Choice of L2: towards optimistic rollups


Outwave beta app is currently being tested on Polygon Mumbai network but for various reasons an alt. L1 like Polygon aren’t the right choice. Following some of those reasons:

  • Ethereum moved to a Rollup Centric Roadmap at the end of 2020
  • monolithic L1s are inefficient and their relevance is fading while rollups are getting cheaper, faster and more secure
  • research has finally paid and numerous true L2 are being developed and already used in production: Arbitrum and Optimism have been live from more than a year

Is it worth to spend few words on the latest tech: there are now live ZK Rollups solutions!
Such as zksync, starknet etc… these are promising and exciting L2s but I think Outwave needs to rely on something battletested and with a big community. Also EVM compatibility for general purpose programming is still hard on ZKRs, but a solved problem on Optimistic Rollups. This leaves us with 2 obvious choices: Arbitrum and Optimism.

After this premise I would like to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of both and, hopefully, start a constructive debate.

  • Optimism uses single-round fraud proofs executed on layer-1, Arbitrum uses muli-round fraud proofs executed off-chain which is cheaper and more efficient
  • Optimism supports Solidity, Arbitrum supports all EVM compiled languages
  • Optimism is effectively community led, infact it is a DAO with its community token, Arbitrum is almost certainly going to come out with its token and decentralize its governance in the next months
  • both are leading networks having a combined 80% of the TVL of all L2s, Arbitrum though has roughly 1 billion more of value locked and a larger number of live applications
  • both are cheap and are going to be cheaper in the near future

I think both are strong candidates and good choices, since they both align with the needs and values ​​of Outwave which are

  • attention to the user experience
  • community support
  • cheap fees
  • security
  • decentralization

What i like of Arbitrum is its wider adoption and the fact that currently it has a slightly superior rollup architecture and better security. On the other hand Optimism is already a decentralized protocol, governed by the community.

What do you think?

From the latest news, my impression is that big names and brands are launching NFTs on Polygon, which would make grow the NFTs ecosystem on that specific blockchain. Still, I’m not a big fan of side chains as they are currently not decentralized. I know that this is just a phase, and they are working on it, but why should we move on a side chain while Ethereum is adopting scaling solutions?

Just to double-check what I believe is true, could you confirm the following?

  • Token (erc20) on L2 can be managed by users on L1 and L2 without a bridge
  • NFTs launched on L2 can be managed by users on L1 and L2 with no

Let’s first make sure that L2 supports our use cases correctly, and then let’s dig into Optimis vs Arbitrium :face_with_peeking_eye:

  • Token (erc20) on L2 can be managed by users on L1 and L2 without a bridge

A bridge is needed to move your tokens from L1 to L2, luckily bridges are a solved problem and they generally work well and fast. Also there are on-ramp solutions to directly convert fiat to a crypto on L2.

  • NFTs launched on L2 can be managed by users on L1 and L2 with no

I learned today that optimism has an NFT bridge, only from Ethereum to Optimism but it looks great

After getting in touch with the guys from urbe.eth (@Frank_c is one of them :slight_smile:) and discussing all the pro and cons of moving to a L2, I propose to stay on Polygon, for the following reasons:

  • Polygon has a huge NFTs adoption. In the future, blockchains will specialize in specific use cases, and Polygon is a good candidate for NFTs.
  • Polygon is working on Polygon ZK rollups which will post transaction data on Ethereum, so users can rely on Ethereum to enforce transactions conducted on the Layer 2 (L2) chain. My understanding here is that Polygon will, at some time, get rid of the current 100+ validators and use Etherium directly as a L1.

For this reasons, I don’t see any strong motivation to move to a L2 that uses optimistic rollups.

1 Like

I agree with all the points, also having used Polygon for quite some time I can say it’s quite reliable and withstood the test of time.

Ok, let’s launch on Polygon, then.
Outwave’s architecture is meant to be multichain; if we need to support an additional EVM blockchain, we should be able to do it without much effort.

the architecture is already designed to do that with a really low effort :+1: