ZK-Rollup fragmentation is the scaling bottleneck. Each rollup operates a sovereign sequencer, creating isolated liquidity pools and forcing users into slow, expensive cross-chain bridges like LayerZero and Across.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
The Future of ZK-Rollup Interoperability Lies in Shared Sequencers
Isolated sequencers create walled gardens. Networks like Espresso and Astria enable atomic cross-rollup transactions, unlocking the true potential of a modular blockchain ecosystem.
introduction
THE FRAGMENTATION TRAP
Introduction
ZK-Rollup scaling creates isolated liquidity and user experience silos, a problem that shared sequencers are engineered to solve.
Shared sequencers are the interoperability primitive. A neutral, decentralized sequencer network like Espresso Systems or Astria can order transactions across multiple rollups, enabling atomic composability and solving the liquidity fragmentation problem at its source.
This shifts the interoperability paradigm. Instead of post-hoc bridging between settled states, shared sequencing enables pre-confirmation interoperability, making cross-rollup swaps as seamless as a Uniswap pool migration.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
The Core Argument: Atomic Composability Requires Shared State
Cross-rollup atomic transactions are impossible without a single, authoritative source of ordering and state.
Atomic composability is a state problem. A transaction that depends on the outcome of another across two rollups requires a single, final view of both states. Isolated sequencers for Arbitrum and Optimism create race conditions, making true atomicity a probabilistic gamble, not a guarantee.
Shared sequencers provide a global clock. A single entity, like Espresso or Astria, sequences transactions for multiple rollups onto a shared data availability layer. This creates a canonical ordering that all connected rollups agree upon before execution, enabling cross-rollup atomic bundles.
This eliminates bridge latency arbitrage. Without a shared sequencer, users must wait for finality on one chain before bridging, exposing them to MEV extraction by protocols like Across. A shared sequencer pre-confirms the entire bundle, making front-running the atomic flow impossible.
Evidence: The L2 beat narrative is shifting. The focus is moving from pure TPS (Arbitrum processes ~10 TPS) to cross-rollup user experience. Shared sequencer designs are now core to the roadmap of major stacks like Polygon CDK and Arbitrum Orbit, signaling industry consensus on this direction.
key-trends
ZK-ROLLUP INTEROPERABILITY
The Sequencing Trilemma: Decentralization, Efficiency, Composability
Isolated sequencers create fragmented liquidity and user experience. Shared sequencing is the critical infrastructure for a unified L2 ecosystem.
01
The Problem: Isolated Sequencers Fragment Atomic Composability
Today's ZK-rollups operate as sovereign islands. A user cannot atomically swap assets between Arbitrum and zkSync in a single transaction, killing DeFi's core value proposition. This forces users into slow, insecure cross-chain bridges, exposing them to MEV extraction and settlement risk.
- Breaks DeFi Legos: No atomic cross-rollup arbitrage or lending positions.
- User Experience Hell: Multi-step, multi-wallet interactions for simple actions.
- Liquidity Silos: Capital is trapped, reducing efficiency and increasing slippage.
$10B+
Fragmented TVL
~30 sec
Bridge Latency
02
The Solution: Espresso & Astria - Neutral Shared Sequencing Layers
A decentralized network of sequencers that orders transactions for multiple rollups. This creates a shared, canonical timeline, enabling atomic cross-rollup bundles. Projects like Espresso Systems and Astria are building this critical middleware, treating sequencing as a public good rather than a chain-specific monopoly.
- Atomic Composability: Guarantee cross-rollup tx execution in a single block.
- MEV Resistance: Neutral sequencing reduces extractable value through fair ordering.
- Decentralization: Moves away from the single-operator model of Arbitrum and Optimism.
~500ms
Cross-Rollup Latency
0
Bridge Risk
03
The Trade-off: Shared Sequencing vs. Sovereign Security
Shared sequencers introduce a new trust assumption: the sequencer set. While they enable interoperability, rollups must cede some control over transaction ordering. The trilemma is real: you cannot maximize decentralization, cross-rollup efficiency, and sovereign security simultaneously.
- Decentralization: Requires a robust, permissionless sequencer set (hard).
- Efficiency: Needs low-latency consensus among many rollups (harder).
- Sovereignty: Rollups may need to fork the sequencer set if it acts maliciously (complex).
3 of 3
Pick Two
7 Days
Challenge Periods
04
The Endgame: Shared Provers & The Superchain Vision
Shared sequencing is step one. The full stack includes shared provers (like RiscZero or Succinct) for cost-efficient verification and shared data availability (like EigenDA or Celestia). This modular stack is the foundation for Optimism's Superchain and Polygon 2.0, where L2s become interchangeable components.
- Economic Scale: Batch proofs for 100+ chains drive cost to near-zero.
- Unified Liquidity: A single asset can be used across all connected rollups.
- Developer Primitive: Build apps that span the entire L2 ecosystem, not just one chain.
-90%
Proving Cost
1-Click
Chain Deployment
ZK-ROLLUP INFRASTRUCTURE
Sequencer Architecture Comparison: Isolated vs. Shared
A feature and performance matrix comparing the dominant sequencing models for ZK-rollups, analyzing trade-offs in decentralization, cost, and interoperability.
| Architectural Feature / Metric | Isolated Sequencer | Shared Sequencer (e.g., Espresso, Astria) | Based Rollup (e.g., OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit) |
|---|---|---|---|
Sequencer Decentralization | Centralized or Permissioned | Permissionless Set (PoS) | Centralized or Permissioned |
Cross-Rollup Atomic Composability | |||
MEV Capture & Redistribution | Retained by rollup | Shared across network, redistributable | Retained by rollup/sequencer |
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Support | |||
Time to Finality (L2 -> L1) | ~1-12 hours (ZK proof time) | < 1 hour (shared proving) | ~1 week (fault proof window) |
Sequencer Failure Risk | High (single point of failure) | Low (decentralized, redundant) | High (single point of failure) |
Integration Complexity for New Rollup | High (build full stack) | Low (plug into shared network) | Medium (fork stack, find sequencer) |
Representative Projects | zkSync Era, Scroll | Espresso, Astria, SharedSequencer.org | Optimism, Arbitrum Nova, Base |
deep-dive
THE INTEROPERABILITY ENGINE
How Shared Sequencers Unlock New Primitives
Shared sequencers transform ZK-rollup interoperability from a bridging problem into a native execution primitive.
Atomic composability across rollups is the primary primitive unlocked. A shared sequencer like Espresso or Astria enables a single transaction to atomically touch state on multiple ZK-rollups, eliminating the trust and latency overhead of traditional bridges like Across or Stargate.
The settlement layer becomes irrelevant for user experience. Users interact with a unified liquidity pool spanning rollups, not individual chains. This mirrors the intent-based UX of UniswapX but for cross-rollup execution, making the underlying settlement destination (Ethereum, Celestia, Avail) a back-end detail.
Shared sequencing creates a new MEV landscape. Proposers can extract value from cross-rollup arbitrage and composability, similar to Flashbots on Ethereum but with a multi-chain scope. This economic incentive funds sequencer decentralization and security.
Evidence: Espresso's testnet demonstrates HotShot sequencing for Caldera and AltLayer rollups, proving sub-second cross-rollup finality where LayerZero messages take minutes. This is the performance delta that defines the new primitive.
risk-analysis
THE FUTURE OF ZK-ROLLUP INTEROPERABILITY LIES IN SHARED SEQUENCERS
Critical Risks and Adoption Hurdles
Shared sequencers promise atomic cross-rollup composability, but face significant technical and economic hurdles that could stall adoption.
01
The MEV Cartel Problem
A single, dominant shared sequencer network risks centralizing MEV extraction and transaction ordering power, creating a new systemic risk layer. This undermines the decentralized ethos and could lead to censorship.
- Risk: A single entity controlling ordering for $10B+ TVL across chains.
- Mitigation: Requires a robust, permissionless proposer-builder separation (PBS) model from day one.
1 Entity
Single Point of Failure
$10B+
Controlled TVL Risk
02
Economic Misalignment with Rollup Sovereignty
Rollups sacrifice a core revenue stream (sequencer fees/MEV) and control over their state progression timeline for interoperability. The economic model for shared sequencers must offer compelling value beyond atomic composability.
- Hurdle: Convincing major L2s like Arbitrum, zkSync to outsource a profit center.
- Solution: Revenue-sharing models and enforceable service-level agreements (SLAs) for latency.
-100%
Sequencer Fee Loss
~500ms
Max Tolerable Latency
03
The Data Availability (DA) Bottleneck
Atomic cross-rollup execution depends on guaranteed, synchronous data availability. Relying on a single chain (e.g., Ethereum) for all rollup data creates a congestion point and high costs, negating scalability benefits.
- Problem: Ethereum blockspace remains the scarce, expensive resource.
- Emerging Solution: Integration with EigenDA, Celestia, or Avail for high-throughput, low-cost DA layers.
>100k TPS
DA Requirement
-99%
Potential DA Cost
04
Fragmented Security & Liveness Assumptions
A shared sequencer's security is only as strong as its weakest constituent rollup's fraud or validity proof system. A bug in one ZK circuit or fraud proof could halt the entire interoperable network.
- Risk: Liveness failure cascades across all connected rollups.
- Requirement: Standardized, formally verified proof systems and slashing conditions for sequencer nodes.
1 Bug
Network-Wide Halt
7 Days
Challenge Period Risk
05
The Interoperability Trilemma: Fast, Secure, Sovereign
Architects must choose two: Fast atomic composability (via shared sequencing), strong security (inherited from Ethereum), or rollup sovereignty (full control). Projects like Astria and Espresso are attempting to solve all three, creating complex trust trade-offs.
- Trade-off: Maximizing speed and security requires ceding sovereignty.
- Market Reality: Different rollups (DeFi vs. Gaming) will prioritize different corners of the trilemma.
Pick 2
Trilemma Constraint
~2s
Target Finality
06
Adoption Cold Start & Network Effects
A shared sequencer needs critical mass of major rollups to be useful, but rollups won't join until there's critical mass. This creates a classic coordination problem, similar to early blockchain bridges.
- Hurdle: Bootstrapping the first $1B+ in bridged liquidity.
- Path Forward: Niche-first adoption (e.g., gaming rollups) or mandates from large ecosystems like Polygon or Starknet.
$1B+
Liquidity Threshold
2-3
Major Rollups Needed
future-outlook
THE SEQUENCER FRONTIER
The Endgame: A Unified L2 Liquidity Layer
Shared sequencers are the critical infrastructure that will unify fragmented rollup liquidity by enabling atomic cross-chain composability.
Shared sequencers eliminate fragmentation by ordering transactions for multiple rollups in a single block. This creates a unified mempool where assets on Arbitrum and zkSync can be swapped atomically, bypassing slow bridges like Across or Stargate.
Atomic composability is the unlock. A user's trade on Uniswap V3 on Arbitrum and a loan on Aave on Optimism execute as one transaction or not at all. This creates a single liquidity state across chains, which protocols like dYdX v4 require.
The counter-intuitive shift is from L1 security to L2 liveness. While EigenLayer offers decentralized sequencing for security, Espresso Systems and Astria focus on high-throughput ordering for fast, atomic cross-rollup execution. Speed, not just finality, defines the user experience.
Evidence: Espresso's testnet processes 10k TPS. This throughput, combined with shared sequencing, makes cross-rollup MEV capture and atomic arbitrage between protocols like GMX and Perpetual Protocol a native feature, not a bridge-afterthought.
takeaways
ZK-ROLLUP INTEROP
TL;DR for CTOs and Architects
Shared sequencers are the critical infrastructure layer for unifying fragmented ZK-rollup liquidity and user experience.
01
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity Silos
Every ZK-rollup (Arbitrum, zkSync, Starknet) is a sovereign chain with its own sequencer, creating isolated liquidity pools and poor UX for cross-L2 swaps.\n- Capital inefficiency: TVL is trapped, reducing yield and increasing slippage.\n- User friction: Multi-hop bridges add ~30-60 second latency and 2-3x cost for simple transfers.
$10B+
Fragmented TVL
30-60s
Bridge Latency
02
The Solution: A Shared Sequencing Layer
A single, decentralized network (e.g., Espresso, Astria) orders transactions for multiple rollups, enabling atomic composability across chains.\n- Atomic cross-rollup swaps: Execute trades on Uniswap (Arbitrum) and Aave (Starknet) in one block.\n- MEV resistance: A shared order flow auction can democratize MEV, unlike isolated sequencers.
~500ms
Settlement Finality
-70%
Swap Cost
03
The Architecture: Decentralized Proposer-Builder Separation
Shared sequencers implement a rollup-native PBS model, separating transaction ordering from block building.\n- Builders (e.g., Flashbots, bloXroute) compete to construct optimal cross-rollup bundles.\n- Proposers run a consensus (e.g., Tendermint) to order the winning bundle, ensuring liveness and censorship resistance.
100+
Node Operators
<1s
Proposer Time
04
The Killer App: Native Cross-Rollup Intents
Shared sequencing enables intent-based architectures (like UniswapX or Across) to operate natively across ZK-rollups without external bridges.\n- User submits intent: "Swap 1 ETH on Arbitrum for 3500 USDC on Base."\n- Solver network competes to fulfill it atomically via the shared sequencer, abstracting complexity.
1-Click
UX
0 Trust
Assumptions
05
The Risk: Recreating L1 Consensus Problems
A dominant shared sequencer becomes a new consensus layer, reintroducing the very centralization and governance risks rollups were meant to solve.\n- Cartel formation: Sequencer operators could collude to extract maximal MEV.\n- Protocol capture: A single entity (e.g., Espresso) could control the critical path for dozens of rollups.
>33%
Stake Attack
Single Point
Of Failure
06
The Verdict: Non-Optional Infrastructure
For any ZK-rollup targeting mainstream adoption, plugging into a shared sequencer network will be as essential as using a data availability layer today.\n- Interoperability is a feature, not a bolt-on. The winning rollup stacks (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, zkStack) will integrate shared sequencing by default.\n- Build or buy: Rollup teams must decide to join a network like Espresso or build a custom coalition.
2025
Mainnet ETA
100%
Adoption Inevitable
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