Why Base and OP should be a community of interests?

Author: Haotian-CryptoInsight

Last night, OP Stack's popular fried chicken @BuildOnBase chain released a statement of cooperation with @optimismFND, which has a lot of information and answered a lot of rumors and doubts. How does the upgrade contract of layer2 get rid of the suspicion of single control? Is the profit dividend as high as the rumored 30%? Why doesn't Base set up its own business, and wants to be a community of interests with OP? Let me explain it to you one by one:

At the beginning, Base explained the reason for cooperating with OP Stack, which is consistent with the long article I interpreted before: **OP is open enough to attract developers. **The original words are "the more hands on the code, the more chances to spot and secure the foundation", which is actually a demonstration for many organizations trying to build an open source ecosystem. Make contributions, don’t boast about your skills today, and tomorrow he will sue you for plagiarism. Such noise is not good for the entire track. It has to be said that in terms of open source collaboration, the OP can be described as full of patterns.

The statement mentioned the Law of Chains on-chain governance rules, **this is a set of system governance rules to be followed when participating in OP Stack, which is actually equivalent to the "Six Nations Alliance". **This set of alliance documents honestly points out the current stage of OP-Rollup in the decentralization process (Stage0-2): it has not reached the layer2 of absolute decentralization. Therefore, Base has given some technical support after joining, including:

1. Added op-geth and op-node client operations, the more the number of such clients, the wider the distribution, and the stronger the decentralization of the organizational structure;

2. The op-reth fault proof client is adopted, which is a client developed and implemented by the Paradigm team. It is used to detect and prove faults and malicious behaviors that occur on layer2 to ensure the safety of user funds. In addition, it also launched The Pessmism pessimistic monitoring tool stack is used to monitor various components of the OP Stack (Sequencer, Bacher, challenger, etc.);

We all know that the optimistic mechanism of Optimism assumes that evil does not exist. Who can prove that evil does not exist? **It is this pessimistic monitoring system called Pessmism and a set of fault proof clients operated by Paradigm, so as to provide multi-faceted security guarantees for Optimism’s optimistic statement. **

3. Build a Security Council for SuperChain, which is equivalent to the "United Nations" organization in SuperChain.

On the one hand, it stipulates that the multi-signature of the contract upgrade is composed of the Optimism Foundation and the Base Foundation, which is equivalent to adding another trust subject on the basis of the original single-organization multi-signature. Because everyone criticizes that the upgradeable feature of layer2's governance contract is completed by its committee in a multi-signature manner. Once the members of the committee act collectively, such multi-signatures will be meaningless**. The new chain law expands the multi-signature subject, which can increase external constraints and increase credibility. **

On the other hand, it proposes a set of challenger key management schemes. The Base team has the right to delete its outputs proposals when the OP team has misbehavior. ** (This is actually the double insurance of the layer2 management method)

Focusing on the key points, let me talk about the profit sharing issue that everyone is most concerned about. There have been rumors that 10% or even 30% profit dividends are not true:

**According to the statement, dividends can be distributed according to 2.5% of Base Sequencer's total income or 15% of the net profit consumed by the L1 main network. Simply understand, either 2.5% of the total turnover, or 15% of the total profit, depending on which one calculates a higher dividend. ** Based on the data on dune analytics, on August 24th, Base’s total Fee income was $4,092,331, calculated as $102K at 2.5%; or the total Base Revenue was 2,626,794, calculated as $394k at 15%. Or the latter is more beneficial. However, after the upgrade of Cancun, the reference of Blob storage will greatly reduce the L1 interaction cost. Dividing by turnover may be more in line with long-term planning, because if it is only based on profit, another layer of trust cost will be added. After all, cost consumption involves operations, network, resource consumption, etc. Numerous complicating factors.

**Finally, let me explain one of my confusions. Since OP Stack is highly open source and Base is so popular, why must it be bundled with the interests of Optimism? Wouldn't it be better to stand on your own? **

From a technical point of view, Base requires the OP team’s rich experience in the maintenance and operation of components such as Sequencer in addition to open source code. 2.75% of OP tokens;**

In fact, the key is that the existing narrative of layer2 has fatal constraints on the issue of centralization. The upgrade of the governance contract is controlled under the multi-signature system of a single organization, and it is difficult to obtain a trust consensus. Expanding the scope of trust subjects can effectively solve this problem.

Obviously, both the Base and the OP team are deeply aware of what is going on, and they are just exchanging a big picture for a big future.

Reference: Analysis of why OP Stack is popular among developers: