Reflections on the Profound Drop of OP

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

Author: Four Pillars

Compiled by: Ken, ChainCatcher

Key Summary

Base announced it will transition from Optimism’s OP stack to a proprietary unified architecture, delivering a strong shock to the market and significantly impacting the $OP price.

Optimism’s code is fully open source 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 fields (such as Linux, MySQL, MongoDB, WordPress, etc.). However, the introduction of tokens as variables adds a layer of stakeholder dynamics.

It’s difficult to definitively say which side is correct. What’s important is to clearly understand the trade-offs each model involves and to think collectively about the long-term sustainability of Layer 2 infrastructure.

1. Base’s Departure and the Fracture of the Superchain

On February 18, Coinbase’s Ethereum Layer 2 network Base announced it would cut dependence on Optimism’s OP stack, transitioning to a proprietary unified codebase. The core idea is to consolidate key components—including the sequencer—into a single repository, while reducing reliance on external entities like Optimism, Flashbots, and Paradigm. The Base engineering team stated in an official blog that this change would increase the frequency of hard forks from three to six times annually, effectively speeding up upgrades.

Market reaction was swift: $OP dropped over 20% within 24 hours. Given that the largest chain in the Optimism superchain ecosystem just announced 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 deliberately chose a different path years ago. His main point was that, despite pressure to fully open-source Arbitrum’s code, they have maintained their “community source” model.

In this model, the code is open, but any chain built on Arbitrum Orbit that settles outside the Arbitrum ecosystem must contribute a fixed percentage of protocol revenue to Arbitrum’s decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). Goldfeder issued a sharp warning: “If a stack allows benefits without contributions, this is what will eventually happen.”

Base’s departure is more than just a technical migration. It raises a fundamental question: what kind of economic structure should underpin blockchain infrastructure? This article examines the economic frameworks adopted by Optimism and Arbitrum, explores their differences, and discusses the future direction of the industry.

2. Two Models

Optimism and Arbitrum handle software very differently. Both are leading projects in Ethereum Layer 2 scaling, but they diverge significantly in how they approach ecosystem economic sustainability.

2.1 Optimism: Openness and Network Effects

Optimism’s OP stack is fully open source under the MIT License. Anyone can access the code, modify it freely, and build their own L2 chains. There are no royalties or revenue-sharing obligations.

Chains that join Optimism’s official ecosystem “Superchain” are the only ones that initiate revenue sharing. They must contribute either 2.5% of their chain’s revenue or 15% of on-chain net income (fees minus Layer 1 gas costs), whichever is higher, to the Optimism Collective. In return, they gain shared governance, shared security, interoperability, and branding resources within the superchain.

The logic behind this approach is straightforward: if countless L2 chains are built on the OP stack, they will form an interoperable network. Through network effects, the value of the OP token and the entire Optimism ecosystem will rise. This strategy has already shown notable results. Major projects like Coinbase’s Base, Sony’s Soneium, Worldcoin’s World Chain, and Uniswap’s Unichain all utilize the OP stack.

The appeal of the OP stack to large enterprises is not limited to its permissive licensing. Its modular architecture is a core competitive advantage. Because execution, consensus, and data availability layers can be independently replaced, projects like Mantle and Celo can adopt modules like OP Succinct for zero-knowledge proofs and customize freely. For enterprise sovereignty, the ability to access code and replace internal components without external permission is highly attractive.

However, this model also has structural weaknesses: low barriers to entry mean low barriers to exit. Chains using the OP stack have limited economic obligations to the Optimism ecosystem, and as their profits grow, independent operation becomes more economically rational. Base’s departure exemplifies this dynamic.

2.2 Arbitrum: Mandatory Collaboration

Arbitrum’s approach is more complex. For L3 chains built on Arbitrum Orbit and settled on Arbitrum One or Nova, there are no revenue-sharing obligations. However, according to Arbitrum’s expansion plan, chains that settle outside Arbitrum (whether Layer 2 or Layer 3) must contribute 10% of their net protocol revenue to Arbitrum. Of this, 8% goes to Arbitrum’s DAO treasury, and 2% to the Arbitrum Developers Association.

In other words, chains that stay within the Arbitrum ecosystem enjoy freedom, while those deploying on Arbitrum outside the core ecosystem must contribute. This creates a dual-structure.

Initially, building a directly settled Arbitrum Orbit L2 on Ethereum required governance approval from Arbitrum DAO. When Arbitrum’s expansion plan launched in January 2024, this process shifted to a self-service model. Nonetheless, the early “permitted” process and the emphasis on encouraging L3 development may pose barriers for large enterprises seeking sovereignty over their L2s. For companies wanting direct Ethereum connectivity, building on Arbitrum One with L3 structures introduces additional governance and technical risks.

Goldfeder intentionally calls this model “community source,” positioning it 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 it.

The advantage of this model is aligning economic interests among ecosystem participants. For external settlement chains, there are tangible exit costs, ensuring sustainable revenue streams. Reports indicate that Arbitrum DAO has accumulated about 20,000 ETH in revenue, and Robinhood recently announced plans to build its own L2 on Orbit, further validating the model’s institutional appeal. Robinhood’s testnet recorded 4 million transactions in its first week, demonstrating Arbitrum’s technical maturity and regulatory-friendly customization for certain institutional clients.

2.3 Trade-offs Between the Models

Both models optimize for different values. Optimism’s approach—through unconditional openness under MIT License, modular architecture, and the strong validation from Base—maximizes initial enterprise adoption speed. An environment where code is freely accessible, components can be replaced at will, and mature reference cases exist offers the lowest entry barrier for business decision-makers.

Conversely, Arbitrum’s model emphasizes long-term ecosystem sustainability. Beyond excellent technology, its economic coordination mechanism requires external users to contribute revenue, ensuring a stable funding base for infrastructure maintenance. While initial adoption may be slower, projects leveraging Arbitrum’s unique features (like Arbitrum Stylus) face higher exit costs.

That said, the differences between these models are not as extreme as often portrayed. Arbitrum also offers free and permissionless licenses within its ecosystem, and Optimism requires superchain members to share revenue. Both sit on a spectrum between “fully open” and “fully mandatory,” differing mainly in degree and scope, not fundamental nature.

Ultimately, these differences reflect a classic trade-off between growth speed and sustainability in blockchain.

3. Lessons from Open Source History

This tension is not unique to blockchain. Monetization debates in open-source software have recurred over decades.

3.1 Linux and Red Hat

Linux is the most successful open-source project in history. The Linux kernel is fully open under GPL, and it has penetrated nearly every computing domain: servers, cloud, embedded systems, Android, etc.

However, the most successful commercial entity built on this ecosystem, Red Hat, does not profit directly from the code itself. Instead, it profits from services built on the code. Red Hat sells enterprise support, security patches, and stability guarantees, and was acquired by IBM for $34 billion in 2019. The code is free, but professional operational support is paid. This logic bears a striking resemblance to Optimism’s recent OP Enterprise offering.

3.2 MySQL and MongoDB

MySQL adopted a dual-license model: an open-source version under GPL, and a commercial license for enterprises wishing to use MySQL commercially. The code is visible and free for non-commercial use, but revenue is generated through paid licenses. This concept is similar to Arbitrum’s community source model.

MySQL’s success through this approach was notable, but it also had side effects. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems in 2010 and gained ownership of MySQL, concerns about its future led its original creator, Monty Widenius, and the community to fork MariaDB. While the catalyst was ownership change rather than licensing policy, the risk of forks is an inherent aspect of open source. This is very similar to the current situation with Optimism.

MongoDB provides a more direct example. In 2018, it adopted Server Side Public License (SSPL). The motivation was to address a growing problem: cloud giants like Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud using MongoDB’s code to offer managed services without paying MongoDB. The behavior of free-riding on open code without contributing back is a recurring pattern in open source history.

3.3 WordPress

WordPress is fully open source under GPL, powering about 40% of websites worldwide. The company behind WordPress, Automattic, earns revenue through WordPress.com hosting and plugins, but does not charge for core WordPress usage. The platform is fully open, with the logic that ecosystem growth increases platform value. Structurally, this resembles Optimism’s superchain vision.

WordPress’s model has clearly succeeded. But the “free rider” problem has never been fully solved. Recently, founder Matt Mullenweg clashed with major host WP Engine, criticizing it for extracting huge revenues from the ecosystem while contributing little back. The paradox of the biggest beneficiaries contributing the least: this mirrors the same dynamic seen between Optimism and Base.

4. Why Are Crypto Infrastructure Debates Different?

These debates are common in traditional software. So why are they especially acute in blockchain infrastructure?

4.1 Tokens as Amplifiers

In traditional open-source projects, value is relatively dispersed. When Linux succeeded, no specific asset’s price directly surged or declined as a result. In blockchain ecosystems, tokens exist, and their prices reflect real-time incentives and political dynamics among participants.

In traditional open source, free riding causes resource shortages, but the consequences are gradual. In blockchain, the departure of major participants can trigger immediate, highly visible results: token prices plummet. The $OP drop of over 20% after Base’s announcement clearly illustrates this. Tokens are both a health indicator and a crisis amplifier.

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 incurs huge ongoing costs. Successful open-source projects often rely on corporate sponsorship or foundation support, but most current L2s struggle just to sustain their ecosystems. Without external contributions via fee sharing from sequencers, it’s hard to ensure the resources needed for ongoing development and maintenance.

4.3 Ideological Tensions

The crypto community has a strong ideological tradition that “code should be free.” Decentralization and freedom are core values intertwined with industry identity. In this context, Arbitrum’s fee-sharing model may face resistance from some community members, while Optimism’s open approach appeals ideologically but faces practical sustainability challenges.

5. Conclusion: No Free Infrastructure

Indeed, Base’s departure dealt a blow to Optimism, but it’s premature to conclude that the superchain model has failed.

First, Optimism is not sitting still. On January 29, 2026, it launched OP Enterprise, a service targeting fintech companies and financial institutions, enabling deployment of production chains within 8-12 weeks. While the original OP stack remains MIT licensed and can be transitioned to self-managed mode, Optimism assesses that for most non-infrastructure teams, partnering with OP Enterprise is the more rational choice.

Base also won’t cut ties with the OP stack overnight. It has stated that during the transition, it will continue to serve as a core support provider for OP Enterprise and plans to maintain compatibility with OP stack standards throughout. This separation is technical, not relational. That is the official stance of both sides. Meanwhile, Arbitrum’s community source model also faces gaps between ideal and reality.

In fact, the approximately 19,400 ETH in net fee income accumulated in Arbitrum DAO’s treasury mostly comes from Arbitrum One and Nova’s sequencer fees and the maximum extractable value (MEV) auctions via Timeboost. The fee-sharing revenue from the ecosystem chains under the Arbitrum expansion plan has not yet been publicly confirmed at any meaningful scale. Structural reasons exist: the expansion plan only launched in January 2024, most existing Orbit chains are built on Arbitrum One and are L3s, thus exempt from revenue sharing obligations. Even the most prominent independent L2 qualifying for Arbitrum expansion—Robinhood’s chain—is still in testing.

For Arbitrum’s community source model to be truly sustainable, the ecosystem needs to wait for major L2s like Robinhood to go live on mainnet, and for the expansion plan’s fee-sharing revenue to start flowing in earnest. Requiring large enterprises to hand over 10% of protocol revenue to external DAOs is no small ask. That Robinhood chooses Orbit indicates its value proposition in other dimensions—such as customization potential and technical maturity—but the economic viability of this model remains unproven. The gap between theoretical design and actual fund flows is a challenge Arbitrum must still address.

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

What matters is not which model is “correct,” but understanding the trade-offs each entails. Optimism’s open approach accelerates ecosystem growth but carries the inherent risk that its biggest beneficiaries may leave. Arbitrum’s mandatory contribution model establishes a sustainable revenue structure but raises initial adoption barriers.

Whether discussing Optimism or Arbitrum, OP Labs, Sunnyside Labs, and Offchain Labs employ top-tier research talent dedicated to expanding Ethereum while maintaining decentralization. Without their ongoing development efforts, progress in Layer 2 scaling would be impossible, and funding for this work must come from somewhere.

There are no free infrastructures. As a community, our task is not blind allegiance or subconscious resentment but honest dialogue about who bears the costs of these foundational systems. Base’s departure can serve as a starting point for this conversation.