Original Title: 《[Issue] No Free Lunch: Reflections on Arbitrum and Optimism》

Written by: Four Pillars

Translated by: Ken, ChainCatcher

Key Summary

• Base announced it will transform from Optimism's OP stack to a proprietary unified architecture, delivering a strong impact to the market and significantly hurting the $OP price.

• Optimism has fully open-sourced its code under the MIT license and implements a revenue-sharing model for chains joining the "super chain." Arbitrum adopts a "community source" model, requiring chains built on Orbit that settle outside the Arbitrum ecosystem to contribute 10% of protocol revenue.

• The debate over open-source monetization in blockchain infrastructure extends the recurring issues seen in traditional software sectors (such as Linux, MySQL, MongoDB, WordPress, etc.). However, the introduction of tokens as variables adds a layer of dynamic relationships among stakeholders.

• It is difficult to assert which side is absolutely correct. It is essential to soberly understand the trade-offs embedded in each model and thoughtfully consider the long-term sustainability of L2 infrastructure as an ecosystem.

1. Base's Departure and the Rift of the Super Chain

On February 18, the Ethereum L2 network Base under Coinbase announced it would cut its reliance on the Optimism OP stack and transform into a proprietary unified codebase. The core idea is to consolidate key components, including sequencers, into a single repository while reducing external dependencies on Optimism, Flashbots, and Paradigm. The Base engineering team stated in an official blog that this transition will increase the annual hard fork frequency from three to six times, effectively speeding up upgrade times.

The market responded swiftly: $OP dropped over 20% within 24 hours. Considering that the largest chain in the Optimism super chain ecosystem had just announced its independence, this was not unexpected.

Source: @sgoldfed

Around the same time, Arbitrum co-founder and Offchain Labs CEO Steven Goldfeder posted on the X platform, reminding everyone that his team had intentionally chosen a different path years ago. His core argument is that despite the pressure to release the Arbitrum code as fully open-source, the team remained committed to what they call a "community source" model.

In this model, the code itself is public, but any chain built on the Arbitrum Orbit stack needs to contribute a fixed percentage of protocol revenue to the Arbitrum decentralized autonomous organization. Goldfeder issued a sharp warning: "If a stack allows for profits without contributions, that situation will eventually arise."

Base's exit is not merely a technical migration. This event brings a fundamental issue to the fore: what kind of economic structure should underpin blockchain infrastructure? This article will examine the economic frameworks adopted by Optimism and Arbitrum, explore their differences, and discuss the industry's future direction.

2. Two Models

Optimism and Arbitrum approach software differently. Both are leading projects in the Ethereum L2 scalability domain, but they diverge significantly in their methods of achieving economic sustainability within their ecosystems.

2.1 Optimism: Openness and Network Effects

Optimism's OP stack is fully open-sourced under the MIT license. Anyone can access the code, modify it freely, and build their own L2 chain. There are no royalties or obligations for revenue sharing.

Revenue sharing is only activated when a chain joins Optimism's official ecosystem, the "super chain." Members are required to contribute either 2.5% of chain revenue or 15% of on-chain net revenue (fees revenue minus the gas costs of the first layer network), whichever is higher. In return, they gain shared governance, shared security, interoperability, and brand resources from the super chain.

The logic behind this approach is simple. If countless L2 chains are built on the OP stack, these chains will form an interoperable network, which through network effects, will increase the value of OP tokens and the entire Optimism ecosystem. In practice, this strategy has already achieved significant success. Major projects such as Coinbase's Base, Sony's Soneium, Worldcoin's World Chain, and Uniswap's Unichain have adopted the OP stack.

The attraction of the OP stack for large enterprises is not limited to the licensing model. In addition to the freedom provided by the MIT license, the modular architecture of the OP stack is a core competitive advantage. As the execution layer, consensus layer, and data availability layer can be independently replaced, projects like Mantle and Celo can adopt modules like OP Succinct with zero-knowledge proofs and customize them. The ability to acquire code and freely replace internal components without external permissions is highly appealing for enterprise sovereignty.

However, the structural weaknesses of this model are also evident: low entry barriers also mean low exit barriers. Chains using the OP stack have limited economic obligations to the Optimism ecosystem, and the higher the profits of a chain, the more economically rational it becomes to operate independently. Base's departure is a textbook case of this dynamic.

2.2 Arbitrum: Forced Collaboration

Arbitrum takes a more complex approach. Chains built on Arbitrum Orbit that settle on Arbitrum One or Nova do not have revenue sharing obligations. However, according to the Arbitrum expansion plan, chains that settle on networks outside of Arbitrum One or Nova (whether layer two or layer three networks) must contribute 10% of net protocol revenue to Arbitrum. Of this 10%, 8% goes into the Arbitrum decentralized autonomous organization treasury, while 2% goes to the Arbitrum Developer Association.

In other words, chains that stay within the Arbitrum ecosystem have the freedom, while chains that utilize Arbitrum technology and deploy in external ecosystems must contribute. This constitutes a dual structure.

In the early days, building an Arbitrum Orbit L2 directly settling on Ethereum required governance voting approval from the Arbitrum decentralized autonomous organization. When the Arbitrum expansion plan launches in January 2024, this process will shift to a self-service model. However, the early "permitting" process and the emphasis on encouraging L3 may have become obstacles for large enterprises seeking sovereign L2 chains. For companies wanting to connect directly to Ethereum, building an L3 structure on Arbitrum One introduces additional business risks in governance and technical dependencies.

Goldfeder’s decision to call this model "community source" is intentional. It positions itself as a third path between traditional open source and proprietary licensing. Code transparency is maintained, but commercial use outside the Arbitrum ecosystem must contribute to the ecosystem.

The advantage of this model lies in coordinating the economic interests of ecosystem participants. For chains settling externally, there are tangible exit costs, ensuring a sustainable revenue stream. Reports indicate that the Arbitrum decentralized autonomous organization has accumulated approximately 20,000 Ethereum in revenue, while Robinhood recently announced it would build its own L2 chain on Orbit, further validating the model's potential in institutional adoption. The Robinhood chain testnet recorded 4 million transactions in its first week, demonstrating that Arbitrum's technological maturity and regulatory-friendly customization capabilities provide meaningful value for specific types of institutional clients.

2.3 Trade-offs of Each Model

The two models optimize for different values. Optimism's model maximizes the speed of early enterprise adoption through the unconditional openness of the MIT license, modular architecture, and the strong proof of concept represented by Base. An environment that allows unrestricted access to code, free component replacements, and has established reference cases provides the lowest entry barriers for business decision-makers.

On the other hand, Arbitrum's model emphasizes the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. In addition to excellent technology, its economic coordination mechanism requires external users to contribute revenue, ensuring a stable financial base for infrastructure maintenance. The initial adoption speed may be slightly slower, but for projects built using the unique features of the Arbitrum stack (such as Arbitrum Stylus), the exit costs might be quite high.

That said, the differences between these two models are not as extreme as often described. Arbitrum also offers free and permissionless licenses within its ecosystem, while Optimism requires super chain members to share revenue. Both sit on a spectrum between "completely open" and "completely enforced," differing in degree and scope rather than in essence.

Ultimately, this difference is the blockchain version of the classic trade-off between growth speed and sustainability.

3. Lessons from Open Source History

This tension is not unique to blockchain. Open source software monetization models have undergone remarkably similar debates over the past few decades.

3.1 Linux and Red Hat

Linux is the most successful open source project in history. The Linux kernel is fully open under the GPL license and has permeated almost every area of computing: servers, clouds, embedded systems, Android, etc.

However, the most successful commercial enterprise built on this ecosystem, Red Hat, does not profit from the code itself. It profits from services built on the code. Red Hat sells technical support, security patches, and stability guarantees to enterprise customers and was acquired by IBM for $34 billion in 2019. The code is free, but professional operational support is charged. This logic bears astounding similarity to the OP Enterprise recently launched by Optimism.

3.2 MySQL and MongoDB

MySQL introduced a dual licensing model: an open-source version under the GPL license, and an independent commercial license sold to enterprises wishing to use MySQL for commercial purposes. The code is visible and free for non-commercial use, but deriving revenue from it requires payment. This concept resembles Arbitrum's community source model.

MySQL achieved success through this method but not without side effects. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems in 2010 and subsequently gained ownership of MySQL, concerns about MySQL's future led its original creator, Monty Widenius, and community developers to create the fork MariaDB. While the immediate catalyst was the change in ownership structure rather than licensing policy, the possibility of forks is a persistent risk in open-source software. The similarities with Optimism's current situation are clear.

MongoDB provides a more direct example. In 2018, MongoDB adopted the server-side public license. Its motivation was to address a growing problem: cloud service giants like Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud used MongoDB's code to offer it as a hosting service without paying any fees to MongoDB. The actors taking value from open code without any return: this is a recurring pattern throughout open source history.

3.3 WordPress

WordPress is fully open source under the GPL license, powering around 40% of websites globally. The company behind WordPress, Automattic, generates revenue through its WordPress.com hosting service and various plugins, but charges no fees for the use of the WordPress core itself. The platform is completely open, with the logic that the growth of the ecosystem itself will enhance the platform's value. This structurally resembles Optimism's super chain vision.

The WordPress model has clearly succeeded. However, the "free-rider" issue has never been fundamentally resolved. In recent years, a dispute erupted between WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg and major hosting company WP Engine. Mullenweg publicly criticized WP Engine for drawing significant revenue from the WordPress ecosystem but contributing insufficiently in return. The paradox that the greatest benefactors of an open ecosystem contribute the least: this is the same dynamic happening between Optimism and Base.

4. Why the Crypto Space is Different

These debates have been common in traditional software. So why does this issue become particularly sharp in blockchain infrastructure?

4.1 Tokens as Amplifiers

In traditional open source projects, value is relatively dispersed. When Linux succeeds, no specific asset's price directly rises or falls as a result. However, in blockchain ecosystems, tokens exist, and they reflect the incentives and political dynamics of ecosystem participants in real time through their prices.

In traditional open source software, the issue of free-riding causing a shortage of development resources, while serious, results in gradual consequences. In blockchain, the departure of major participants triggers immediate and highly visible results: a dramatic drop in token price. Base's announcement leading to a drop of over 20% in $OP clearly illustrates this. Tokens serve as a barometer of ecosystem health while also amplifying crises.

4.2 Responsibilities of Financial Infrastructure

L2 chains are not merely software. They are financial infrastructure. Billions of dollars in assets are managed on these chains, and maintaining their stability and security requires significant ongoing costs. In successful open-source projects, maintenance costs are typically covered by corporate sponsorship or foundation support, but most L2 chains today struggle merely to keep their ecosystems running. Without external contributions in the form of sequencer fee sharing, ensuring the resources necessary for infrastructure development and maintenance becomes extremely challenging.

4.3 Ideological Tensions

The crypto community has a strong ideological tradition of "code should be free." Decentralization and freedom are core values intricately woven into the identity of the industry. In this context, Arbitrum's fee-sharing model may trigger resistance from some community members, while Optimism's open model is ideologically attractive but faces practical challenges of economic sustainability.

5. Conclusion: There is No Free Infrastructure

Indeed, Base's departure dealt a blow to Optimism, but it is premature to conclude that the super chain model itself has failed.

First of all, Optimism is not sitting idle. On January 29, 2026, Optimism officially launched OP Enterprise, an enterprise-level service aimed at fintech companies and financial institutions, supporting the deployment of production-grade chains within 8 to 12 weeks. While the original OP stack is licensed under MIT and can always be converted to a self-managed mode, Optimism's assessment is that collaborating with OP Enterprise is a more rational choice for most non-blockchain infrastructure expert teams.

Base will not sever its ties with the OP stack overnight. Base itself has declared that it will remain a core service customer of OP Enterprise during the transition and plans to maintain compatibility with OP stack standards throughout the process. This separation is technical, not relational. This is the official stance of both parties. On the other hand, Arbitrum's community source model also has gaps between ideals and reality.

In reality, the approximately 19,400 Ethereum in net fee revenue accumulated in the Arbitrum decentralized autonomous organization treasury largely comes from sequencer fees and the Timeboost maximum extractable value auctions from Arbitrum One and Nova themselves. The fee-sharing revenue contributed by the ecosystem chains under the Arbitrum expansion plan has yet to receive any meaningful scale of public acknowledgment. There are structural reasons behind this. The Arbitrum expansion plan itself will only launch in January 2024, and most existing Orbit chains are built on Arbitrum One as L3s, thus exempting from revenue-sharing obligations, even the most renowned independent L2 eligible for the Arbitrum expansion plan, the Robinhood chain, is still in its testnet phase.

For Arbitrum's community source model to truly serve as a "sustainable revenue structure," the ecosystem needs to wait for large L2s like Robinhood to go live on the mainnet and for the Arbitrum expansion plan's fee-sharing revenue to start flowing in. Demanding that 10% of protocol revenue be submitted to an external decentralized autonomous organization is not an easy task for large enterprises. The choice of institutions like Robinhood to still select Orbit indicates a value proposition in other dimensions, namely customization potential and technological maturity. However, the economic rationale of the model remains unproven. The gap between theoretical design and actual cash flows is a challenge Arbitrum still needs to address.

The two models provided by Arbitrum and Optimism ultimately represent different answers to the same question: how to ensure the sustainability of public infrastructure?

The important thing is not which model is correct, but understanding the trade-offs that each model brings. Optimism's open model achieves rapid expansion of the ecosystem, but it also comes with the inherent risk that its biggest benefactors may leave. Arbitrum's compulsory contribution model establishes a sustainable revenue structure, but raises the threshold for initial adoption.

Whether discussing Optimism or Arbitrum, OP Labs, Sunnyside Labs, and Offchain Labs have employed world-class research talent, dedicated to scaling Ethereum while maintaining decentralization. Without their continuous development investment, technological advances in L2 scaling would not be possible, and the resources to fund this work must come from somewhere.

There is no free infrastructure. As a community, what we need to do is not blind allegiance or subconscious resentment, but to start an honest dialogue about who should bear the costs of this infrastructure. Base's exit can be the starting point for this conversation.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。