From now on, will OP and Base become "one family"? Not necessarily, a brief discussion on the variables and prospects of superchain cooperation

Author: Haotian

It seems everyone is still discussing the interest-binding cooperation between Base and OP. My view: it looks like just a short-term "verbal agreement," and there are still many uncertainties in the future.

The reasoning is simple. If the ratio and cooperation model were fixed, the responsibilities and profit distribution of both parties should be made public and transparent on-chain. At that point, by monitoring the fund distribution of the Sequencer-related addresses, one could know the profit situation of both parties. Technically, it only requires adding a profit-sharing address to the Sequencer address sequence. Why hasn't this been done?

The answer is that this might be the first small step of the OP SuperChain plan, and any conclusions must wait until the shared Sequencer operational model is fully functional.

What is the Shared Sequencer Model?

The OP Stack multi-chain environment will have a unified Sequencer component (which can be deployed in a distributed manner), coordinating and connecting multi-chain assets and data flow.

In my view, attracting developers to launch L2 chains with a one-click solution based on OP Stack using MIT's open-source license is just the first step. The second step is to achieve a shared Sequencer component among multiple chains, and the third step is to concurrently build applications across these chains.

Only by achieving Sequencer sharing can OP establish a large family of layer2 solutions. The OP team has also mentioned that while everyone can independently create their own Sequencer, it is quite challenging. Sharing aligns with trends, similar to how everyone uses Ethereum as a consensus security layer for layer2.

In fact, not only OP Stack, but ZK Stack is also working on its own shared Sequencer plan. Only when this path is successful can OP Stack have a multi-chain communication protocol similar to the Cosmos IBC protocol, which would enable atomic swaps and other transactions. Compared to IBC, which requires a relay chain for cross-chain communication, the shared Sequencer component of the Stack inherently acts as a relay component, allowing for unified management of messages and assets and state changes between heterogeneous chains.

Of course, having a shared Sequencer alone is not enough; there also needs to be a unified Security Council and a consistent law of chains. These are necessary elements to ensure that the shared Sequencer participates in the governance of multiple chains (this point was emphasized in the cooperation statement).

Why are there many uncertainties?

1) Although Base has shown commendable performance, its future development is still unknown. Giving up 2.75% of OP tokens seems a bit hasty;

2) SuperChain needs to balance the comprehensive interests of dozens or even hundreds of chains. No one knows what kind of major developments OP Stack will produce in the future. An overly early profit distribution model is not conducive to realizing a grand vision;

3) A set of on-chain governance protocols and profit distribution protocols based on a shared Sequencer is necessary. Once the technological conditions mature in the future, it will naturally be weighed and introduced to stimulate greater multi-chain activity.

It should be noted that Base was originally part of the OP SuperChain grand plan and will certainly share the Sequencer as part of the super chain in the future. At that time, discussions on how to share profits and whether to reflect this on-chain will be relevant. Currently, neither has achieved Sequencer sharing; they can only encourage the market through off-chain verbal agreements, providing everyone with a beautiful vision of shared prosperity within the OP Stack family.