Sequencer collusion is inevitable under current designs. A single entity controls transaction ordering and fee extraction, creating a centralized profit motive that directly contradicts decentralization goals.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Why Sequencer Collusion Is the Silent Killer of ZK-Rollups
ZK-rollups promise secure scaling, but centralized sequencing is a fatal flaw. This analysis explores how sequencer cartels can extract MEV, censor transactions, and undermine the very utility they're built to provide.
introduction
THE SEQUENCER PROBLEM
Introduction: The Centralized Achilles' Heel
ZK-Rollups inherit a critical, centralized vulnerability from their single sequencer model, creating a silent systemic risk.
The MEV threat is structural. Unlike Ethereum's permissionless proposer-builder separation, a rollup's sequencer has exclusive, unencrypted access to the mempool, enabling maximal value extraction from every user transaction.
This creates a liveness dependency. Users rely on the sequencer's honesty to submit proofs. A malicious or offline sequencer can freeze the chain, forcing reliance on slow, expensive forced inclusion via L1.
Evidence: Arbitrum and zkSync Era process millions of daily transactions through a single, centralized sequencer. This creates a single point of failure that their cryptographic proofs cannot mitigate.
key-insights
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
Executive Summary: The Core Vulnerability
ZK-Rollups achieve scalability by outsourcing execution and proving, but their security model critically depends on a single, trusted sequencer for transaction ordering—a centralized point of failure.
01
The MEV Monopoly
A single sequencer has a complete monopoly on transaction ordering, enabling maximal extractable value (MEV) extraction through front-running and sandwich attacks. This centralizes profits and degrades user experience.
- Revenue Capture: Sequencer can extract >99% of chain MEV.
- User Impact: Guaranteed worse execution prices for every swap.
- Ecosystem Effect: Disincentivizes decentralized block building, cementing centralization.
>99%
MEV Capture
1
Active Searcher
02
The Censorship Vector
Without a decentralized force-inclusion mechanism, the sequencer can censor transactions indefinitely. This is a regulatory and protocol-level risk that breaks the credibly neutral foundation of Ethereum.
- State Lockout: Users cannot directly force transactions onto L1, breaking the "escape hatch".
- Protocol Risk: AOFAC-compliant sequencer could blacklist addresses.
- Liveness Failure: A single point of technical failure halts the entire chain.
∞
Censorship Window
1
Failure Point
03
The Data Availability Blackmail
The sequencer controls the flow of transaction data to L1. Withholding this data halts state progression for all users and validators, holding the chain hostage. This is distinct from and more severe than pure downtime.
- State Freeze: No new proofs can be verified without the sequencer's data.
- Recovery Complexity: Requires a social consensus fork, a multi-day process.
- Economic Attack: A malicious actor could short the rollup's token before triggering the freeze.
100%
State Halt
Days
Recovery Time
04
The Solution: Decentralized Sequencing
The only viable endgame is a permissionless set of sequencers using consensus (e.g., PoS) or leader election (e.g, MEV-Boost style auctions). This distributes trust and aligns with Ethereum's ethos.
- Espresso Systems & Astria: Building shared sequencing layers.
- MEV-Boost Model: Separates block building from proposing.
- Key Trade-off: Introduces ~2-12s latency for consensus, a necessary cost for security.
~2-12s
Added Latency
N > 1
Sequencers
thesis-statement
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
Thesis: Utility Dies in Darkness
Sequencer centralization creates a single point of failure that undermines ZK-Rollup security and user guarantees.
Sequencer collusion destroys finality. A centralized sequencer can censor, reorder, or front-run transactions, violating the core promise of a trustless L2. This is not a theoretical risk; it is the operational reality for most rollups today.
ZK-proofs secure state, not liveness. While validity proofs guarantee correct execution, they do not prevent a malicious sequencer from withholding transactions. Users are forced into a permissioned system where their economic activity is hostage to a single operator.
The MEV threat is internalized. Unlike Ethereum, where MEV is a public auction, a centralized sequencer captures all value extraction privately. This creates perverse incentives for the operator and degrades the user experience for protocols like Uniswap and Aave.
Evidence: Arbitrum and Optimism, the dominant rollups, operate with a single, permissioned sequencer. Their roadmap to decentralization remains a future protocol upgrade, not a present guarantee.
market-context
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
Current State: A Landscape of Single Points of Failure
ZK-Rollup security is a mirage, as the sequencer's centralized control over transaction ordering creates a systemic vulnerability.
Sequencer is a single point of failure. The single sequencer model, used by Arbitrum and zkSync Era, grants a single entity absolute power over transaction ordering and censorship. This creates a centralized liveness risk; if the sequencer fails, the entire chain halts.
Collusion is economically rational. A sequencer can extract maximal value (MEV) by front-running, sandwiching, or censoring transactions. The economic incentive to collude with block builders like Flashbots or private mempools is high, as the cost is zero and the profit is unbounded.
ZK-proofs don't solve this. The validity proof only guarantees state transition correctness, not transaction order fairness. A malicious sequencer can produce a valid proof for a manipulated block, making the decentralization theater of ZK-Rollups their core weakness.
Evidence: In Q1 2024, over 95% of Arbitrum blocks were produced by a single sequencer. This centralization directly enables the $2.3M Jimbos Protocol exploit, where a malicious validator reordered transactions to drain funds.
ZK-ROLLUP VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Sequencer Centralization Risk Matrix
Comparative analysis of sequencer-level risks across leading ZK-Rollups, quantifying censorship, liveness, and MEV threats.
| Risk Vector | Starknet (StarkWare) | zkSync Era (Matter Labs) | Polygon zkEVM | Arbitrum Nova (AnyTrust) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sequencer Operator(s) | StarkWare (Solo) | Matter Labs (Solo) | Polygon Labs (Solo) | Offchain Labs + Data Availability Committee |
Time-to-Censor (TTC) Estimate | < 1 block | < 1 block | < 1 block | ~1 hour (DAC challenge period) |
Liveness SLA (Uptime %) | 99.95% (Historical) | 99.9% (Historical) | 99.95% (Historical) | 99.99% (DAC Fallback) |
Sequencer-Proposer MEV Capture | ||||
Force-Inclusion Delay (L1 Escape Hatch) | ~24 hours | ~24 hours | ~24 hours | ~1 hour |
Proposer Power (Can Reorder/Exclude TXs) | ||||
Decentralization Roadmap Timeline | Q4 2024 (Starknet 0.13.0) | 2025 (zkSync 3.0) | 2024 (Polygon 2.0) | Live (DAC Model) |
deep-dive
THE ATTACK VECTOR
The Mechanics of the Kill: How Collusion Unfolds
Sequencer collusion is a systemic risk that bypasses ZK-proof security to censor, extract MEV, and steal funds.
Sequencer Monopoly on Ordering creates the attack surface. A single sequencer, or a cartel, controls transaction inclusion, order, and timing before the ZK-proof is generated. The validity proof only verifies the result of this manipulated sequence, not its fairness.
Censorship and MEV Extraction is the first profit motive. A malicious sequencer front-runs, sandwiches, and delays user transactions. This is identical to the miner extractable value (MEV) problem on Ethereum L1, but with fewer participants to dilute the cartel's power.
Direct Fund Theft via Invalid State Roots is the terminal attack. Colluding sequencers can propose a fraudulent state root to the L1 bridge contract, like Arbitrum's Rollup or zkSync's Validium, before a proof is ready. Users who bridge assets based on this bad state lose funds permanently.
The Prover Becomes Complicit in advanced collusion. In systems like StarkNet or Polygon zkEVM, the sequencer and prover can coordinate. The prover generates a valid ZK-proof for the maliciously ordered batch, making the fraud cryptographically undetectable to the L1 contract.
Evidence: The economic incentive is measurable. On Arbitrum and Optimism, sequencer MEV profits already exist. A cartel controlling the sole sequencing right will capture 100% of this value, creating a multi-million dollar attack budget to offset any slashing risk.
risk-analysis
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
The Slippery Slope: From MEV to Chain Death
ZK-Rollups trade decentralization for scale, but a single sequencer creates a silent, systemic risk that can unravel the entire chain.
01
The Problem: The Sequencer Monopoly
A single entity controls transaction ordering and censorship. This is not a hypothetical; it's the default for Starknet, zkSync, and Arbitrum. The result is a single point of failure and a ~12-second window for maximal value extraction.
- Centralized Censorship: The sequencer can front-run, censor, or reorder any user transaction.
- Economic Capture: All transaction fees and MEV flow to one entity, creating a multi-billion dollar honeypot.
1
Active Sequencer
12s
Ordering Window
02
The Catalyst: MEV as a Weapon
Maximal Extractable Value transforms the sequencer from a passive operator into an active adversary. Without competition, MEV strategies become predatory, directly degrading user experience and trust.
- Guaranteed Front-Running: The sequencer has perfect knowledge of the pending mempool.
- Chain Death Spiral: As MEV extraction increases, honest users are priced out, TVL declines, and the chain's utility collapses.
>99%
MEV Capture
TVL Risk
Primary Threat
03
The Solution: Decentralized Sequencing
The only credible mitigation is to break the monopoly. Projects like Espresso Systems and Astria are building shared sequencing layers that introduce Proof-of-Stake validator sets for rollups.
- MEV Redistribution: Validators compete for ordering rights, redistributing value.
- Censorship Resistance: No single entity can filter transactions.
- Interoperability Boost: Enables native cross-rollup atomic composability.
100+
Potential Validators
Atomic
Cross-Rollup TX
04
The Stopgap: Permissioned Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS)
Adopting Ethereum's PBS model, as explored by Optimism, separates block building from proposing. Builders compete in a sealed-bid auction for the right to order transactions.
- Mitigates Censorship: Proposer (sequencer) commits to the highest bid, not specific transactions.
- Market-Driven Ordering: Creates a competitive market for block space, reducing rent extraction.
- Practical First Step: Implementable before full decentralization, but still requires honest proposer assumption.
Auction-Based
Ordering
Partial Fix
Risk Level
05
The Endgame: Force-Inclusion & Exit Games
If the sequencer turns malicious, users must have guaranteed escape hatches. Force-inclusion protocols and exit games (like Arbitrum's) allow users to submit transactions directly to L1, bypassing the sequencer.
- Ultimate Backstop: The core security guarantee of any rollup.
- High Latency & Cost: Exit games are slow (~1 week delays) and expensive, making them a last resort.
- Not a Scaling Solution: Reliance on this mechanism signifies chain failure.
~7 Days
Exit Delay
L1 Gas Cost
Exit Fee
06
The Metric: Time-to-Decentralize (TTD)
The critical countdown for every major ZK-Rollup. TTD measures the window before sequencer centralization causes irreversible ecosystem damage. The clock starts at mainnet launch.
- Starknet & zkSync: TTD clock is ticking; their roadmaps are now scrutinized for concrete sequencing milestones.
- Investor Diligence: VCs must evaluate TTD alongside TPS and TVL. A chain with low TTD is a systemic risk.
- The Benchmark: Ethereum's transition to PoS took 7 years. Rollups don't have that luxury.
TTD
Key Metric
24-36 Mo.
Critical Window
counter-argument
THE REALITY CHECK
Counter-Argument: "Users Can Force Inclusion via L1"
The L1 escape hatch is a theoretical safety net that fails in practical user experience.
Forced inclusion is a UX failure. The mechanism requires users to monitor the sequencer, detect censorship, and manually submit a transaction to L1, paying L1 gas fees. This defeats the purpose of a low-cost, seamless rollup.
The economic barrier is prohibitive. Submitting a transaction directly to Ethereum L1 during congestion costs hundreds of dollars. This price makes the option irrelevant for 99% of rollup transactions, which are valued at a few dollars.
Sequencers can game the delay. Protocols like Arbitrum and Optimism enforce a delay window before L1 force-inclusion is possible. A malicious sequencer can censor a transaction, then include it just before the deadline, creating uncertainty without triggering the L1 escape.
Evidence: The 7-day withdrawal delay on Optimism is a direct acknowledgment of this trust model. Users must trust the sequencer's liveness for a week or pay exorbitant L1 fees to exit, a choice most avoid.
protocol-spotlight
WHY SEQUENCER COLLUSION IS THE SILENT KILLER
The Builder's Dilemma: In-Progress Solutions
ZK-Rollups promise secure scaling, but a centralized sequencer can censor, reorder, or steal MEV, undermining all cryptographic guarantees.
01
The Problem: A Single Point of Trust and Failure
The sequencer is a centralized operator that orders transactions before they are proven. This creates a critical vulnerability:\n- Censorship: The sequencer can refuse to include your transaction.\n- MEV Extraction: It can front-run or sandwich your trades for profit.\n- Liveness Risk: If it goes offline, the chain halts until users force transactions via L1.
1
Trusted Party
100%
Control
02
The Solution: Decentralized Sequencer Sets (Shared Sequencers)
Projects like Espresso Systems, Astria, and Radius are building networks of permissionless sequencers. This distributes ordering power.\n- Censorship Resistance: Multiple operators reduce single-entity control.\n- MEV Redistribution: Auctions or fair ordering protocols can democratize value capture.\n- Interoperability: A shared sequencer can serve multiple rollups, enabling atomic cross-rollup composability.
10-100s
Operators
~1s
Finality
03
The Solution: Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for Rollups
Adapting Ethereum's PBS model separates block building from proposing. Builders compete to create the most valuable block (including MEV), and a decentralized proposer committee selects the winner.\n- MEV Transparency: Creates a competitive market, reducing hidden extraction.\n- Credible Neutrality: Proposer committee can be randomly selected or staked.\n- Proven Model: Leverages battle-tested research from Ethereum's core development.
>50%
MEV Reduction
L1-Aligned
Security
04
The Solution: Force Inclusion via L1 & Permissionless Proving
The nuclear option: users can bypass a malicious sequencer by submitting transactions directly to the L1 rollup contract, forcing inclusion after a delay. zkSync and Starknet have variants of this.\n- Ultimate Guarantee: Provides a cryptographic escape hatch.\n- High Latency & Cost: Forces a slow, expensive L1 transaction, breaking UX.\n- Not a Complete Fix: Mitigates censorship but does not solve MEV or liveness.
~24h
Delay
$100+
Cost
05
The Problem: Economic Centralization Begets Collusion
Even with multiple sequencers, economic incentives can lead to cartel formation. A dominant Lido-like entity or a subset of operators can collude to: \n- Fix Fees: Artificially keep transaction costs high.\n- Capture MEV: Share profits among themselves, excluding users.\n- Exclude New Entrants: Create barriers to maintain oligopoly control.
>66%
Cartel Threshold
Oligopoly
Risk
06
The Frontier: Encrypted Mempools & SUAVE
Preventing MEV requires hiding transaction intent. Flashbots' SUAVE chain and projects like Fairblock aim to create a decentralized, encrypted mempool.\n- Intent Privacy: Transactions are encrypted until they are included in a block.\n- Universal Solver Network: Solvers compete on execution quality, not front-running speed.\n- Cross-Chain Future: A neutral platform for expressing and fulfilling complex intents across domains.
0ms
Front-Run Window
Universal
Auction
future-outlook
THE SILENT KILLER
The Path Forward: Decentralization or Obsolescence
Sequencer collusion, not technical failure, is the primary existential threat to ZK-Rollup security and adoption.
Centralized sequencers create a single point of failure. A single entity controls transaction ordering and censorship, enabling MEV extraction and front-running that erodes user trust and protocol neutrality.
Collusion is economically rational, not malicious. Sequencers and validators can coordinate to extract maximum value, a dynamic proven in Proof-of-Work mining pools and evident in the MEV strategies of Flashbots and CoW Protocol.
Decentralization is non-optional for credible neutrality. Protocols like Espresso Systems and Astria are building shared sequencing layers to separate execution from ordering, mirroring the separation of powers in L1s like Ethereum.
Evidence: The market penalizes centralization. StarkNet's planned decentralization roadmap and zkSync's focus on proof decentralization acknowledge that users and developers demand credible neutrality as a prerequisite for adoption.
takeaways
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
Takeaways: What This Means for Builders & Investors
ZK-Rollups tout finality, but their security model is only as strong as the sequencer's honesty. Here's how to navigate the risk.
01
The Problem: Single-Point Censorship & MEV Theft
A single sequencer can reorder, censor, or front-run transactions, extracting value directly from users and protocols. This undermines the core promise of a trustless L2.
- Censorship Risk: The sequencer can block transactions from specific addresses indefinitely.
- Guaranteed MEV: The sequencer has perfect knowledge of the mempool, enabling maximal extractable value (MEV) extraction with zero competition.
- Protocol Risk: DeFi protocols on the rollup inherit this centralization risk, making them vulnerable to targeted attacks.
100%
Of Tx Control
$0
Slashed for Abuse
02
The Solution: Shared Sequencing & Proposer-Builder Separation
Decouple transaction ordering from block production. Inspired by Ethereum's PBS, this separates the role of the sequencer (builder) from the role of the block proposer.
- Shared Sequencers: Networks like Espresso, Astria, and Radius create a marketplace for sequencing, introducing competition.
- Force Inclusion: Users can bypass a censoring sequencer by submitting transactions directly to L1 after a delay.
- Verifiable Randomness: Projects like Radius use encrypted mempools and commit-reveal schemes to prevent front-running.
N > 1
Sequencer Nodes
~1-4s
Force-Inclusion Delay
03
The Investor Lens: Valuation Leaks & Protocol Risk
Sequencer revenue is a key valuation driver for L2 tokens, but it's built on extractive, rent-seeking behavior. Sustainable value comes from shared security.
- Revenue Atrophy: As PBS and shared sequencers (Espresso, Astria) become standard, proprietary sequencer revenue will decline.
- Due Diligence Mandate: Investors must scrutinize an L2's roadmap for decentralization. "Decentralize the sequencer later" is a red flag.
- Long-Term Bet: The winning L2s will be those that credibly decentralize sequencing, attracting high-value, security-sensitive applications.
>50%
Of L2 Token Value
High
Execution Risk
04
The Builder's Mandate: Design for Decentralization from Day One
Architect your application assuming a potentially malicious sequencer. Use L1 as the ultimate fallback and avoid sequencer-dependent assumptions.
- L1 Escrows: For high-value transactions, use escrow contracts on Ethereum that only release funds upon verified L2 proof.
- Sequencer-Agnostic Clients: Build clients that can switch between multiple sequencer endpoints or use force inclusion pathways.
- Demand Transparency: Pressure L2 teams to publish concrete, timed roadmaps for sequencer decentralization. Favor rollups using shared sequencing infra.
L1
Final Security
0
Sequencer Trust
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