Rollups are solving these challenges head-on, and making Ethereum a more efficient and scalable blockchain. Arbitrum and Optimism are the two largest Optimistic rollups.
Before we get to the core, it's essential to understand what rollups are.
Rollup
A layer-2 scaling solution that allows computations to be performed off-chain while storing only a small amount of data on-chain.
This mechanism increases the throughput of the mainchain, consequently reducing transaction costs and improving scalability.
With the increase in Ethereum's popularity, the network's ability to handle a large number of transactions per second (TPS) has been strained.
Rollups help solve this problem, thereby improving the blockchain's functionality and utility.
Arbitrum is an optimistic rollup developed by Offchain Labs.
It's designed to bridge the gap between the speed, security, and scalability of Ethereum.
Arbitrum works by moving computation and storage off-chain and leaving the data on-chain.
It introduces a unique system of validators and an 'anytrust' model, meaning as long as one honest validator exists, the system remains secure.
Arbitrum stands out for its flexibility, supporting all Ethereum developer tools and languages.
It also offers interoperability, low costs, and high speed, all the while maintaining Ethereum's security.
On the flip side, Arbitrum's 'anytrust' model is contingent on the existence of at least one honest validator.
This introduces a small degree of centralization risk.
Optimism is another popular optimistic rollup solution. Its mission is to scale Ethereum by using a technology called Optimistic Virtual Machine (OVM).
Optimism works similarly to Arbitrum, moving computation off-chain and retaining data on-chain. However, it uses a different method of dispute resolution based on a game-theoretic mechanism.
Optimism excels in compatibility with Ethereum, scalability, and low transaction fees.
It also has the backing of major players in the Ethereum ecosystem, bolstering its credibility.
Optimism's key limitation is its withdrawal period.
When users want to withdraw their funds, they must wait for a challenge period of one week, which can be a significant inconvenience.
Arbitrum and Optimism share the same goal but achieve it differently.
Optimism
has broad support and credibility but suffers from a long withdrawal period.
Arbitrum
shines in flexibility and supports all Ethereum tools and languages, but it has a centralization risk.
Therefore, the choice between the two comes down to individual needs and preferences.
Optimism
Optimism has 2X total value bridged in ETH.
Arbitrum
Arbiturm has 2X unique bridge depositors of Optimism.
Both Arbitrum and Optimism use an "optimistic" approach to verifying transactions, meaning they assume all transactions are valid until proven fraudulent.
But their methods of dispute resolution and handling fraud proofs differ.
Optimism
uses a more direct and simplified mechanism based on a game-theoretic system
Arbitrum
implements an interactive protocol known as a "bisection game."
Arbitrum seems to have gathered more projects deploying on its network at an early stage.
Optimism
has gained strong backing from major industry players, like @synthetix_io and Uniswap, and significant Ethereum developers.
Arbitrum
Arbitrum seems to have gathered more projects deploying on its network at an early stage. It also has managed to attract well-known DeFi projects like @Uniswap, @Sushiswap, and @Bancor.
Optimism
Optimism offers constant and predictable gas fees, which could be more appealing to projects with simpler transactions.
Arbitrum
Arbitrum's unique off-chain computation can lead to reduced gas costs for complex transactions, making it more suitable for sophisticated smart contract interactions.
For end-users, one notable difference lies in the waiting period for withdrawals.
Optimism
currently requires a seven-day "challenge period" for withdrawals.
Arbitrum
has reduced this to a shorter time span of about one week, providing a slightly faster withdrawal experience for its users.
Both Arbitrum and Optimism are upgradable by their respective teams. However, recent events regarding Arbitrum's governance highlight a difference.
Optimism
has made no upgrade, though it retains the capability.
Arbitrum
An upgrade was executed without community knowledge, which sparked a scandal in the community.
Optimism
Optimism operates a single chain without such delineation between application types.
Arbitrum
Arbitrum's technology stack currently powers two live chains.
Arbitrum One, targeting DeFi applications, and the newer, Arbitrum Nova, designed to be even faster and cheaper, primarily aimed at gaming and social applications.
Optimism
Optimism follows a more conventional path with a multisig setup involving key community members.
Arbitrum
Arbitrum DAO uses a self-executing governance model, and tokens from the Arbitrum Foundation neither count towards voting nor can they be delegated.
Optimism
is directly compatible with Solidity, the dominant smart contract language in Ethereum.
Arbitrum
introduces an extended capability with Arbitrum Stylus, programming language that allows developers to write smart contracts in languages like C, C+, and Rust, broadening the developer base.
In the battle of Arbitrum vs. Optimism, there is no clear winner.
Each brings unique advantages to the table. The decision of which to use depends on your specific requirements and the trade-offs you are willing to make.
As blockchain technology evolves, we can only anticipate further improvements and innovations in rollup solutions.
This is a special newsletter. Every week, we deconstruct the best crypto trends and share those insights with you.
