Structural Base Changes: Why There Is No Free Blockchain Infrastructure

Base’s departure from the Optimism stack marks a significant moment in the evolution of the Layer 2 ecosystem. More than just a technical migration, this event raises fundamental questions about how to build and sustain a sustainable blockchain infrastructure. It reflects deeper structural shifts: the tension between open transparency and long-term economic needs. Although OP’s price dropped over 20% within 24 hours of the announcement, the idea that the superchain model has completely failed is not accurate. Instead, this crisis opens an important dialogue about who should pay for public infrastructure—an issue that has troubled the open-source software community for decades.

Two Different Paths to Sustainability: Optimism Model vs Arbitrum

On February 18, Coinbase’s Base announced plans to decouple from the OP Optimism stack. This decision signifies a fundamental structural change in how Layer 2 chains define their independence. Base will integrate key components, including the sequencer, into an exclusive code repository, reducing reliance on third parties like Optimism, Flashbots, and Paradigm. The result is an increase in the annual hard fork frequency from three to six, enabling faster innovation.

However, Steven Goldfeder, CEO of Arbitrum and Offchain Labs, responded with a very different design approach. Several years ago, Arbitrum deliberately chose an alternative path: a “community source code” model. In this approach, the code remains transparent and accessible, but chains built on Arbitrum Orbit and settled outside the Arbitrum One or Nova ecosystems must contribute 10% of their net protocol revenue—8% to the Arbitrum DAO and 2% to the developer association.

This difference is more than just technical. Optimism optimizes for rapid early adoption by offering a fully open MIT license, a flexible modular architecture, and no revenue-sharing obligations for chains building outside the official superchain. Soneium (Sony), World Chain (Worldcoin), and Unichain (Uniswap) all chose the OP stack for its modifiability and customization capabilities without external approval.

In contrast, Arbitrum builds a forced economic coordination mechanism. Chains settled on Arbitrum One or Nova have full freedom, but those using Arbitrum technology on external infrastructure must contribute. This structure is more complex but creates long-term incentives to stay within the ecosystem. Robinhood, for example, chose to build its L2 chain on Orbit precisely because of mature technology and regulatory-friendly customization—initially requiring DAO approval, but since January 2024 operating in a self-service mode.

Both approaches span a spectrum between “completely open” and “fully coordinated.” The key is not which model is objectively better, but understanding the trade-offs each offers. Optimism maximizes ecosystem expansion speed but risks that the biggest beneficiaries will leave once they become independent. Arbitrum builds a more stable funding base through contribution mechanisms but with a higher initial adoption threshold.

Lessons from the Open Source Growth Century: From Red Hat to WordPress

This tension is not new in technology. The history of open-source software is full of examples reflecting similar structural shifts—between full freedom and economic sustainability.

Linux is a symbol of pure open source success. The Linux kernel is fully open under the GPL license, powering servers, cloud infrastructure, and embedded systems worldwide. However, the most successful commercial company built on this ecosystem—Red Hat—does not generate revenue from the code itself. Instead, Red Hat sells services: technical support, security patches, and stability guarantees. When IBM acquired Red Hat in 2019 for $34 billion, they bought not the code but trust and operational expertise. This parallel is striking with OP Enterprise, a new enterprise-level service launched by Optimism on January 29, 2026, to support deployment of production chains within 8-12 weeks.

MySQL faced a different challenge through dual licensing: an open-source version under GPL for non-commercial use, and a separate commercial license for commercial purposes. This model echoes Arbitrum’s logic—use the code for free, but if you generate commercial value, there’s a fee. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems in 2010 and gained control of MySQL, concerns about its future prompted the creation of MariaDB as a fork. This illustrates the inherent risk of licensing restrictions: the possibility of forking always exists.

MongoDB provides a more direct example of the problem Optimism faces. In 2018, MongoDB adopted the Server Side Public License precisely because Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud used MongoDB code to offer managed services without paying MongoDB. This pattern repeats: the biggest beneficiaries of open ecosystems contribute the least. WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg recently engaged in a similar dispute with WP Engine, criticizing the hosting company for earning substantial revenue from the WordPress ecosystem without adequate contribution. WordPress is fully open source under GPL and powers 40% of websites worldwide, yet the “free-rider” problem remains unresolved.

All these cases show a similar pattern: in highly successful open-source ecosystems, those who benefit most often contribute the least. Base and Optimism are now experiencing the same drama.

Why Blockchain Is Different: Tokens as Triggers for Structural Change

If this problem has long existed in traditional software, why has it become so acute in blockchain infrastructure?

First: tokens. In traditional open-source projects, the relative value is distributed more or less evenly. Linux’s success does not imply a specific asset price fluctuating wildly. But in blockchain, the presence of tokens makes value reflect market sentiment about ecosystem health in real time and in a highly measurable way. A 20%+ drop in OP within hours of the Base announcement exemplifies this dramatically. Tokens serve as both a barometer of ecosystem health and a mechanism that amplifies crises.

Second: responsibility for financial infrastructure. Layer 2 chains are not just software—they are infrastructure managing billions of dollars in assets. Maintaining stability and security requires ongoing, substantial investment. In traditional open-source projects, maintenance costs are often covered by corporate sponsors or foundation funds. But most Layer 2 chains struggle to sustain their own ecosystem operations. Without external contributions like revenue sharing from sequencer fees, resources for development and maintenance are severely limited.

Third: ideological tensions. The crypto community has a strong identity around the principle that “code should be free.” Decentralization and freedom are core values that are non-negotiable. In this context, Arbitrum’s revenue-sharing model can be seen as a betrayal of these values, while Optimism’s openness is ideologically appealing but economically unsustainable.

Building Sustainable Infrastructure: No Perfect Solution

Although Base has departed, the story of Optimism is far from over. On January 29, 2026, Optimism launched OP Enterprise, a corporate-level service for fintech institutions and financial organizations. Optimism’s assessment is that while the OP stack remains freely accessible under the MIT license, most non-infrastructure teams will find it more rational to collaborate with OP Enterprise. Base has stated it will remain a core support partner during the transition and is committed to maintaining compatibility with the OP stack specifications. This separation is technical, not relational.

On the other hand, the community source code model of Arbitrum is not yet fully tested in the real world. Of the approximately 19,400 ETH accumulated in the Arbitrum DAO treasury, nearly all come from sequencer fees on Arbitrum One and Nova, as well as MEV from Timeboost. Revenue from ecosystem contribution via the Arbitrum Expansion Plan is still awaiting validation at scale. This is because the expansion plan was only launched in January 2024, and most existing Orbit chains are built on Arbitrum One as L3, thus exempt from revenue sharing obligations. Even Robinhood, the most prominent independent L2 project planning to expand, is still in the testnet phase. This model will only prove viable when Robinhood launches mainnet and revenue sharing begins.

Accepting requests to hand over 10% of protocol revenue to an external DAO is not easy for large corporations. Robinhood’s choice to stay on Orbit indicates there is value in other dimensions—potential for customization and technological reliability. However, the long-term economic viability of this model remains unproven, representing a real challenge for Arbitrum to solve.

Ultimately, Optimism and Arbitrum offer two different answers to the same question: how to ensure the long-term sustainability of public infrastructure? The key is not which model is correct, but understanding the trade-offs each design entails. The open model of Optimism allows rapid expansion but risks beneficiaries leaving once independent. The contribution-based model of Arbitrum builds a more stable revenue foundation but raises the initial barrier for new adopters.

OP Labs, Sunnyside Labs, and Offchain Labs have recruited world-class researchers committed to expanding Ethereum while maintaining decentralization. Without ongoing development investment from them, progress in Layer 2 scalability would be impossible. Resources to fund this work must come from somewhere. There is no such thing as free infrastructure.

As a community, our task is not blind loyalty or instinctive hostility, but honest dialogue about who will bear the costs of this infrastructure. The departure of Base may serve as a necessary starting point for that conversation—about how to build a healthy, sustainable, and fair ecosystem for all stakeholders.