Reflections on the sharp decline of OP

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

Original Author: Four Pillars

Original Compiler: Ken, ChainCatcher

Key Takeaways

• Base announced its transition from the Optimism OP stack to a proprietary unified architecture, delivering a strong shock to the market and severely impacting the $OP price.

• Optimism has fully open-sourced its code under the MIT license and implements a revenue-sharing model for chains joining the "Superchain." 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 is an extension of recurring issues in traditional software (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 that one side is absolutely correct. It is important to clearly understand the trade-offs inherent in each model and to collectively consider the long-term sustainability of L2 infrastructure as an ecosystem.

1. Base's Departure and the Rift in the Superchain

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

The market reacted swiftly: $OP dropped over 20% within 24 hours. Given that the largest chain in the Optimism Superchain ecosystem had just announced its independence, this was not surprising.

Source: @sgoldfed

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

In this model, the code itself is public, but any chain built on the Arbitrum Orbit stack that settles outside the Arbitrum ecosystem must contribute a fixed percentage of protocol revenue to the Arbitrum decentralized autonomous organization. Goldfeder issued a sharp warning: "If a stack allows for profit without contribution, this will eventually happen."

Base's departure is not merely a technical migration. This event has brought a fundamental question to the forefront: what kind of economic structure should blockchain infrastructure be built upon? This article will examine the economic frameworks adopted by Optimism and Arbitrum, explore their differences, and discuss the future direction of the industry.

2. Two Models

Optimism and Arbitrum handle software in fundamentally different ways. Both are leading projects in the Ethereum L2 scaling space, but they diverge significantly in their approaches to achieving economic sustainability for their ecosystems.

2.1 Optimism: Openness and Network Effects

The Optimism 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 revenue-sharing obligations.

Revenue sharing is only triggered when a chain joins the official Optimism ecosystem "Superchain." Members must contribute either 2.5% of chain revenue or 15% of on-chain net revenue (fees minus Layer 1 network gas costs), whichever is higher. In return, they gain shared governance, shared security, interoperability, and brand resources within the Superchain.

The logic behind this approach is straightforward. If countless L2 chains are built on the OP stack, these chains will form an interoperable network, and through network effects, the value of the OP token and the entire Optimism ecosystem will rise. In practice, this strategy has already yielded significant results. Major projects like Coinbase's Base, Sony's Soneium, Worldcoin's World Chain, and Uniswap's Unichain have all adopted the OP stack.

The appeal of the OP stack to large enterprises is not limited to its permissive model. In addition to the freedom provided by the MIT license, the modular architecture of the OP stack is a core competitive advantage. Since the execution layer, consensus layer, and data availability layer can be independently replaced, projects like Mantle and Celo can adopt zero-knowledge proof modules like OP Succinct and customize freely. The ability to access code and freely replace internal components without external permission is highly attractive for enterprise sovereignty.

However, the structural weakness of this model is equally apparent: low barriers to entry also mean low barriers to exit. 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. For L3 chains built on Arbitrum Orbit and settling on Arbitrum One or Nova, there is no revenue-sharing obligation. However, under the Arbitrum expansion plan, chains that settle on networks outside of Arbitrum One or Nova (whether Layer 2 or Layer 3 networks) must contribute 10% of their net protocol revenue to Arbitrum. Of this 10%, 8% goes to the Arbitrum decentralized autonomous organization treasury, and 2% goes to the Arbitrum Developer Association.

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

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

Goldfeder's decision to label this model as "community source" is intentional. It positions itself as a third way 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 plans to build its own L2 chain on Orbit, further validating the model's potential for institutional adoption. The Robinhood chain's testnet recorded 4 million transactions in its first week, indicating 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 where code can be accessed without permission, components can be freely replaced, and there are established reference cases offers business decision-makers the lowest barrier to entry.

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 funding base for infrastructure maintenance. While the speed of early adoption may be slightly slower, the exit costs for projects built utilizing Arbitrum stack's unique features (such as Arbitrum Stylus) can 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 revenue sharing from Superchain members. Both are positioned on a spectrum between "completely open" and "completely enforced," differing in degree and scope rather than 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 nearly every area of computing: servers, cloud, 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 top of 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 comes at a cost. This logic bears a striking resemblance to Optimism's recent launch of OP Enterprise.

3.2 MySQL and MongoDB

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

MySQL succeeded with this approach, but it was 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 direct catalyst was the change in ownership structure rather than licensing policy, the possibility of forking is an ever-present risk in open-source software. The parallels with Optimism's current situation are evident.

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 were using MongoDB's code to offer it as a hosted service without paying MongoDB any fees. The behavior of extracting 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 and powers about 40% of the world's websites. The company behind WordPress, Automattic, generates revenue through WordPress.com hosting services and various plugins, but does not charge for the use of 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 vision for the Superchain.

The WordPress model has clearly been successful. However, the "free-rider" problem 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 extracting substantial revenue from the WordPress ecosystem while contributing insufficiently in return. The paradox of the biggest beneficiaries of an open ecosystem contributing the least: this is the same dynamic occurring between Optimism and Base.

4. Why the Crypto Space is Different

These debates have been common in traditional software. So why has this issue become particularly acute 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. But in blockchain ecosystems, tokens exist, and they reflect the incentives and political dynamics of ecosystem participants in real-time through price.

In traditional open-source software, while the issue of free-riding leading to a shortage of development resources is serious, the consequences are gradual. In blockchain, the departure of major participants triggers immediate and highly visible results: token prices plummet. The drop of over 20% in $OP after Base's announcement clearly illustrates this. Tokens serve as both a barometer of ecosystem health and a mechanism that amplifies crises.

4.2 Responsibility of Financial Infrastructure

L2 chains are not just 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 often covered by corporate sponsorship or foundation support, but today most L2 chains are struggling just to maintain their own ecosystems. Without external contributions in the form of sequencer fee sharing, it is difficult to ensure the resources needed for infrastructure development and maintenance.

4.3 Ideological Tension

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

5. Conclusion: There is No Free Infrastructure

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

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

Base will not sever its ties to the OP stack overnight. Base has stated that during the transition, it will remain a core support service customer of OP Enterprise and plans to maintain compatibility with OP stack specifications 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 fact, the approximately 19,400 Ethereum in net fee revenue accumulated in the Arbitrum decentralized autonomous organization treasury comes almost entirely from the sequencer fees and Timeboost maximum extractable value auctions of Arbitrum One and Nova themselves. The fee-sharing revenue contributed by ecosystem chains under the Arbitrum expansion plan has yet to receive any meaningful public confirmation. There are structural reasons for this. The Arbitrum expansion plan itself will only launch in January 2024, and most existing Orbit chains are built on Arbitrum One as L3, thus exempting them from revenue-sharing obligations. Even the most notable independent L2 eligible for the Arbitrum expansion plan—the Robinhood chain—is still in the testnet phase.

For Arbitrum's community source model to truly carry weight as a "sustainable revenue structure," the ecosystem needs to wait for large L2s like Robinhood to launch their mainnet, and for fee-sharing revenue from the Arbitrum expansion plan to genuinely start flowing in. Requiring a 10% contribution of protocol revenue to an external decentralized autonomous organization is no easy task for large enterprises. The choice of institutions like Robinhood to still opt for Orbit indicates value propositions in other dimensions, such as customization potential and technological maturity. However, the economic rationale of this model remains unproven. The gap between theoretical design and actual cash flow is a challenge that Arbitrum still needs to address.

Ultimately, the two models offered by Arbitrum and Optimism are different answers to the same question: how to ensure the sustainability of public infrastructure?

What matters is not which model is correct, but understanding the trade-offs each model brings. Optimism's open model enables rapid expansion of the ecosystem but also carries the inherent risk that its biggest beneficiaries may leave. Arbitrum's enforced contribution model establishes a sustainable revenue structure but raises the barrier to 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 ongoing development investment, technological advancements 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 to blindly pledge allegiance or subconsciously harbor resentment, but to initiate an honest dialogue about who will bear the costs of this infrastructure. Base's departure can be the starting point for this conversation.