You are reading an excerpt from our free but shortened abridged report! While still packed with incredible research and data, for just $40/month you can upgrade to our FULL library of 60+ reports (including this one) and complete industry-leading analysis on the top crypto assets. 

Becoming a Premium member means enjoying all the perks of a Basic membership PLUS:

• Full-length CORE Reports: More technical, in-depth research, actionable insights, and potential market alpha for serious crypto users
• Early access to future CORE ratings: Being early is sometimes just as important as being right!
• Premium Member CORE+ Reports: Coverage on the top issues pertaining to crypto users like bridge security, layer two solutions, DeFi plays, and more
• CORE report Audio playback: Don’t want to read? No problem! Listen on the go.

Scalability Limitations

Rollups, by design, aim to enhance the Ethereum base layer's capacity by processing transactions off-chain and subsequently posting the data on-chain in batches. This approach has indeed facilitated a notable increase in transaction throughput. However, as the utilization of rollups expands, a series of challenges emerge, highlighting the intricate complexities of blockchain scalability and operational efficiency.

One of the primary constraints faced by rollups is the scalability ceiling imposed by Ethereum's block size limit, currently set at approximately 15 million gas. This limitation directly impacts the volume of data that can be processed and verified within each block, capping Ethereum's data throughput to around 937,500 bytes per block. Given that rollup transactions are aggregated and submitted to Ethereum in compressed batches, the actual capacity for processing rollup transactions is further restricted. Assuming an average size of 12 bytes per rollup transaction, Ethereum's theoretical limit stands at roughly 78,000 rollup transactions per block. With blocks being produced every 12 seconds, this translates into a theoretical maximum throughput of 5,200 to 6,000 transactions per second (TPS). However, this scenario presupposes the exclusive use of Ethereum's block space for rollups, an unrealistic assumption considering the network also supports native applications and transactions. Consequently, the practical TPS limit for rollups is significantly lower, likely under 5,000 TPS.

The operational complexities and scalability challenges are further compounded by the reliance on a single sequencer for transaction processing in some rollup solutions. This design choice can introduce bottlenecks and limit the system's overall efficiency, particularly for specific use cases and developers.

Layer 2 (L2) solutions like Optimism and Arbitrum, which maintain a close alignment with Ethereum's Layer 1 (L1) chain, face substantial operational costs. These platforms incur millions of dollars in expenses, paid in ETH, for settling transactions on the Ethereum main chain. Such costs can significantly impact the scalability and economic viability of rollups.

Moreover, rollups that build upon the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) inherit the EVM's inherent limitations, including scalability issues, high gas costs, and computational inefficiencies. These constraints restrict the potential for rollups to offer dramatically improved performance and cost efficiency compared to the Ethereum network itself, which processes an average of 15-20 TPS under typical conditions. In contrast, dedicated scaling solutions like Arbitrum may achieve ~20-50 TPS, while other blockchains, such as Solana, boast significantly higher throughputs of ~300-600 TPS for non-vote transactions.

The substantial costs associated with utilizing Ethereum's L1 have spurred innovation, with emerging protocols like Celestia and EigenLayer seeking to "unbundle the L2 stack" by providing services to L2s at reduced costs. Additionally, alternative blockchains such as Solana, Aptos, and Sui offer distinct advantages, including faster and cheaper transactions, albeit with their own set of trade-offs for users and developers.

Rollup Fragmentation and Interoperability Constraints

The burgeoning growth of rollups is significantly influencing the cross-domain narrative within the blockchain ecosystem, particularly in the absence of a universally accepted global state, transport layer, or an in-built protocol for bridging and messaging. This scenario underscores a pivotal challenge: while rollups can harness liquidity and a degree of censorship resistance from their foundational layer, their capabilities for cross-rollup communication remain notably constrained. In essence, rollups function as isolated expansions of Ethereum's liquidity pool, resembling independent chains that encounter familiar hurdles in interconnectivity.

The concept of Shared Sequencing might offer a partial solution to these communication barriers for certain rollup clusters, yet the majority of existing and forthcoming rollups are poised to grapple with these issues. Factors such as the base layer's finality, congestion, and throughput further complicate these challenges. For instance, a user wishing to execute a "trustless" transaction from one rollup (Rollup A) to another (Rollup B) without resorting to a trusted third-party bridge—which introduces additional risk—faces significant delays. They must either await the verification of a Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) following a series of supermajority epochs or endure the challenge period associated with an optimistic rollup before their funds can be transitioned to Rollup B's bridge contract.

This situation highlights a critical bottleneck in the current rollup-centric approach to scaling and interoperability within the Ethereum ecosystem. The reliance on external bridges, each with its own set of security and trust assumptions, underscores the nascent state of rollup interoperability and the pressing need for more integrated solutions. As the blockchain community continues to innovate, the development of more seamless and secure methods for cross-rollup communication will be paramount in realizing the full potential of these technologies for creating a truly interconnected and decentralized digital infrastructure.

Sequencers

In the realm of Ethereum rollups, a centralized sequencer is a pivotal yet controversial element. This entity is tasked with gathering Layer 2 (L2) transactions, forming them into blocks, and submitting them to Ethereum. The centralized nature of the sequencer in most current rollups introduces several risks, including being a single failure point, potential for transaction censorship, and aggressive MEV extraction.

Problem with Centralized Sequencers

The sequencer, typically a single node run by the L2 team, is not very transparent and plays a crucial role in state transitions, like withdrawals. The absence of a sequencer can halt L2 block generation and impede asset withdrawals. Solutions like 'escape hatches' are being explored for such scenarios.

Centralized sequencers present a significant concern due to their middleman role between L2 transactions and L1. Risks include potential censorship, single-point failure, and MEV extraction, where the sequencer could reorder transactions for profit. Although MEV extraction has been minimal, different rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism have varying approaches to handling it. Both platforms, however, are working towards decentralizing their sequencer mechanisms to involve the community more in the block creation process and mitigate these centralization risks.