Relational Dynamics L2: Why Base's Departure Changes the Optimism Ecosystem

The return of Base from the Optimism protocol indeed hit Optimism, but concluding that the superchain model itself has failed is premature. Behind this event lies a deeper relational debate about how blockchain infrastructure can achieve long-term economic sustainability. This is not just about technological transition but about how economic relationships between platforms, users, and ecosystems should be built in the decentralized digital era.

Relational Crisis in the Superchain: When Base Goes Its Own Way

On February 18, 2025, Base—an Ethereum Layer 2 network supported by Coinbase—announced a shift from Optimism’s OP Stack protocol to an exclusive integrated code architecture. This was not an easy decision. As the largest chain within the Optimism superchain ecosystem, Base represented one of the biggest successes of the open model of Optimism. Yet now, its success gave Base the confidence to go independent.

Base’s plan includes consolidating key infrastructure components—including the sequencer—into a single fully managed repository. This means reducing dependence on third parties like Optimism, Flashbots, and Paradigm. Market reactions were swift: OP’s price dropped over 20% within 24 hours. Steven Goldfeder, co-founder of Arbitrum and CEO of Offchain Labs, used this moment to remind the community that Arbitrum deliberately chose a different path years ago. From Goldfeder’s perspective, if a protocol allows participants to enjoy benefits without contributing, this relational dynamic will eventually lead to what we see now: the departure of major players.

Two Contrasting Relational Models

Optimism and Arbitrum embody two fundamentally different approaches to managing the relational relationship between protocols and the chains built on top of them.

Optimism Model: Open Without Conditions

OP Stack Optimism is fully open source under the MIT license. Anyone can access, modify, and build their own Layer 2 chains without royalties or revenue-sharing obligations. Revenue sharing mechanisms are only activated when a chain formally joins the “superchain” ecosystem—participants then must contribute 2.5% of total chain revenue or 15% of net revenue (after Layer 1 costs), whichever is higher.

The relational logic behind this approach is simple yet powerful: if many L2 chains are built on OP Stack, they will form a connected network. Through network effects, the value of OP tokens and the overall Optimism ecosystem will grow. This strategy has proven highly effective. Established projects like Coinbase (Base), Sony (Soneium), Worldcoin (World Chain), and Uniswap (Unichain) all chose OP Stack. The core competitive advantage lies in its modular architecture—execution layers, consensus, and data availability can be independently replaced, giving full sovereignty to corporate users.

However, structural weaknesses are also clear: low entry barriers mean low exit barriers. The economic dependence of chains on the Optimism ecosystem is minimal. The more profitable a chain operates, the more rational it is to run independently—just as Base is doing now.

Arbitrum Model: Structured Relational Control

Arbitrum takes a more complex route. For L3 chains built on Arbitrum Orbit and settled on Arbitrum One or Nova, there are no revenue-sharing obligations. But chains settled outside the Arbitrum One/Nova ecosystem must contribute 10% of their protocol’s net revenue to the Arbitrum DAO—with 8% going into the DAO treasury and 2% to the Arbitrum Developers Association.

This creates a strategic dual-structure. Chains within the Arbitrum ecosystem have freedom; those using Arbitrum technology outside the ecosystem must contribute. Initially, building Arbitrum Orbit L2s directly settled on Ethereum required DAO governance approval. When Arbitrum’s expansion plan launched in January 2024, this process shifted to a self-service mode. Nonetheless, the need for customization and clear relational responsibilities remains a barrier for companies seeking fully sovereign L2 chains.

Reports indicate that the Arbitrum DAO has accumulated around 20,000 ETH in revenue. Robinhood, a major financial institution, recently announced plans to build their own Orbit L2—validating the value proposition of this model. The Robinhood testnet recorded 4 million transactions in the first week, showing that customization and technological maturity in Arbitrum provide real value for institutional clients, even if they must contribute financially.

Compromises in Every Relational Approach

Both models are optimized for different values. The open model of Optimism maximizes early adoption speed through the MIT license, modular architecture, and established reference projects. The low entry barrier makes rapid expansion feasible.

The contribution model of Arbitrum emphasizes long-term ecosystem sustainability. Its economic coordination mechanisms require external users to provide steady revenue contributions. Early adoption may be slightly slower, but the exit costs for projects leveraging features like Arbitrum Stylus are much higher.

However, these differences are often exaggerated. Arbitrum also offers free, permissionless access within its ecosystem, while Optimism asks superchain members to share revenue. Both fall within a spectrum between “completely open” and “completely compelled”—the difference is a matter of degree, not essence. At its core, it’s a blockchain version of the classic trade-off between growth speed and sustainability.

Relational Lessons from Open Source Software History

This tension is not a new phenomenon exclusive to blockchain. The debate over monetizing open source software has persisted for decades, and what we see today is a continuation of recurring patterns.

Linux and Red Hat: Service Model

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 computing field. Yet, the most successful commercial company built on it—Red Hat—does not profit directly from the code. They earn revenue from services: technical support, security patches, and stability guarantees for enterprise clients. Red Hat was acquired by IBM in 2019 for $34 billion. This “free code, paid service” model closely resembles the OP Enterprise launched by Optimism recently.

MySQL and MongoDB: Dual Licensing and Market Response

MySQL adopted a dual-licensing approach: an open-source version under GPL and a separate commercial license for enterprise use. This approach is similar to Arbitrum’s “community code source” model. MySQL succeeded but not without consequences. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems in 2010—gaining ownership of MySQL—concerns about its future led original creator Monty Widenius and the developer community to fork MariaDB.

MongoDB provides a more direct example. In 2018, MongoDB adopted the Server-Side Public License (SSPL) with a clear motivation: cloud giants like AWS and Google Cloud use MongoDB code as managed services but do not pay MongoDB. This pattern repeats in open source history—gaining value from open code without contributing back.

WordPress: Asymmetric Relational Pattern

WordPress is fully open source under GPL and powers about 40% of the web. Automattic, the company behind it, earns revenue through WordPress.com and plugins but does not charge for the core WordPress software. In recent years, WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg and major hosting provider WP Engine have had disputes. Mullenweg openly criticized WP Engine for generating large revenues from the WordPress ecosystem while contributing minimally—an asymmetric relational paradox very similar to what’s happening between Optimism and Base.

Why Are Relational Dynamics Different in Crypto?

This is not a new phenomenon in traditional software. Why does it become so pronounced in blockchain infrastructure?

Tokens as Amplifiers of Relational Dynamics

In traditional open source projects, value is distributed without measurable instruments. When Linux succeeded, no specific asset price would directly rise or fall. In blockchain, the presence of tokens makes every relational change immediately reflected in prices. In traditional software, free-riding issues lead to resource shortages gradually. In blockchain, the departure of key participants like Base triggers immediate, highly visible outcomes: a 20% drop in $OP price within 24 hours. Tokens act as a barometer of ecosystem health and as a mechanism that magnifies every relational crisis.

Financial Infrastructure Responsibilities

Layer 2 chains are not just software—they are financial infrastructure managing billions of dollars in assets. Maintaining stability and security incurs ongoing substantial costs. Successful open source projects often rely on corporate sponsorships or foundation support for maintenance, but most L2 chains struggle just to sustain their own operations. Without external contributions—such as revenue sharing for sequencers and infrastructure—it’s difficult to ensure the resources needed for ongoing development and maintenance.

Ideological Tensions in the Crypto Community

The crypto community has a strong ideological tradition that “code should be free”—decentralization and freedom are core values tightly linked to industry identity. In this context, Arbitrum’s contribution-sharing model may face ideological resistance, while Optimism’s open model is ideologically appealing but faces real, measurable economic sustainability challenges.

The Future of L2 Relational Dynamics

Base’s departure is a blow to Optimism but does not mean the superchain model has failed. Optimism is not standing still. On January 29, 2026, it officially launched OP Enterprise—a corporate-level service for fintech and financial institutions, offering production chain deployment within 8-12 weeks. While the original OP Stack remains MIT licensed and can switch to a standalone mode, Optimism’s assessment is that most non-infrastructure teams will find working with OP Enterprise a more rational and sustainable choice.

Base will not sever ties with OP Stack overnight. It has stated that during the transition period, it will remain a core support partner for OP Enterprise and plans to maintain compatibility with OP Stack specifications throughout the migration. This split is technical, not relational in a fundamental sense. It’s an official position from both sides, though strategically reflecting a more complex market reality.

The Arbitrum community code source model also exhibits a gap between theory and practice. Of the approximately 19,400 ETH in net fee revenue accumulated in the Arbitrum DAO, nearly all comes from Arbitrum One and Nova sequencer fees and MEV Timeboost auctions—not from ecosystem chain fee sharing. Structural reasons exist: the new Arbitrum expansion plan launched in January 2024, most existing Orbit chains are built on Arbitrum One as L3 (and thus exempt from revenue sharing obligations). Robinhood, one of the largest independent L2 chains, is still on testnet. For this model to truly have a “sustainable revenue structure,” the ecosystem must wait for major chains like Robinhood to launch mainnet and revenue sharing to truly flow. Asking large institutions to give up 10% of protocol revenue is not easy—but Robinhood’s choice to continue with Orbit shows that the value proposition in other dimensions—customization and technological maturity—is quite compelling.

Conclusion: No Infrastructure Is Truly Free

The two models offered by Optimism and Arbitrum ultimately provide different answers to the same question: how to ensure long-term sustainability of public infrastructure? The key is not which model is objectively “correct,” but to clearly understand the relational compromises embedded in each approach.

Optimism’s open model enables rapid ecosystem expansion but carries the inherent risk that the biggest beneficiaries can leave at any time. Arbitrum’s contribution-based model builds a sustainable revenue structure but raises the entry barrier for early adoption. OP Labs, Sunnyside Labs, and Offchain Labs have recruited world-class research talent committed to scaling Ethereum while maintaining decentralization. Without ongoing development investment from them, technological progress in L2 will stall. Resources to fund this work must come from somewhere.

Base’s return could be the starting point for an honest dialogue about who should bear the costs of this infrastructure. There is no truly free infrastructure in the world. As a blockchain community, our task is not blind loyalty or instinctive hatred of certain models, but to initiate deep relational conversations about how we can build a fair, sustainable, and innovative ecosystem for all stakeholders.

#DAO #ETH