parallel is Inevitable: Just as ISPs commoditized internet access, L2 node providers commoditize blockchain execution. The value accrues to the application layer, not the pipe.
Node Operations are Commoditizing: Services like Alchemy, QuickNode, and BlastAPI abstract the complexity of running an Arbitrum or Optimism node. This mirrors how ISPs abstracted physical infrastructure.
The Counter-Intuitive Insight: The most valuable L2 is the one with the most commoditized, reliable infrastructure, not the most complex tech. This is why Ethereum's security is the non-commoditizable moat.
Evidence: Over 90% of Arbitrum and Optimism transactions are processed by three major RPC providers. This centralization of node operation is a feature, not a bug, of utility infrastructure.
key-trends
WHY NODE OPERATORS ARE THE NEW ISPS
The Three Pillars of the L2 Node Economy
The L2 scaling race has created a trillion-dollar infrastructure market where node operators are the indispensable backbone, not just passive validators.
01
The Problem: Centralized Sequencer Risk
Most L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism launch with a single, centralized sequencer. This creates a single point of failure and censorship, undermining the decentralization promise of the underlying L1.\n- Single point of control over transaction ordering and MEV.\n- Censorship risk for sanctioned addresses or protocols.\n- Systemic fragility if the sole operator goes offline.
>95%
Centralized
1
Failure Point
02
The Solution: Permissionless Proving & Sequencing
Networks like Taiko and the upcoming Espresso marketplace are building open markets for proving and sequencing work. This commoditizes execution and creates a competitive operator economy.\n- Decentralized Sequencing Pools break the monopoly, reducing fees.\n- Permissionless Prover Networks allow anyone to submit validity proofs for rewards.\n- Real-time slashing enforces performance and correctness guarantees.
-70%
Fee Reduction
1000+
Potential Nodes
03
The Incentive: Staking & MEV Redistribution
Node operation must be economically sustainable. Shared sequencer models and L2-native staking, inspired by EigenLayer restaking, align operator incentives with network security and liveness.\n- Staked capital acts as a slashing deterrent for malicious behavior.\n- MEV redistribution protocols like CowSwap and Flashbots SUAVE can share extractable value with the network.\n- Fee market competition drives down costs for end-users.
$10B+
Secureable TVL
5-15%
Potential Yield
WHY L2 NODES ARE THE NEW ISPS
The L2 Node Operator Landscape: A Comparative Matrix
A feature and performance comparison of major L2 node operator services, highlighting the infrastructure-as-a-service shift.
| Feature / Metric | Alchemy | Infura | QuickNode | Self-Hosted (GCP/AWS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Data Availability Layer Support | Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, zkSync | Arbitrum, Optimism, Base | Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Starknet | All (if configured) |
Historical Data Retention | Full archive (indefinite) | 30 days (archive tier) | 90 days (archive tier) | User-defined |
Global Edge POPs |
|
|
| 1 (region-specific) |
Guaranteed Uptime SLA | 99.9% | 99.9% | 99.5% | 99.0% (cloud provider SLA) |
Max Requests per Second (RPS) |
|
|
| Limited by instance |
Enhanced APIs (e.g., Debug, Trace) | ||||
MEV-Boost Relay Integration | ||||
Approx. Monthly Cost for 50M Requests | $399 | $449 | $299 | $800-$1,200+ |
deep-dive
THE BUSINESS MODEL SHIFT
From Gas Fees to Service Fees: The Economics of Running a Node
L2 node operators are transitioning from earning volatile gas fees to predictable service fees, mirroring the economics of traditional infrastructure providers.
Sequencer revenue is the new block reward. L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism generate revenue by bundling user transactions and submitting them to Ethereum. This creates a predictable, fee-for-service income stream, unlike the speculative lottery of L1 block production.
The business model is a SaaS subscription. Node operators charge for access to reliable RPC endpoints, transaction indexing, and data availability. This is analogous to how Cloudflare or AWS charges for API calls and bandwidth, not the success of the data transmitted.
Profitability depends on operational scale. Running a high-availability sequencer or prover requires significant capital for hardware and engineering, favoring specialized firms like Blockdaemon or Figment over hobbyists. The capital efficiency of the node software (e.g., OP Stack vs. Polygon CDK) determines the margin.
Evidence: Arbitrum's sequencer generated over $100M in revenue in 2023, primarily from transaction fees paid by users. This revenue is more stable and predictable than the highly variable gas fees earned by Ethereum validators.
risk-analysis
THE NEW CHOKE POINTS
The Bear Case: Centralization and Regulatory Risk
Layer 2 scaling promised decentralization, but its infrastructure is consolidating into a handful of critical, legally-exposed service providers.
01
The Sequencer Monopoly
Most L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) run a single, centralized sequencer. This creates a legal entity that can be compelled to censor or reorder transactions.\n- Single Point of Failure: One operator controls transaction ordering for $10B+ TVL.\n- Regulatory Target: The sequencer is a clear, KYC-able business for agencies like the SEC or OFAC.
>90%
Market Share
1
Legal Entity
02
Proposer-Builder Separation is a Myth
L2s like Polygon zkEVM and zkSync rely on centralized operators to batch and prove transactions. The entity that builds the batch also proposes it, replicating Ethereum's MEV problems with fewer participants.\n- Vertical Control: A single provider often runs the sequencer, prover, and data availability layer.\n- Opaque Economics: Fees and MEV are captured by the same centralized stack, not the decentralized validator set.
~0ms
Censorship Latency
3-in-1
Stack Control
03
The Data Availability Cartel
Rollups depend on external DA layers (Ethereum, Celestia, EigenDA). Choosing a cheaper, centralized DA creates a regulatory arbitrage that undermines security.\n- Cost vs. Sovereignty: Projects opt for Celestia or EigenDA to save costs, inheriting their legal and centralization risks.\n- Re-Intermediation: We've replaced trust in miners with trust in a new set of KYC'd node operators and DA committees.
-99%
DA Cost
10-100
Committee Size
04
Legal Precedent: OFAC-Compliant Blocks
Ethereum's compliance with OFAC sanctions via MEV-Boost relays sets a direct precedent. L2 operators, as clearer legal targets, will comply faster and more completely.\n- Follow-the-Money Pressure: Fiat on/ramps force L2 foundations to adopt transaction blacklisting.\n- Protocol-Level Censorship: Unlike base layer, censorship can be enforced at the sequencer level with 100% effectiveness.
45%+
OFAC Blocks
$10M+
Potential Fines
05
The Node-Operator-as-a-Service Trap
Infra providers like Alchemy, QuickNode, and Blast offer managed L2 node services. Convenience leads to extreme client concentration, creating systemic risk.\n- Client Diversity Collapse: >60% of RPC traffic may flow through 2-3 providers.\n- Cascade Failure: A legal action or outage at one provider could cripple major dApps and wallets across multiple L2s.
2-3
Dominant Providers
Minutes
Time to Kill
06
Solution: Credibly Neutral Sequencing
The only exit is decentralized sequencing via proof-of-stake validation, shared sequencer networks (Espresso, Astria), or based sequencing. This moves the legal target from a company to a protocol.\n- Based Rollups: Use Ethereum L1 validators for sequencing (like Taiko).\n- Shared Sequencer Sets: Create a permissionless set of sequencers that serve multiple rollups, diluting legal risk.
1000s
Validator Set
Protocol
Legal Target
future-outlook
THE INFRASTRUCTURE SHIFT
The Road to Decentralized Utilities
Layer 2 node operators are evolving into the new internet service providers, controlling the fundamental access layer for decentralized applications.
L2s are the new access layer. The user experience for any dApp is now defined by the L2 it's built on, making node operators the gatekeepers of transaction ordering, latency, and finality, similar to how ISPs control internet bandwidth.
Profit motives diverge from L1. While Ethereum validators secure the base layer, L2 sequencers and node operators monetize execution and data availability, creating a new, application-specific infrastructure market driven by MEV and fee revenue.
Decentralization is a spectrum. A centralized sequencer like Optimism's initial design provides low latency but creates a single point of censorship, while a decentralized sequencer set, as targeted by Arbitrum's BOLD or Espresso Systems, trades some speed for credible neutrality.
Evidence: The $30M+ in daily sequencer revenue generated across major L2s demonstrates this is already a massive, entrenched business, not a theoretical future.
takeaways
THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE LAYER
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
L2 node operators are becoming the foundational internet service providers for the on-chain economy, controlling the critical paths of data, execution, and value.
01
The Problem: Centralized Sequencer Risk
Most L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism launch with a single, centralized sequencer. This creates a single point of failure and censorship, undermining the decentralized value proposition.\n- Single point of failure for transaction ordering\n- Censorship vector for OFAC-sanctioned addresses\n- MEV extraction is opaque and centralized
~100%
Initial Centralization
1
Trusted Entity
02
The Solution: Decentralized Sequencer Sets
Protocols like Espresso Systems and Astria are building shared sequencer networks. This turns node operation into a competitive, permissionless market for block production.\n- Economic security via staking and slashing\n- Fast finality with ~2s block times\n- MEV redistribution to the protocol and users
10x+
More Operators
-90%
Censorship Risk
03
The Problem: Fragmented Prover Markets
Each ZK-Rollup (e.g., zkSync, Starknet, Polygon zkEVM) requires specialized, expensive hardware for proof generation. This creates inefficient, siloed capital and expertise.\n- High fixed costs for specialized hardware (GPUs/ASICs)\n- Idle capacity between proof jobs\n- Barrier to entry for smaller operators
$500K+
Hardware Setup
Low
Utilization Rate
04
The Solution: Shared Prover Networks
Projects like =nil; Foundation and RiscZero are creating universal proof markets. Node operators can run generalized provers that service multiple L2s, maximizing hardware ROI.\n- Proof aggregation reduces ~40% of L1 verification costs\n- Commoditized proving drives down user fees\n- Interoperability via shared state proofs
70%+
Hardware Utilization
-60%
Proving Cost
05
The Problem: RPC Endpoint Monopolies
Today, Alchemy and Infura dominate the RPC layer, acting as the gateway for all application data. This recreates the AWS cloud monopoly problem at the blockchain API layer.\n- Data privacy risk: providers see all user traffic\n- Service reliability tied to a single vendor\n- Price control and lack of competition
>60%
Market Share
1-2
Major Vendors
06
The Solution: Decentralized RPC Pools
Networks like POKT Network and Lava Network incentivize a global mesh of node operators to serve RPC requests. Performance is verified and rewarded on-chain.\n- Censorship-resistant data access\n- Geographically distributed low-latency endpoints\n- Competitive pricing via open marketplace
1000+
Node Operators
<100ms
Global Latency
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