Following our last post on how metabased rollups unlock new economic opportunities and mechanisms, here we’ll explore how metabased rollups not only enable the full spectrum of decentralization models but also are able to easily transition through them over time due to their onchain smart contract sequencers.
Onchain Progressive Decentralization
Metabased rollups and their smart contract sequencers provide networks with a unique technical foundation that is able to support the full spectrum of decentralization models—from centralized to fully decentralized approaches and everything in between.
This flexibility is centered around who is permissioned to sequence the network. Let's explore the various decentralization models and their implications for metabased rollups:
Centralized
Most networks and communities begin their journey more centralized. In this approach, a single entity or a small trusted group of organizations maintain control over the network and its sequencing. The primary advantages of this model are speed and control, allowing for more rapid decision-making, iteration, and changes.
However, centralization comes with significant drawbacks. It can lead to single points of failure, censorship risks, and a lack of community trust. While centralization might be necessary in the early stages of development, it's generally not a sustainable long-term solution for most networks or communities.
Permissioned
The permissioned model represents the next stage of decentralization, and some networks choose to start here. In this model, sequencing is distributed among a select group of highly trusted parties. This approach begins to involve the community more deeply in the network's operations, making it particularly relevant for L3s that aim to function more like community-run networks than completely open decentralized networks where anyone can participate, including actors who are not aligned with the network’s community, values, or long-term success.
For many networks, achieving a permissioned model is the first major milestone in their decentralization journey. It matters greatly to their communities who the key operators are, as they play a crucial role in shaping the network's development and growth. Metabased rollups shine here by making it easier to evolve a network’s permissions and decentralization model over time by updating the onchain sequencing contract. This flexibility makes getting to the permissioned stage more feasible and, once a network is there, more adaptable.
However, while the permissioned model is an important step forward, it's often not the final destination for community-owned networks that aspire to be more open and inclusive.
Sufficiently decentralized
Most communities and networks aim to ultimately get to a sufficiently decentralized model. This model strikes a balance between openness and community alignment, allowing networks to decentralize specifically to their community rather than just to anyone. For most networks, especially L3s, this model represents the ideal end-state and showcases the potential for metabased rollups as optimal community-centric infrastructure.
Achieving sufficient decentralization relies on identifying the network’s community, as well as developing various technical and economic mechanisms that engage and reward members in ways that are most aligned with the network's long-term success. This often includes native gas and staking tokens and custom economic mechanism designs.
Metabased rollups excel with sufficiently decentralized models, as they allow networks to customize and iterate their sequencers’ permissioning and economic systems over time to meet the evolving needs of their community. This adaptability is a significant advantage over other sequencing models that are off-chain and extremely difficult to modify.
Fully decentralized
While full decentralization is often touted as the ultimate goal for most blockchains, it's not always the ideal end-state for community-owned networks. There are compelling reasons both for and against full decentralization.
Reasons for full decentralization include maximum openness, neutrality, and censorship resistance. These factors can be crucial for certain types of networks and applications.
However, full decentralization also opens the network to participants who may not be aligned with the community's values and seek to extract value from the network, such as MEV. For instance, in based sequenced networks, MEV flows to L1 searchers, block builders, and proposers who are likely not part of any specific network’s long-term community.
Also, for L3s, it can be hard to justify creating a new L3 rather than just using an existing L2 like Base if maximal decentralization is the goal. L3s are most powerful when community-owned and their communities can exercise control over the network in a way that aligns its economic design and incentives with its goals, values, and needs.
While metabased rollups can enable full decentralization if desired, most communities find that this approach doesn't fully leverage metabased rollups and their unique advantages. In many cases, creating a fully decentralized L3 might miss the point of having a community-owned network in the first place.
Build New Decentralization Models with Us
Metabased rollups offer unparalleled flexibility in implementing and evolving decentralization models. Whether a network chooses to remain permissioned, aim for sufficient decentralization, or push for full decentralization, metabased rollups provide the tools and flexibility to implement and iterate on these models effectively.
If you’re interested in learning more about how you can leverage metabased rollups for your community, please reach out or follow Metabased on X and Warpcast.