Protocol Sustainability models, as championed by frameworks like Arbitrum Orbit and OP Stack, prioritize predictable, on-chain fee capture to fund protocol development and security. This creates a stable, long-term funding mechanism directly tied to chain usage. For example, Arbitrum sequencers currently capture ~80% of all transaction fees on its chains, creating a substantial and consistent revenue stream to support core contributors and ecosystem grants.
LABS
Comparisons
OP Stack vs ZK Stack: Protocol Sustainability & Revenue Diversification
A technical and economic comparison of the OP Stack and ZK Stack, analyzing their revenue models, token utility, and long-term viability for CTOs and protocol architects building sovereign rollups.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
PROTOCOL SUSTAINABILITY VS REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION
Introduction: The Economic Engine of Rollup SDKs
The long-term viability of a rollup hinges on its economic model, where the choice between protocol sustainability and revenue diversification defines its strategic path.
Revenue Diversification strategies, exemplified by Polygon CDK and zkSync's ZK Stack, focus on enabling application-specific revenue streams beyond simple transaction fees. This approach allows rollups to monetize through custom tokenomics, premium services, and MEV capture strategies. The trade-off is a more complex economic design that places greater operational burden on the rollup team but offers potentially higher upside and alignment with their specific user base.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing operational overhead and ensuring a proven, automatic funding model for core development, choose a sustainability-focused SDK like OP Stack. If you prioritize maximum economic flexibility and the ability to build novel token-driven ecosystems (e.g., for gaming or social apps), choose a diversification-enabled framework like Polygon CDK.
PROTOCOL SUSTAINABILITY & REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION
Revenue & Sustainability Feature Matrix: OP Stack vs ZK Stack
Direct comparison of key economic and sustainability metrics for blockchain infrastructure.
| Metric | OP Stack (Optimism) | ZK Stack (zkSync) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Revenue Source | Sequencer Fees (L2 Gas) | Sequencer Fees (L2 Gas) |
Protocol Revenue Share | Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) | ZK Stack License Fees |
Native Token Utility | Governance (OP Token) | Transaction Fees & Security (ZK Token) |
Sequencer Decentralization Roadmap | Stage 1: Permissioned | Stage 0: Permissioned |
MEV Redistribution | MEV Auction & MEV-Burn (Proposed) | Sequencer-Only (Current) |
Developer Fee Model | 0% Protocol Fee | Customizable (Set by Superchain) |
Proven Revenue (30d Avg) | $1.2M | $850K |
pros-cons-a
SUSTAINABILITY VS. REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION
OP Stack: Pros and Cons for Protocol Sustainability
Evaluating the OP Stack's modular framework against the need for diversified, sustainable revenue streams. Key trade-offs for protocol architects.
01
Pro: Predictable, Shared Infrastructure Costs
Shared sequencer revenue model: The Superchain's shared sequencing layer (currently in development) aims to distribute costs and revenue across chains like Base, Zora, and Mode. This reduces the individual cost of security and block production, a major sustainability hurdle for solo chains. This matters for teams wanting to launch a chain without the massive upfront capital for a full validator set.
02
Pro: Protocol-Governed Upgrade Path
On-chain governance via the Optimism Collective: Protocol upgrades and fee structures are managed by OP token holders and the Citizens' House. This creates a sustainable, decentralized governance flywheel where revenue (from sequencing and potentially L1 gas auctions) can be directed back to public goods funding, aligning long-term incentives. This matters for protocols seeking credible neutrality and community-aligned evolution.
03
Con: Centralized Revenue Capture Risk
Initial sequencer centralization: The current design has a single, centralized sequencer operated by the OP Labs team. While moving towards decentralization, this creates a near-term bottleneck where the majority of transaction fee revenue is captured by a single entity, not the individual L2 or its apps. This matters for protocols that need immediate, direct fee revenue to sustain operations.
04
Con: Limited & Shared MEV Revenue
Diluted MEV opportunities: In a shared sequencer model, MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) is captured and redistributed across the entire Superchain, not individual chains. Protocols like Aave or Uniswap on a specific OP Stack chain cannot fully capture the MEV their liquidity generates. This matters for DeFi-heavy chains where MEV is a critical component of validator incentives and protocol treasury revenue.
pros-cons-b
Evaluating Long-Term Viability vs. Revenue Models
ZK Stack: Pros and Cons for Protocol Sustainability
A technical breakdown of how ZK Stack's architecture impacts a protocol's operational sustainability and its ability to generate and diversify revenue streams.
01
Pro: Unmatched Cost Predictability
Fixed operational overhead: Once a ZK-rollup is deployed, its primary recurring cost is the data availability (DA) fee. Using Ethereum for DA provides a stable, predictable cost model (~$0.01-$0.10 per transaction batch), unlike L1s with volatile gas fees. This matters for financial modeling and runway planning, allowing protocols to forecast operational expenses with high accuracy over multi-year horizons.
~$0.01-0.10
Avg. Cost per Tx Batch
02
Pro: Sovereign Revenue Capture
Full control over fee markets and MEV: Protocols building with ZK Stack (e.g., zkSync, Polygon zkEVM) own their sequencer and can capture 100% of transaction fees and a significant portion of MEV (Maximal Extractable Value). This matters for creating sustainable treasury inflows without sharing revenue with a base layer. Protocols like dYdX v4 exemplify this model, migrating to own their chain for this reason.
03
Con: High Initial R&D & Audit Burden
Substantial upfront investment: Implementing and securing a custom ZK circuit requires deep cryptographic expertise and extensive, costly audits (often $500K+). This matters for bootstrapped teams or those with sub-$1M budgets, as it diverts capital from product development and marketing, directly impacting early-stage sustainability.
$500K+
Typical Audit Cost
04
Con: Limited Native Revenue Diversification
Dependence on transaction volume: Revenue is tightly coupled to on-chain activity. During bear markets or low-usage periods, income can plummet. This matters for protocols seeking resilient business models. Unlike general-purpose L1s (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) that earn fees from NFTs, DeFi, and memecoins, a niche ZK-rollup's health is tied to its single application's success.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Which Stack for Your Use Case?
Ethereum for DeFi
Verdict: The incumbent standard for high-value, complex applications. Strengths: Unmatched security and decentralization via its massive, battle-tested validator set. Largest TVL and deepest liquidity pools (e.g., Uniswap, Aave). The EVM standard ensures a vast developer ecosystem and composability. Ideal for protocols where security and network effects outweigh cost. Trade-offs: High and volatile gas fees make micro-transactions prohibitive. Slower block times (12-14s) and finality (~15 mins) limit high-frequency use cases.
Solana for DeFi
Verdict: The high-performance challenger for low-cost, high-throughput applications. Strengths: Ultra-low fees (<$0.001) and high TPS (2-3k sustained) enable novel DeFi mechanics like real-time order books (e.g., Drift, Phoenix). Fast block time (400ms) and sub-second finality. Best for applications requiring high user volume and frequent interactions. Trade-offs: Less decentralized than Ethereum. Past network outages pose reliability concerns for absolute uptime-critical applications. Smaller, though growing, TVL and ecosystem.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Choosing for Long-Term Viability
A data-driven breakdown of how protocol sustainability and revenue diversification strategies impact long-term project survival.
Protocol Sustainability excels at creating a robust, predictable economic model by deeply aligning incentives between token holders, validators, and users. For example, Ethereum's burn mechanism (EIP-1559) has destroyed over 4.5 million ETH, creating deflationary pressure that directly benefits stakers and long-term holders. This model prioritizes network security and value accrual to the native asset, making it ideal for foundational infrastructure like Lido Finance or Uniswap that require extreme stability.
Revenue Diversification takes a different approach by building multi-chain or application-specific fee streams beyond the base layer token. This results in a trade-off: it reduces dependency on a single chain's performance but adds operational complexity. A protocol like Chainlink demonstrates this by generating fees in ETH, MATIC, AVAX, and other native tokens across dozens of integrated chains, insulating its revenue from any one ecosystem's downturn.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deep economic security and maximal value capture within a dominant ecosystem, choose a sustainability-focused model like Ethereum or Solana. If you prioritize resilience through cross-chain exposure and capturing value from multiple growing markets, choose a revenue-diversification strategy employed by cross-chain bridges like LayerZero or oracles like Pyth Network.
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