Which Layer2 will survive?

The beginning of 2024 saw the emergence of multiple layer2; each promising to scale Ethereum, offer a high transaction throughput and reduce network fees. We will go over the major solutions and compare their performance.

The beginning

Polygon (Matic) was the first layer2 to get mass adoption. It is designed to improve the scalability and efficiency of Ethereum by offering faster and cheaper transactions while retaining the security and decentralization of the Ethereum blockchain. Polygon acts as a Proof of stake sidechain that does commit all transactions to Ethereum. It uses a technique called checkpointing to periodically batch and commit information about the state of the sidechain (transaction summary) to the Ethereum.

Zero-Knowledge Proofs

Zero-knowledge proofs are a well-established cryptographic concept that has been researched and developed by cryptographers for several decades. ZK-proofs are based on the idea that a party (the “prover”) can demonstrate to a different party (the “verifier”) that a statement is true without disclosing any specifics about the information itself. ZK-Rollup solutions will be developed by many players for scaling Ethereum

Polygon zkEVM

In order for Polygon to offer all the benefits of Ethereum’s security and compatibility with existing smart contracts, a new zkEVM solution is offered. zkEVM is a specific implementation of ZK-proofs on Ethereum Virtual Machine. The focus shifts to using ZK-proofs to commit transactions directly to Ethereum in a more efficient and secure way, rather than relying on periodic checkpoints. Polygon is not moving entirely to zkEVM but rather positioning it as one of several options within its broader ecosystem.

zkSync

zkSync uses ZK-Rollups but incorporates a unique virtual machine and transaction logic to optimize for scalability and developer flexibility. zkSync aims to provide compatibility with many Ethereum-based tools and smart contracts, but it does so by using a custom virtual machine called the zkSync VM. Since it’s a custom VM, developers might need to make slight modifications to their smart contracts. zkSync focuses on providing a developer-friendly environment while striving to support more advanced features. It is not as deeply tied to Ethereum’s architecture as zkEVM. zkSync is focused on more complex use cases such as account abstraction and native layer3 support.

Polygon POS vs zkEVM vs zkSync

Transactions fees on zkEVM and zkSync are paid in ETH. This lowers the demand on the native tokens MATIC and ZK. Polygon POS still uses MATIC as its transaction fee token.

MATIC will be migrated to POL. The goal is to use it as a core utility token that can help secure and scale multiple chains inclusing zkEVM. POL’s primary goal is to be used for staking to secure all of Polygon’s chains and may be used as a transaction token.

zkSync just launched its native token ZK. For now, it is mostly a governance token that allows users to vote on protocol upgrades. It is used for staking and securing the network, but it’s still not used for transaction fees. It might be used to pay for transaction fees on the different chains that launch of zkSync, so its future depends on new interconnected ZK chains.

The price of ZK token has not performed well following the airdrop, probably because of lack of utility. The migration from MATIC to POL did not help the token gain in value. POL and ZK have a potential, but they greatly depend on the chain’s adoption. Polygon will be more suited for general purpose applications while Zksync will be more suited for specific applications.

Let’s do a comparison of Polygon vs Zksync:

In terms of zk technology, we can see that zksync has more adoption, while polygon relies more on its legacy. However, both chains are facing stiff competition.

Optimistic rollups

Optimistic Rollups is a Layer 2 scaling solution that garnered considerable interest due to its ability to process more transactions efficiently while utilizing Ethereum’s security. Unlike ZK-Rollups, which employ cryptographic proofs for transaction validation, Optimistic Rollups operate on the premise that transactions are inherently valid but incorporate a dispute resolution mechanism (fraud proofs) to address any disputes. If a transaction is fraudulent, the fraud proof triggers a challenge period, and the invalid transaction can be reverted. ZK-Rollups deliver quicker finality by eliminating the challenge period. On the other hand, Optimistic Rollups are typically more convenient for developers to develop and maintain in terms of EVM-compatibility, making them more developer-friendly in the immediate future.

Optimism and Arbitrum One

Both optimism and arbitrum are implementations of Optimistic rollups. Both are very fast, low fee and more fluid to use compared to zkSync. Let’s compare them:

Considering the total supply, OP token is performing better than ARB token, however Arbitrum has much more adoption. This might be because OP is considered by many as an exposure to the Base network. Both chains use ETH as transaction fee, which makes their token more of a governance/staking rather than a utility token.

Superchains

Optimism developed the OP stack, which is an open source modular framework developed that enables the creation and deployment of custom Layer 2 solutions (or Optimistic Rollups) on Ethereum. It is part of Optimism’s vision of a superchain to foster a vibrant ecosystem of Layer 2 networks, allowing developers to easily build their own scaling solutions tailored to specific use cases. The OP token does not benefit directly from the OPStack.

We can find a similarity with the Cosmos ecosystem, where blockchains can use Cosmos to spin off new interconnected chains. The ATOM token was not directly benefiting from the ecosystem growth. Some proposals were made to inscease the utility of the ATOM token, but it did not have a great traction so far. OP and ATOM token both get their value from speculation and their future role in their ecosystem. For example, while Base network reached a profit sharing agreement with Optimism, it does not translate directly to profits for the OP token.

Arbitrum orbit offers an alternative to the OPstack that enables developers to create and deploy custom Layer 2 solutions (also known as rollups) on the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Base and Mode

Base and Mode are two chains that are developed using the OPstack. While Base is developed by Coinbase with a goal of mass retail adoption, Mode is a chain dedicated initially for gaming.

We can see that the Mode network is not getting much traction. Most of the remaining TVL is temporary and aiming at the season 2 of the airdrop. Season 2 will dilute the token even more. Mode has received many fundings from optimism and it’s switching its narrative to AI-powered financial applications. This new niche might help it recover for the future.

Base continues to attract widespread retail adoption despite not offering an airdrop. Its achievements can be attributed to effective marketing strategies, a reliable network, and the adoption of meme coins. Although Scroll and Linea incentivize liquidity provision with airdrops, Base’s higher Total Value Locked (TVL) sets it apart as a network.

Linea and scroll

Linea and Scroll are the two leading zkRollup solutions. Scroll is more focused on zkEVM for full compatibility with Ethereum. Linea is developed by Consensys, a leading blockchain software company, which works on products like MetaMask and Infura. As of today, Linea is more fluid than Scroll.

Both have a competing airdrop campaign which is supposed to attract a lot of liquidity. Linea expecting as much as 3b. However, Linea has a 500 M TVL while Scroll has around 700M. This TVL does not compare this the 2.24b that is locked at Base, which does not offer a clear airdrop. Most of the TVL in Linea and Scroll will probably go towards newer projects once the airdrop campaigns end.

Mantle

Mantle is an optimistic rollup layer2. Mantle’s primary use cases include supporting DeFi applications, NFT platforms, and gaming dApps that require fast, low-cost transactions while maintaining security.

Mantle looks like a strong contender in the layer2 market. It was able to capture a good chunk of Ethereum’s LRT market with its meTH token and the COOK airdrop. Mantle’s marketing around the PUFF meme coin was brilliant. Another distinction is the usage of MNT token for transaction fees, which shows confidence at this early stage.

Dapps are launching their own chain

An increasing number of decentralized applications (dapps) are opting to create their own blockchain. This gives them more options and adaptability for their offerings. For instance, prominent decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and perpetual exchanges are establishing their blockchains. Logx has launched using the Arbitrum orbit stack, while Aevo is utilizing the OP stack. This move will strengthen the positions of both Arbitrum and Optimism as superchains rather than just Layer 2 solutions. The success of their respective tokens within the Superchain ecosystem will be crucial in determining their success, as the primary focus now lies in innovation rather than revenue generation.

Upcoming Layer2 – Does the market need more solutions?

New Layer2 projects such as Mintchain, redstone, fraxtal, ZetaChain, and Taiko are emerging. Each chain is targeting a specific market niche and many of them are built on a superchain. Platforms like Dymension are simplifying the process of launching new rollups. The market is rapidly becoming saturated, while Solana continues to thrive without requiring layer2 solutions. Several layer2 projects on Ethereum are expected to shift their focus to serve as a layer2 solution for Bitcoin. The layer2s that will stand out after the bull run and airdrop hype are over will probably be Base, Mantle and Linea.