OP Stack excels at predictable, immediate profitability for sequencers through its MEV auction model. By auctioning the right to order transactions, sequencers can capture significant value, especially on high-volume chains like Base, which has processed over 100 million transactions. This model provides a clear, market-driven revenue stream on top of standard transaction fees, making it attractive for operators seeking direct monetization.
LABS
Comparisons
Sequencer Profitability Models: OP Stack vs ZK Stack
A technical analysis comparing the revenue streams, operational costs, and net profitability for sequencers operating on the OP Stack versus the ZK Stack, focusing on transaction fees, MEV, and L1 data/proving costs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Sequencer's Bottom Line
A direct comparison of the revenue models and economic incentives for sequencers in the OP Stack and ZK Stack ecosystems.
ZK Stack takes a different approach by prioritizing decentralization and security through its sequencer decentralization roadmap. While initial sequencer operation may be less immediately lucrative, the long-term vision involves a robust, permissionless set of provers and validators. This strategy results in a trade-off: lower short-term extractable value for sequencers in exchange for a more credibly neutral and resilient network, as seen in the design of zkSync Era and Linea.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing short-term sequencer revenue and capitalizing on MEV opportunities, the OP Stack's auction model is compelling. If you prioritize building on a foundation designed for long-term decentralization and censorship resistance, even at the cost of initial sequencer profits, the ZK Stack's architectural philosophy is the stronger choice.
tldr-summary
Sequencer Profitability Models
TL;DR: Key Profitability Differentiators
A direct comparison of revenue models and cost structures for OP Stack and ZK Stack sequencers. Profitability hinges on transaction volume, data costs, and proof generation overhead.
01
OP Stack: Lower Operational Overhead
Primary revenue from L1 data posting fees: Sequencers profit from the spread between L2 transaction fees and the cost to post data to Ethereum (via EIP-4844 blobs). With minimal computational overhead for fraud proofs, profitability scales directly with transaction volume. This model is proven by Optimism's Superchain, where sequencers like Base and Mode generate revenue from high-throughput, low-cost apps.
< $0.001
Avg. L2 Tx Cost
High
Volume Sensitivity
02
OP Stack: Shared Revenue & Ecosystem Flywheel
Protocol-owned sequencer with revenue sharing: The OP Stack's Collective model funnels a portion of sequencer profits back to the ecosystem treasury (e.g., Optimism RetroPGF). This funds public goods and attracts developers, creating a flywheel effect. For a chain builder, this means built-in economic alignment and subsidized growth, as seen with Base's contribution to the Optimism Collective.
Yes
Revenue Sharing
03
ZK Stack: Premium Fee Potential
Charge for cryptographic security and finality: ZK-rollup sequencers can command higher fees because they provide validity proofs ensuring immediate L1 finality. This is critical for high-value DeFi (e.g., derivatives on zkSync Era) and institutional use cases willing to pay for security. Revenue comes from L2 fees minus the cost of proof generation and L1 verification.
~10 min
Time to Finality
Premium
Fee Model
04
ZK Stack: High Fixed Proof Costs
Significant capital expenditure on provers: Profitability is gated by expensive, specialized hardware (GPU/ASIC) for proof generation. While projects like zkSync and Starknet optimize with recursive proofs, the operational model requires heavy upfront investment and ongoing technical overhead. This favors well-funded teams or applications where users explicitly pay for cryptographic guarantees.
High
Capex Barrier
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Sequencer Economics: OP Stack vs ZK Stack Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of sequencer revenue models, costs, and decentralization trade-offs for rollup operators.
| Metric / Feature | OP Stack (Optimism) | ZK Stack (zkSync) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Revenue Source | Sequencing Fees + MEV | Sequencing Fees + MEV |
Cost to Generate Proof | None (Fault Proofs) | $0.01 - $0.10 per batch |
Sequencer Decentralization Timeline | Stage 1 (Permissioned) | Stage 0 (Solo Sequencer) |
Profit Sharing with Base Chain | Yes (Revenue to OP Collective) | No (Retained by L2) |
Time to Economic Finality (L1) | ~7 days (Challenge Window) | ~1 hour (ZK Proof Verification) |
Native Token for Sequencing | Not Required | Not Required |
Custom Fee Token Support | true (Pay fees in any token) |
pros-cons-a
PROFITABILITY MODELS COMPARED
OP Stack vs ZK Stack: Sequencer Profitability
A technical breakdown of revenue models, cost structures, and key trade-offs for CTOs evaluating sequencer economics.
01
OP Stack: High-Margin MEV Capture
Primary Revenue Source: Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) from transaction ordering. Chains like Base and Mode retain 100% of sequencer fees and MEV revenue before sharing with the Superchain. This creates a high-margin, variable income stream.
This matters for protocols prioritizing immediate revenue generation and those with high-DEX or NFT trading volume where MEV opportunities are significant.
100%
Sequencer Fee Retention
02
OP Stack: Lower Fixed Costs
Cost Structure: Primarily L1 data posting fees (blob storage) and proving costs via the Fault Proof system. No ongoing ZK proof generation overhead. The shared Superchain security model (Ethereum) and decentralized sequencer set (coming with Superchain) reduce operational risk.
This matters for teams with constrained engineering resources or those needing predictable, lower base operational costs before scaling.
03
ZK Stack: Predictable Fee-Based Revenue
Primary Revenue Source: Transaction fee margin. Sequencers collect fees from users and pay a fixed cost for L1 data + proof verification. The profit is the stable difference. This model offers predictable, recurring income less dependent on volatile MEV markets.
This matters for enterprises and financial applications requiring stable, forecastable revenue streams and regulatory clarity.
Fixed-Cost
Proof Verification Fee
04
ZK Stack: Value Accrual via Token
Economic Alignment: Native token (e.g., ZKsync's ZK) is used for fee payment and governance, creating direct demand sink and protocol-owned value capture. Sequencer operators and provers may be incentivized/staked in the token ecosystem.
This matters for projects building long-term ecosystem alignment and those where token utility and staking are central to the chain's economic security.
05
Choose OP Stack for...
High-Growth Appchains & DeFi Hubs where MEV potential is high and you want to capture that value directly. Ideal if you prioritize:
- Rapid iteration with lower proof complexity.
- Joining a liquidity network (Superchain) for shared users and assets.
- Examples: Perpetuals DEX, NFT marketplaces, socialFi apps.
06
Choose ZK Stack for...
Enterprise & Stable-Revenue Chains where predictability and finality are critical. Ideal if you prioritize:
- Instant finality for UX (single-rollup proof finality).
- Regulatory-friendly, transparent fee models.
- Examples: Payments rail, gaming ecosystems, institutional asset tokenization.
pros-cons-b
Sequencer Profitability Models: OP Stack vs ZK Stack
ZK Stack Sequencer: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. The sequencer model is a primary driver of chain economics and decentralization strategy.
01
OP Stack: High Profit Margins
Sequencer as a profit center: The single, centralized sequencer captures 100% of MEV and transaction fees before settling to L1. This provides a strong, predictable revenue stream for the core development team or foundation. This matters for bootstrapping new chains where initial funding is critical.
02
OP Stack: Simplicity & Speed
Lower operational overhead: No need to generate expensive ZK proofs for sequencing, reducing hardware costs and complexity. Transactions are batched and posted to Ethereum with simple fraud proofs. This matters for rapid prototyping and deployment where time-to-market is the priority.
03
ZK Stack: Credible Neutrality & Future-Proofing
Decentralized sequencer set from day one: The architecture is designed for multiple, permissionless provers and sequencers, reducing centralization risk. This aligns with the endgame of Ethereum scaling and matters for protocols prioritizing long-term censorship resistance and community governance.
04
ZK Stack: Enhanced Security & Finality
Validity proofs ensure state correctness: The sequencer's work is cryptographically verified, eliminating the need for a 7-day fraud proof window. This provides near-instant L1 finality (minutes vs. days). This matters for high-value DeFi applications and bridges that require strong trust assumptions.
05
OP Stack: Mature Tooling & Ecosystem
Established developer network: With chains like Base, Optimism, and Blast, the OP Stack has a proven deployment track record and a large pool of experienced developers. Tooling like the Superchain Faucet and OP Stack Explorer is battle-tested. This matters for teams that want reliable, supported infrastructure.
06
ZK Stack: Superior Data Efficiency
Smaller calldata via proof compression: Validity proofs allow for more aggressive data compression (e.g., storing only state diffs), potentially leading to lower L1 data posting costs at scale. This matters for high-throughput applications where long-term data cost sustainability is a key economic metric.
SEQUENCER PROFITABILITY
Technical Deep Dive: Cost and Revenue Drivers
The economic model of a rollup's sequencer is its financial engine. This section compares the revenue streams, cost structures, and long-term sustainability of the OP Stack and ZK Stack approaches.
OP Stack sequencers are generally more profitable in the short term due to lower operational costs. They avoid the expensive computational overhead of generating zero-knowledge proofs. However, ZK Stack sequencers capture more long-term value by bundling proof generation, a service that becomes increasingly valuable as transaction volume scales. Profitability depends heavily on transaction volume and L1 gas prices at settlement time.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Which Stack Fits Your Goals?
OP Stack for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for established protocols prioritizing ecosystem liquidity and developer familiarity. Strengths:
- Proven Economics: Sequencer revenue from MEV and transaction fees is predictable, supporting sustainable protocol treasury growth (e.g., Optimism's RetroPGF).
- Ecosystem Liquidity: Native integration with Ethereum's DeFi stack (EVM equivalence) and high TVL on Base and OP Mainnet enable deep liquidity pools from day one.
- Developer Speed: Faster development cycles with the Bedrock upgrade's fraud-proof system, allowing rapid iteration for AMMs like Velodrome or lending markets. Considerations: Latency to finality (~1 week for full withdrawal) requires careful bridge design for high-value settlements.
ZK Stack for DeFi
Verdict: The frontier choice for applications demanding capital efficiency and trust-minimized, near-instant finality. Strengths:
- Instant Finality: Validity proofs provide Ethereum-level security in minutes, not days, crucial for cross-chain DEXs and margin trading platforms.
- Superior Capital Efficiency: Faster withdrawal finality unlocks capital, improving yields for protocols like zkSync Era's SyncSwap or LayerZero's OFT standard.
- Data Efficiency: Future-proof with Ethereum's EIP-4844 blobs, promising the lowest possible data availability costs for users. Considerations: Currently higher prover costs and less mature EVM compatibility (e.g., zkEVM differences) can increase initial development overhead.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the economic trade-offs between Optimism's and zkSync's sequencer models for protocol architects.
OP Stack's Profitability Model excels at predictable, low-cost operations and rapid ecosystem growth because of its proven sequencer fee auction model and retroactive public goods funding (RetroPGF). For example, the Base network, built on the OP Stack, has generated substantial revenue from its fixed 2.5 Gwei L1 data posting fee, while distributing over $100M to developers via RetroPGF rounds. This model prioritizes ecosystem vibrancy and developer incentives over maximizing immediate sequencer profit, creating a powerful flywheel for adoption.
ZK Stack's Profitability Model takes a different approach by focusing on technical efficiency as a revenue driver. Its core advantage is data compression via validity proofs, which can reduce L1 data posting costs by up to 90% compared to optimistic rollups under high load. This results in a trade-off: while the base technology is more complex and carries higher R&D overhead, it creates a long-term economic moat through superior scalability. The model is designed to capture value from high-throughput applications like perpetual DEXs (e.g., dYdX) and gaming, where lower marginal costs translate directly to sequencer profit.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing time-to-market, fostering a developer community, and leveraging a battle-tested economic flywheel, choose the OP Stack. Its model is optimized for ecosystem growth. If you prioritize ultimate scalability, lower variable costs at scale, and building on the most advanced cryptographic stack for future-proofing, choose the ZK Stack. Its profitability is tied to technical superiority in high-volume environments.
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