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

Previous articles in this series:

• Gelato's Guide to Avalanche L1s and Native Interoperability

• L1 Blockchain Stacks: Avalanche vs Cosmos

• Rollup L1s: How ABC Stack's Celestia Sovereign Rollup L1s Compare to Avalanche and Cosmos L1 blockchains

• OP Stack vs. Arbitrum Orbit: The Best L2 Rollup Comparison

• Beyond Optimistic Rollups: ZK Rollups and zkVMs

• Native Rollups: the Future of Ethereum L2 Architecture

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).

• 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

• Proof of Stake Layer 1 solutions (like Avalanche L1s / Cosmos L1s) if you want to roll your own consensus network blockchain

→ Read more here: L1 Blockchain Stacks: Avalanche vs Cosmos

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.

→ 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

• If you require an open-source client, use the OP Stack. Furthermore, those prioritizing interoperability should consider the Optimism Superchain.

→ Read more here: OP Stack vs. Arbitrum Orbit: The Best L2 Rollup Comparison

Q2: Centralization as a Feature

In this path, performance, affordability, and simplicity take precedence over maximal decentralization.

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 CeDeFi apps may choose Avalanche L1s to optimize for performance and UX.

→ 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?

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.

→ Read more: ABC’s Modular Bridging

Q2.3: Do you prioritize A) performance and cost efficiency, or B) custom validator setup?

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

B: I want a customizable permissioned validator setup

• You should use Avalanche L1s (Permissioned).

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

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

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

• Use Arbitrum Orbit L2/L3 'Optimiums' with AnyTrust DAC.

B: altDA (e.g. Celestia)

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

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

What about ZK Rollups?

We’ve excluded early ZK variants like OP Succinct from this framework for now. As ZK adoption grows, they will be integrated due to their ability to remove fraud challenge windows and improve bridging.

What about Native and Based Rollups?

Native Rollups directly leverage Ethereum's execution engine but are still early. Based Rollups delegate sequencing to Ethereum’s validators, removing centralized sequencers. Both represent upgrades for decentralized rollup stacks.

Further considerations

This framework presumes chain stack selection based on technical and interoperability factors, excluding business-driven incentives like grants, ecosystem branding, or subsidies. It also focuses exclusively on EVM-compatible architectures.

Conclusion

As teams evaluate blockchain infrastructure, the key trade-off remains between decentralization, performance, and cost. ZK Rollups promise to overcome current L2 UX limitations, while centralized solutions like Arbitrum AnyTrust deliver cost-efficiency. Sovereign Rollup L1s on Celestia offer independence with modular flexibility, while Avalanche L1s provide configurable consensus options.

As the ecosystem evolves, Native and Based Rollups may further simplify architectures by embedding execution and sequencing into Ethereum itself.

If you’re evaluating blockchain stacks, Gelato helps you choose the right architecture and launch on Gelato RaaS quickly, with all the Web3 services you need. Find out more here: raas.gelato.cloud