With the completion of the Cancun upgrade and the subsequent reduction in L2 gas fees, market attention has once again turned to Layer 2 solutions. Among Rollup-based L2 solutions, two main categories dominate: Optimistic Rollups and ZK Rollups. While Optimistic Rollups currently hold the majority market share due to their mature ecosystem, both approaches face significant limitations. To address these constraints while further optimizing efficiency and decentralization, Based Rollup has emerged as a promising alternative. This innovative approach not only simplifies technical complexity and reduces transaction latency but also stands as the only solution that fully inherits Ethereum's liveness guarantees. Among known projects, only Taiko—a ZK Rollup team—is currently developing a solution based on this architecture.
Understanding the Limitations of Existing Rollup Solutions
Optimistic Rollup Challenges
Optimistic Rollups require a lengthy challenge period—typically seven days—to confirm transactions and correct potential fraud. This design forces users to wait extended periods before withdrawing funds, significantly slowing overall transaction throughput. Additionally, during periods of Ethereum network congestion, processing fraud proofs involves substantially higher gas fees, making the system economically inefficient during peak usage.
ZK Rollup Considerations
While ZK Rollups offer faster transaction confirmation times and reduce on-chain data storage—thereby lowering costs—they come with their own limitations. The process of generating zero-knowledge proofs consumes enormous computational resources and time, ultimately affecting both overall costs and transaction processing speed (TPS).
Both Optimistic and ZK Rollups require complex infrastructure and security mechanisms to process and validate L2 transactions, creating negative impacts on transaction costs and network efficiency.
How Based Rollup Addresses These Challenges
Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake proposed Based Rollup (also known as L1-sequenced Rollup) in March 2023 as a solution to these persistent problems. This innovative approach completely relies on the underlying L1 for transaction sequencing. The design allows L1 proposers to collaborate permissionlessly with L2 searchers and builders, incorporating Rollup blocks directly into L1 blocks—effectively outsourcing sequencing rights to L1 validators.
In Based Rollup architecture, the consensus layer, data availability layer, and settlement layer all remain on Ethereum, with only the execution layer built on the Rollup network to handle transaction execution and state updates. Notably, Based Rollup addresses efficiency problems from a sequencing perspective, distinguishing it from the validation-focused approaches of Optimistic and ZK Rollups. Since these approaches operate on different dimensions, Based Rollup isn't mutually exclusive with OP or ZK classifications—meaning both Optimistic and ZK Rollups can become Based Rollups if they outsource sequencing to L1 validators.
By transferring sequencing responsibility to L1, Based Rollup inherits Ethereum's security and liveness while optimizing L2 performance. It represents the only Rollup solution that inherits 100% of Ethereum's liveness guarantees, offering several distinct advantages:
Complete Liveness Inheritance
Based Rollup maintains security and decentralization levels identical to Ethereum, eliminating the need for additional security mechanisms or consensus algorithms to ensure transaction validity and order. This creates a more secure and efficient system compared to Rollups with escape hatch mechanisms, where users must wait through extended periods to guarantee settlement when withdrawing funds to L1 during network failures or attacks.
Simplified Technical Complexity
When L2 solutions handle transaction sequencing and data availability independently, they introduce additional complexity and potential security risks. Transferring sequencing responsibility to L1 simplifies L2 structure, eliminating the need for sequencer signature verification, escape hatches, or external Proof-of-Stake consensus mechanisms.
Reduced Latency
Using L1 for transaction sequencing enables faster confirmation of transaction validity and order, reducing confirmation times while improving overall network responsiveness and efficiency.
Lower Operational Costs
With L1 handling transaction sequencing, L2 can more effectively batch and confirm transactions, reducing validation complexity and the resources required for independent sequencing. This cost efficiency becomes particularly pronounced during periods of high transaction volume.
Economic Incentive Alignment
L1 miners receive additional fees and incentives for participating in L2 transaction sequencing, increasing their motivation to maintain overall network health. This design helps maintain incentive consistency across different network layers, enhancing the economic security of the entire ecosystem.
👉 Explore advanced scaling solutions
Challenges Facing Based Rollup Implementation
Despite its promising advantages, Based Rollup technology faces several significant challenges:
Revenue Limitations
Relying on L1 for sequencing limits opportunities to capture MEV (Maximal Extractable Value). Most MEV generated through Based Rollup transactions flows to L1 validators, with the Based Rollup itself unable to directly benefit from these rewards.
Sequencing Flexibility Limitations
Delegating sequencing tasks to L1 may reduce sequencing flexibility, affecting specific transaction ordering strategies and the implementation of rapid transaction confirmation. For example, since L1 sequencing decisions may prioritize transactions that maximize miner profits, implementing mechanisms like Arbitrum's First-Come First-Served (FCFS) ordering in Based Rollup would require additional technical support (such as EigenLayer).
Current Projects Building Based Rollup Solutions
As a relatively new concept introduced just over a year ago, Based Rollup remains in theoretical development and implementation refinement stages. Consequently, few projects are currently building on this architecture, with Taiko being the most recognized initiative.
Taiko is an L2 solution utilizing ZK Rollup technology that has developed a Type-1 zkEVM, providing identical opcodes and functionality to Ethereum—ensuring high compatibility with existing Ethereum ecosystems. Shortly after the Based Rollup concept emerged, Taiko began developing its implementation, entrusting transaction sequencing to Ethereum validators while leveraging Ethereum for settlement, data availability, and consensus mechanisms to simplify Rollup structure.
On January 15, 2024, Taiko launched its Katla testnet, implementing Based Contestable Rollup (BCR)—a variant that incorporates a dispute resolution process (similar to fraud proof systems) into the transaction verification workflow.
Future Outlook and Potential
Although Based Rollup development may require additional time, resources, and both market and technical validation, the long-term outlook remains promising. With enhanced security, decentralized characteristics, simplified structure, and aligned incentives, Based Rollup appears positioned to gain competitive advantages in the market. Particularly in DeFi applications, Based Rollup demonstrates significant potential advantages through faster transaction confirmation speeds and lower transaction costs.
As technology continues to mature and market recognition grows, Based Rollup will likely secure a meaningful position within the Rollup L2 solutions landscape.
Frequently Asked Questions
What distinguishes Based Rollup from other Layer 2 solutions?
Based Rollup uniquely outsources transaction sequencing to Ethereum's L1 validators, inheriting full security and liveness guarantees from the base layer. Unlike traditional Rollups that maintain independent sequencing mechanisms, Based Rollup simplifies architecture while maintaining Ethereum-equivalent security.
How does Based Rollup improve transaction speeds?
By leveraging Ethereum's existing consensus mechanism for sequencing, Based Rollup eliminates the need for complex validation processes, reducing latency and enabling faster transaction confirmations compared to solutions requiring additional security layers.
Can existing Optimistic or ZK Rollups convert to Based Rollup?
Yes, since Based Rollup operates on a different dimension (sequencing rather than validation), both Optimistic and ZK Rollups can adopt Based Rollup characteristics by outsourcing their sequencing to Ethereum validators.
What are the economic implications for Based Rollup operators?
While Based Rollup operators benefit from reduced infrastructure complexity and costs, they potentially miss out on MEV revenue opportunities that flow to L1 validators. This economic model prioritizes security and simplicity over direct revenue generation.
How does Based Rollup enhance security?
By inheriting Ethereum's liveness guarantees and eliminating the need for additional consensus mechanisms, Based Rollup maintains security equivalent to the base layer without introducing new attack vectors or trust assumptions.
What applications benefit most from Based Rollup architecture?
DeFi protocols and applications requiring rapid transaction finality with maximum security benefit particularly from Based Rollup's combination of low latency, reduced costs, and Ethereum-equivalent security guarantees.