Optimism is a Layer‑2 scaling solution built on top of Ethereum. It inherits Ethereum’s security while offering faster and cheaper transactions through optimistic rollups. Ethereum, meanwhile, is the base settlement layer that prioritises decentralisation and security but struggles with congestion and high fees.

It seems that on the surface level it does look like Optimism is indeed Ethereum, but let’s take a deeper dive.

As I have already stated Ethereum is a layer-1 solution, a base blockchain for smart contracts and settlements whereas Optimism is very much layer-2 and has been devised to serve as a scaling solution to reduce fees and increase throughput. So, it naturally follows that Ethereum fees are high and especially during congestion due to limitations on the layer-1 block space whereas Optimism fees are significantly lower due to off‑chain computation.

Concerning security, with them both being built on the same technology there is little difference with the only (relatively insignificant) one to mention is Optimism’s usage of rollup assumptions which relates to transaction validation – I will touch on this again in a few minutes.

Ethereum is highly decentralised, whereas Optimism somewhat less so; this is primarily due to its usage of fewer sequencer.

In terms of scale, Ethereum is off the charts, with it being only second to BitCoin (which has a totally different Modus Operandi and purpose – see a previous post) and it powers most of the crypto-verse. On the other hand, Optimism is a growing eco-system that utilises much of the same tools and technology. This lack of scale can result in withdrawals on the Optimism network being delayed whereas with Ethereum they are more or less instantaneous.

One further plus for Optimism worthy of mention, because of the shared technology is that developers can deploy Ethereum smart contracts on Optimism with minimal changes, accelerating adoption.

With it lacking the scale and impact of Etheruem it naturally follows that Optimism is far from perfect and particularly when it comes to aforementioned transaction delays. Some may also have a problem with the assumption model for rollups in that validation is automated unless challenged.

I wonder if banks do this – but I guess they must because of the sheer throughput, presumably based on the client’s profile. The banks search for high volume transactions (combined or single) concerning organisations and individuals, that have already been vetted eg to establish final ownership of shell corporations etc, as well as potential PEPs (Politically Exposed People).

I know something of this because this is exactly what MamaRah was doing for more than a decade!

So, in the end Optimism can be seen as extension of Ethereum, with it sharing much of the same infrastructure and technology.

One final thing, that I have been holding back just for this conclusion is that on the Optimism Network, Ethereum is wrapped but still holds a 1:1 ratio with its unwrapped counterpart, but… and here is the rub … it can be moved about much cheaper than on its own network.

So, in the end it might just be and especially if you feel optimistic about (sorry I couldn’t resist that) Optimism, it might just be everything that Ethereum 2 promised and failed to be.

Now there is something for you to chew over during the weekend.

As always stay safe and well my friends.