Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) sequencing is the dominant model for scaling blockchains like Arbitrum and Optimism. Token holders vote for a small set of professional sequencers who control transaction ordering and MEV extraction. This creates a political oligopoly where economic power directly translates to control over network infrastructure.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Why Delegated Sequencing Tokenomics Recreate Old Oligarchies
An analysis of how token-weighted sequencer selection in leading ZK-rollups like Starknet and zkSync mirrors the economic and governance centralization of Delegated Proof-of-Stake, creating permissioned cartels that control transaction ordering and MEV.
introduction
THE OLIGOPOLY TRAP
Introduction
Delegated sequencing tokenomics structurally centralizes block production power, recreating the financial oligarchies of traditional finance within decentralized networks.
The validator cartel problem emerges because sequencer slots are limited and valuable. Entities like Lido Finance or professional staking pools consolidate voting power, creating a governance-for-rent economy. This mirrors the TradFi broker-dealer system, where a handful of institutions control market access and flow.
Economic centralization begets technical centralization. A sequencer cartel has no incentive to decentralize its hardware or geographic distribution, creating single points of failure. The proposer-builder separation (PBS) debate in Ethereum core development highlights this exact flaw, which rollups are now baking into their foundations.
key-trends
WHY DELEGATED SEQUENCING RECREATES OLIGARCHIES
The Centralization Playbook
Delegated sequencing tokenomics, while promising scalability, often regress to the extractive, permissioned models that blockchains were built to escape.
01
The Staking Cartel Problem
High capital requirements for running a sequencer node create a barrier to entry, centralizing control among a few large stakers. This mirrors the validator centralization seen in early PoS chains.
- Minimum Stake: Often 1M+ tokens or $1M+ in value to be viable.
- Concentration Risk: Top 5 entities can control >60% of sequencing rights.
- Economic Capture: Fees and MEV flow to the oligopoly, not the users.
>60%
Top 5 Control
$1M+
Entry Cost
02
The Governance Illusion
Token-weighted voting on protocol upgrades and fee parameters gives outsized power to large stakers, not users. This is a direct import from DAO governance failures.
- Voter Apathy: <5% token holder participation is common.
- Whale Dominance: A single entity with 10%+ of tokens can veto proposals.
- Protocol Capture: Upgrades favor sequencer profit over network health.
<5%
Voter Participation
10%+
Veto Threshold
03
The MEV Re-centralization
Centralized sequencer blocks become private mempools, enabling exclusive front-running and sandwich attacks. This recreates the Wall Street insider trading problem on-chain.
- Opaque Order Flow: Sequencers can see 100% of transactions before inclusion.
- Extracted Value: >80% of arbitrage MEV can be captured by the sequencer set.
- User Cost: Results in worse execution prices versus a decentralized pool.
>80%
MEV Capture
100%
Tx Visibility
04
The Lido Replication
Liquid staking derivatives (LSDs) for sequencer stakes will emerge, creating a single point of failure and systemic risk, exactly as seen with Lido on Ethereum.
- Market Share Target: Dominant LSD will aim for >30% of staked tokens.
- Protocol Risk: A bug in the LSD contract could freeze a third of the network.
- Regulatory Target: Centralized LSD entity becomes a clear enforcement target.
>30%
Target Share
1
Failure Point
05
The Interoperability Toll
Centralized sequencers controlling cross-chain messaging (like a LayerZero oracle set) can censor or tax interoperability, holding ecosystem liquidity hostage.
- Message Tax: Can add arbitrary fees on bridges like Axelar or Wormhole.
- Censorship Power: Can blacklist contracts or chains, fragmenting the network.
- Rent Extraction: Becomes a mandatory toll booth for all cross-chain activity.
100%
Censorship Power
Toll Booth
Business Model
06
The Solution: Credibly Neutral Sequencing
The antidote is a sequencing market based on proof-of-stake with enforced decentralization and MEV redistribution, akin to Espresso Systems or Astria.
- Permissionless Entry: Low minimum stake via pooling or restaking.
- MEV Burning/Smoothing: Redistribute extracted value to users or the treasury.
- Leader Election: Random, unpredictable selection prevents cartel formation.
Permissionless
Entry
MEV Burn
Redistribution
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE TRAP
The Mechanics of Cartel Formation
Delegated sequencing tokenomics structurally incentivize the formation of centralized validator cartels, recreating the oligarchic dynamics of Proof-of-Work mining pools.
Delegation centralizes voting power. Token holders rationally delegate to the largest, most reputable validators to maximize staking rewards, mirroring the centralization pressure seen in Ethereum's Lido or Solana's Jito. This creates a small group of dominant sequencers.
Cartels maximize MEV extraction. A dominant sequencer coalition can coordinate to optimize cross-domain MEV capture, similar to Flashbots on Ethereum, creating a closed-loop profit system that excludes smaller players and degrades user experience.
The protocol subsidizes centralization. Token emissions and fee rewards disproportionately flow to the largest stakers, creating a winner-take-most economy. This is the same flaw that plagues many DeFi governance tokens, where voting power concentrates over time.
Evidence: On testnets with delegated sequencing, the top 3 entities consistently control over 60% of the voting power within 30 days, a trajectory identical to early Bitcoin mining pool consolidation.
TOKENOMICS & POWER DYNAMICS
Sequencer Model Comparison: Permissionless vs. Delegated
Analyzes how sequencer selection and reward distribution models impact decentralization and economic capture.
| Feature / Metric | Permissionless Sequencing (e.g., Espresso, Astria) | Delegated Sequencing (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Centralized Sequencing (Status Quo) |
|---|---|---|---|
Sequencer Entry Barrier | Open auction / Staking | Stake-weighted election | Whitelist only |
Validator Set Size | Theoretically unbounded | Fixed (e.g., 5-20 entities) | 1 (Single operator) |
Sequencer Revenue Distribution | To active proposers & stakers | To token stakers & treasury | 100% to operator |
MEV Capture & Redistribution | Encrypted mempools, PBS, redistribution | Limited transparency, keeper network | 100% to sequencer operator |
Governance Control Over Sequencing Rights | None (algorithmic) | Token-holder vote | Operator discretion |
Time to Censorship Resistance (L1 Inclusion) | < 1 block | ~7 days (via fraud/validity proof challenge) | Never (requires social consensus) |
Protocol Revenue from Sequencing | 0.3-1% of transaction value | ~10-30% of transaction value | ~100% of transaction value |
counter-argument
THE OLIGOPOLY REBOOT
The Builder's Defense (And Why It's Wrong)
Delegated sequencing tokenomics are a flawed solution that recreates the centralized extractive models they claim to replace.
The builder's argument is rational. Teams like Arbitrum and Optimism need sustainable revenue to fund development and security. Selling block space through a sequencer fee market is the most direct monetization path, mirroring the Ethereum MEV supply chain.
This recreates financial oligopolies. A small group of token-staked sequencers controls transaction ordering and fees. This is not decentralization; it's a permissioned cartel with a token wrapper, structurally similar to the validator staking pools it aimed to disrupt.
Token voting corrupts protocol governance. Delegated Proof-of-Stake models, as seen in Cosmos, demonstrate that voter apathy leads to cartelization. The same dynamic will centralize sequencer selection, creating a governance-for-rent market for entities like Jump Crypto or Figment.
The evidence is in the incentives. A sequencer earning fees from priority ordering has no incentive to minimize MEV or optimize for user cost. The profit motive directly conflicts with the network's health, a flaw proven by Ethereum's PBS rollout struggles.
takeaways
THE OLIGARCHY TRAP
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Delegated sequencing tokenomics, while solving for decentralization theater, often recreate the same extractive economic models they were meant to replace.
01
The Staking Cartel Problem
High capital requirements for sequencer nodes create a validator oligopoly. This mirrors the miner extractable value (MEV) centralization seen in early PoW.\n- >60% of stake often controlled by top 5 entities\n- Creates rent-seeking via priority fee auctions\n- Replaces L1 validators with L2 sequencer cartels
>60%
Stake Controlled
Oligopoly
Outcome
02
Fee Market Capture
Sequencers profit from ordering rights, not just execution. This creates a native MEV supply chain where value is extracted before users.\n- Priority gas auctions become the primary revenue\n- ~15-30% of user fees can be sequencer MEV\n- Incentivizes cross-domain arbitrage over network health
15-30%
Fee Extract
MEV Native
Revenue Model
03
Governance Token Illusion
Protocol tokens for delegated sequencing often lack real utility, becoming ve-token vote markets for sequencer slot allocation.\n- Token voting determines who gets to extract value\n- Leads to protocol politics over technical merit\n- See: SushiSwap governance attacks, Curve wars dynamics
ve-Token
Model
Politics
Outcome
04
The Shared Sequencer Mirage
Shared sequencers like Astria, Espresso centralize cross-rollup ordering power. This creates a single point of failure/censorship and a new meta-rent seeker.\n- Replaces N rollup sequencers with 1 shared sequencer\n- Vertical integration risk with rollup stacks\n- ~$100M+ valuations pre-product signal rent expectations
1 -> N
Centralization
$100M+
Pre-Val
05
Solution: Enshrined Sequencing
The only robust fix is L1-enshrined sequencing, where the base layer (e.g., Ethereum) orders transactions. This aligns economic security with physical decentralization.\n- Eliminates sequencer profit extraction layer\n- Uses L1's existing validator set (~1M+ entities)\n- See: Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) roadmap
1M+
Entities
Aligned
Incentives
06
Solution: SUAVE-Like Auctions
Decouple block building from proposing via a permissionless, specialized mempool. This commoditizes sequencing, turning it into a competitive market not a stake-based right.\n- Flashbots' SUAVE generalizes this concept\n- Any builder can compete for ordering rights\n- User fees go to executors, not gatekeepers
Permissionless
Access
Market
Mechanism
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