Reflections on the Profound Drop of OP

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

Author: Four Pillars

Compiled by: Ken, ChainCatcher

Key Highlights

• 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 it 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 open-source monetization debate 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 matters is a clear understanding of the trade-offs each model involves and a collective reflection on the long-term sustainability of L2 infrastructure as an ecosystem.

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

On February 18, Coinbase’s Ethereum L2 network Base announced it would cut dependence on Optimism’s OP stack, shifting to a proprietary unified codebase. The core idea is to integrate 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 within the Optimism superchain ecosystem just announced independence, this was hardly surprising.

Source: @sgoldfed

Around the same time, Steven Goldfeder, co-founder and CEO of Offchain Labs, posted on X (Twitter), reminding everyone that his team deliberately chose a different path years ago. His core point was that, despite pressure to fully open-source Arbitrum’s code, they have maintained their “community source” model.

In this model, the code itself is public, 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 contribution, this is what eventually happens.”

Base’s departure is more than just a technical migration. It brings a fundamental question to the forefront: 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 industry trajectory.

2. Two Models

Optimism and Arbitrum handle software very differently. Both are leading projects in Ethereum Layer 2 scaling, but they diverge sharply in how they aim for 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.

Revenue sharing only kicks in when a chain joins Optimism’s official ecosystem “Superchain.” Members must contribute 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 interconnected network. Through network effects, the value of the OP token and the entire Optimism ecosystem will rise. This strategy has already shown significant 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 isn’t 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 clear 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 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 the Arbitrum DAO treasury, and 2% to the Arbitrum Developer Association.

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

Initially, building an Arbitrum Orbit L2 that settles directly on Ethereum required governance approval via 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 L3s may pose barriers for large enterprises seeking sovereignty L2s. For companies wanting direct Ethereum connectivity, building on Arbitrum One with L3 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 preserved, 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, tangible exit costs help ensure sustainable revenue streams. Reports indicate the 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 of the Base concept—maximizes initial enterprise adoption speed. An environment where code is freely accessible, components are replaceable, and mature reference cases exist offers the lowest entry barrier for business decision-makers.

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

That said, the differences between these models are not as extreme as often portrayed. Arbitrum also offers free and permissive 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 in blockchain: growth speed versus sustainability.

3. Lessons from Open Source History

This tension isn’t 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 GPL-licensed and 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. It profits from services built on the code—offering enterprise support, security patches, and stability guarantees. In 2019, IBM acquired Red Hat for $34 billion. The code is free, but professional operational support is paid. This logic closely resembles 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 wanting to use MySQL commercially. The code is visible, and non-commercial use is free, but commercial use requires payment. 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 original creator Monty Widenius and community developers to fork MariaDB. While the catalyst was ownership change rather than licensing, the risk of forking is inherent in open source. This parallels the current situation with Optimism.

MongoDB provides a more direct example. In 2018, it adopted a Server Side Public License (SSPL). The motivation was to address a growing problem: cloud providers like Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud using MongoDB’s code to offer managed services without paying MongoDB. The pattern of free-riding—using open code without contributing back—has recurred throughout 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 entirely open, with the logic that ecosystem growth increases platform value. This is structurally similar to the superchain vision of Optimism.

WordPress’s model has been successful, but the “free rider” problem persists. Recently, founder Matt Mullenweg clashed publicly with major host WP Engine, criticizing it for extracting large revenues from the ecosystem while contributing little in return. The paradox of open ecosystems—where the biggest beneficiaries contribute the least—is the same dynamic seen between Optimism and Base.

4. Why Is the Crypto Space 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 succeeds, no single asset’s price directly surges or plunges. 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 consequences are gradual. In blockchain, the departure of major players triggers immediate, highly visible results: token prices plummet. The 20% drop in $OP after Base’s announcement 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 of assets are managed on these chains, and maintaining their stability and security incurs ongoing costs. Successful open-source projects are often supported by corporate sponsorships or foundations, but most current L2s struggle to sustain themselves. Without external contributions—such as fee sharing from sequencers—funding infrastructure development and maintenance is difficult.

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. Under this lens, Arbitrum’s fee-sharing model may face resistance, while Optimism’s open approach appeals ideologically but faces economic 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 more rational.

Base also won’t cut ties overnight. It has stated it will remain a core support client for OP Enterprise during the transition and plans to maintain compatibility with OP stack standards throughout. This is a technical separation, not a relational one. Both sides have publicly affirmed this stance. Meanwhile, Arbitrum’s community source model also faces gaps between ideal and reality.

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

For Arbitrum’s community source model to be a “sustainable revenue structure,” the ecosystem must wait for major L2s like Robinhood to go live on mainnet and for the expansion plan’s fee-sharing revenue to flow in. Requiring large enterprises to hand over 10% of protocol revenue to the DAO is no small ask. Institutions like Robinhood still choose Orbit, indicating value propositions like 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 isn’t which model is correct, but understanding the trade-offs each entails. Optimism’s open approach enables rapid ecosystem expansion but carries the inherent risk of the biggest beneficiaries leaving. Arbitrum’s mandatory contribution model establishes a sustainable revenue stream 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, L2 scaling progress would be impossible, and funding for this work must come from somewhere.

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