BLOG — Developer Tutorials

yesterday

The Best “Pick-Your-Chain” Framework: Navigate Rollups, L1s and L2s

Introduction

The blockchain scaling landscape has evolved dramatically since Ethereum's early days. This guide isn’t about whether you should launch your own chain, you’ve already made that call. The real question is: what kind of chain should it be?

Do you build a Layer 1 from scratch or launch as a rollup? Do you prioritize sovereignty, shared security, or ecosystem alignment? These decisions impact everything from chain operating and transaction costs, to speed, security and user experience.

This guide is here to help you navigate the complex ecosystem of chain stacks, focusing on practical decision factors that matter most for real-world applications. If you’re picking your chain based on grants or ecosystem FOMO, this article probably won’t guide you (but hey, you might still learn something useful).

Before diving into specific decision factors, let's clarify the landscape:

Layer 1 Chains (L1s): Blockchains that maintain their own state and do not rely on an external settlement client. In the modular blockchain framework, this includes both:

  • Monolithic L1s: Independent blockchains with their own consensus, execution, settlement, and data availability layers tightly integrated (e.g., Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, Cosmos).

  • Rollup L1s (Sovereign Rollups): Modular Layer 1s that outsource consensus to specialized consensus & data availability layers (e.g., Celestia), but retain independent execution and settlement logic, qualifying as L1s due to their sovereignty and lack of externally enshrined settlement dependency.

Layer 2 Chains (L2s): Scaling layers that rely on another chain (typically Ethereum) for settlement and optionally for their consensus & data availability. These include (as per Ethereum community definitions):

  • Layer 2 Rollups (Use Ethereum for both consensus and DA):

    • Optimistic Rollups: Assume transactions are valid by default and post data to Ethereum. Security is enforced via interactive fraud proofs (e.g., Arbitrum uses BoLD; Optimism uses Cannon)

    • ZK Rollups: Use zero-knowledge validity proofs to verify transaction batches before submission (e.g., zkSync, StarkNet), enabling near instant finality without dispute periods. Some systems also implement ZK fraud proofs (OP Succinct, RISC0 Kailula), where validity is assumed unless challenged, and a zero-knowledge proof resolves disputes efficiently.

  • Layer 2 Non-Rollups (rely on AltDA):

    • Optimiums: Optimistic rollups with altDA (AnyTrust, Orbit/OP with Celestia, …)

    • Validiums: Use ZK validity proofs for correctness of execution, but store transaction data off-chain.

Finding your optimal stack

This decision framework helps you identify the most suitable blockchain stack by asking targeted questions about your technical and operational priorities such as decentralization, cost, performance, bridging liquidity and user experience.

Based on your responses, it directs you toward specific architectural models with each path reflecting a clear trade-off between decentralization, performance, cost, bridging/interoperability and commercial licensing.

Q1: Do you prioritize decentralization?

A: Decentralization at all costs → Go to Q1.1

B: Centralization is acceptable or even a feature → Go to Q2

Q1.1: Do you want to build your own A) PoS Layer 1 or leverage a B) rollup framework?

A: Roll your own PoS Layer 1

B: Use a rollup → Go to Q1.2

Q1.2: Do you need A) an enshrined bridge to Ethereum, or are you happy with exclusively B) external bridge providers (e.g., Circle, LayerZero, Hyperlane)?

A: I want an enshrined bridge → Go to Q1.3

B: I'm happy with external bridge providers

  • Choose ABC Sovereign Rollup L1 as teams can choose how they interoperate across ecosystems through Modular Bridging. They can integrate with one or more modular bridge providers like Hyperlane, LayerZero, Circle CCTP, or others and can even opt out of bridging on their chain entirely.

This setup allows you to leverage modular data availability, and avoid dependency on Ethereum enshrined bridges. It supports fast deployment, performance optimization, and full control over execution and governance.

Unlike L2 Rollups, which settle on Ethereum or another base chain, Sovereign Rollup L1s publish their blocks on a consensus & DA layer like Celestia but retain full control over execution and settlement, achieving sovereignty without requiring Ethereum or another L1 to validate their state transitions.

→ Read more here: How ABC Stack's Celestia Sovereign Rollup L1s Compare to Avalanche and Cosmos L1 blockchains

Q1.3: Within enshrined bridge rollups, do you prioritize A) performance or B) open-source and/or interoperability?

A: Performance and custom execution

  • For those seeking both an enshrined rollup bridge to Ethereum and flexibility in custom execution environments and higher performance, it is recommended to choose Arbitrum Orbit L2s.

B: Open-source and/or Ethereum-aligned interop standardization

Q2: Centralization as a Feature

In this path, performance, affordability, and simplicity take precedence over maximal decentralization. This model suits applications or platforms with trusted participants, known validators, or specific compliance requirements.

Q2.1: Do you want A) to run your own permissioned chain, or B) rely on centralized DA / bridge components?

A: Run your own permissioned consensus validator set

  • Consortium chains, gaming platforms, and many CeDeFi applications with trusted counterparties may choose more centralized components, such as Avalanche L1s, to optimize for performance and user experience.

→ Read more here: Gelato's Guide to Avalanche L1s and Native Interoperability

B: Use rollup infrastructure with (semi-)centralized DA and bridging → Go to Q2.2

Q2.2: Do you need A) an enshrined bridge to Ethereum, or are you happy with exclusively B) external bridge providers (e.g., Circle, LayerZero, Hyperlane)?

A: I want an enshrined bridge → Go to Q2.3

B: I'm happy with external bridge providers

  • You should use ABC Sovereign Rollup L1 with centralized DA and modular bridging.

    Choose ABC Sovereign Rollup L1 as teams can choose how they interoperate across ecosystems through Modular Bridging. They can integrate with one or more modular bridge providers like Hyperlane, LayerZero, Circle CCTP, or others and can even opt out of bridging on their chain entirely. This setup allows you to leverage modular data availability, and avoid dependency on Ethereum enshrined bridges. It supports fast deployment, performance optimization, and full control over execution and governance.

    → Read more: ABC’s Modular Bridging

Q2.3: Do you prioritize A) performance and cost efficiency, or are you willing to trade that for B) custom consensus validator setup and execution control?

A: I care more about performance and cost → Go to Q2.4

B: I want a customizable permissioned validator setup

Q2.4: What kind of Consensus & DA layer do you want?

After settling on bridge logic, your consensus and data availability (DA) choices will depend on performance goals and operational tradeoffs.

A: AnyTrust DAC (centralized, infinite bandwidth, near-zero cost)

  • Use Arbitrum Orbit L2/L3 'Optimiums' with AnyTrust DAC, which also unlocks Fast Withdrawals by allowing the L2 bridge to be operated by the DAC validators, since trust is already established.

  • Note: You can add multiple nodes to your AnyTrust DAC setup in an effort to decentralize it. However, most setups we see today are either fully centralized or semi-centralized at best.

B: altDA (e.g. Celestia high bandwidth, low-cost for consensus & DA)

  • Use Arbitrum Orbit L2/L3 or OP L2 Optimiums with Celestia DA & Consensus

    Note: While Celestia is a decentralized consensus & DA solution by itself, combining it into the L2/L3 bridge mechanism requires a (semi-)centralized oracle.

    Note: While the OP Stack can technically support altDA like Celestia, the Optimism Superchain roadmap is currently focused on Ethereum-native DA layers. If you need altDA, Arbitrum Orbit is the more favoured option for deploying Optimiums.

Future directions (not included in “Pick-Your-Chain Framework”):

What about ZK Rollups in “Pick-Your-Chain Framework”?

We’ve excluded early ZK variants like OP Succinct from this framework for now. While OP is open-source and leads development, Succinct isn’t yet part of the canonical OP Stack or Superchain. We expect ZK to become a major upgrade and will integrate it into the “Pick-Your-Chain” framework once more chains adopt production-ready implementations.

That said, we support and encourage early teams to experiment with these cutting-edge ZK Rollup frameworks, especially if you want to enable better cross-chain liquidity via canonical bridges that benefit solver protocols like Across.

This decision framework can be updated to include future ZK versions of the L2 rollup stacks mentioned, with OP already having OP Succinct in development. As low-cost and low-latency ZK proving becomes more production-ready, it is likely to shift the decision-making pendulum further toward decentralization because ZK rollups improve L2 bridge performance significantly by removing the 7-day fraud challenge window required by Optimistic Rollups. This results in faster withdrawals, lower capital costs, and fewer trade-offs for cross-chain applications.

What about Native and Based Rollups in “Pick-Your-Chain Framework”?

Native Rollups are an upcoming solution that directly leverage Ethereum's execution engine through an EXECUTE precompile, blurring the line between L1 and L2. However, the technology is still in early stages and not yet production-ready.

Furthermore, Based Rollups, is gaining traction as a more immediately implementable evolution. Based Rollups delegate sequencing to Ethereum’s own validators by using the L1 proposer in each slot to publish L2 transaction data. This removes centralized sequencers and simplifies infrastructure, using Ethereum as the only credibly neutral sequencer, without introducing new tokens or governance layers.

Both Native and Based Rollups represent potential upgrades to existing decentralized rollup stacks. ZK Rollups also continue to be a major area of research and development, with new zkVM architectures pushing the boundaries of decentralization and security.

Further considerations

This framework presumes chain stack selection based on system design and interoperability concerns and intentionally excludes several factors that influence chain selection as a business decision: grants and subsidies, ecosystem brand equity, token narratives, and stack provider partnerships.

This is because such considerations typically reflect short-term incentives or market sentiment rather than lasting strategic value. Grants and subsidies are temporary, and because of how rapidly each ecosystem evolves to pivot differing business narratives, ecosystem affiliation should not be regarded as a primary differentiator. As the blockchain industry matures, we expect stack and infrastructure providers to decreasingly occupy the limelight as much as they do today, shifting the focus toward the applications and products that are built on top of these layers of infrastructure abstractions.

The “Pick-Your-Chain” framework exclusively focuses on EVM-compatible architectures, as EVM remains the dominant standard across the multichain ecosystem.

Conclusion

As teams evaluate blockchain infrastructure, the key trade-off remains between decentralization, performance/speed, and cost. Today’s dominant Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum and OP Stack, offer trust-minimized interoperability but face real UX limitations due to the 7-day challenge window inherent to Optimistic Rollup fraud proofs.

ZK Rollups provide a path forward for Ethereum L2s to overcome their current L2 bridge limitations. By enabling near-instant finality through real-time proving, they dramatically improve bridging latency and unlock smoother cross-chain experiences. While still early in adoption, they hold promise to reinvigorate decentralized models by solving the usability issues that have hindered broader traction.

At the same time, centralized solutions like Arbitrum AnyTrust and increasingly Arbitrum altDA with Celestia, are seeing strong adoption. By trading off decentralization, they deliver performance and cost-efficiency for applications operating in more trusted environments.

Alternative paths beyond L2s are also emerging. Sovereign Rollup L1s on Celestia retain rollup benefits such as modular DA and consensus outsourcing while enabling full sovereignty and architectural flexibility. These chains operate without enshrined bridges and can function independently with their own chain-native tokens, without any bridge at all, or optionally connect to other chains via external bridge providers like LayerZero or Hyperlane. For teams seeking independence without managing full consensus, they offer a compelling middle ground.

Lastly, Avalanche L1s provide high consensus configurability. While PoA suits enterprise-grade deployments, decentralized Avalanche PoS Layer 1s, similar to Cosmos L1s, are possible for projects that can bootstrap large validator network incentives.

As the ecosystem evolves, innovations such as Native and Based Rollups promise simpler, maximally decentralized and more Ethereum-aligned architectures by embedding execution and sequencing into the L1 itself.

If you’re evaluating any of the blockchain stacks covered in this guide, Gelato helps you choose the right architecture and get your chain up and running on Gelato RaaS quickly, with all the additional Web3 Services you need included. Find out more here: raas.gelato.network.