Rollup幣價是高估還是低估了？ Rollups未來展望

Rollup幣價是高估還是低估了？ Rollups未來展望！我們相信 Rollups 是有無法取代的價值的。更合理的成本結構也能提高 Rollups 在面對市場變化時的韌性。健康的現金流帶來的持續投入是競爭力的來源，在利潤率上有優勢的協議也自然會有更高的估值和長期的競爭力。

今天本站小編跟大家分享的是Rollups 的經濟結構，並展望未來的可能性。需要的朋友一起看看吧！

背景

目前以太坊 Rollup L2 生態初見雛形，整體單日 TVL 超過了$37b，是 Solana 的3倍以上，超過以太坊的⅕。從用戶的角度來看，主流L2的近期日平均用戶數達到158k，超過 Solana 100k左右的數據。

然而，Rollups 的幣價短期表現不如預期。以市值來看，主流 Rollups 中，Arbitrum 市值$7.8b，Optimism 市值$7.3b，Starknet 市值$6.9b，剛完成空投的zkSync FDV $3.5b，而同期 Solana 的FDV 達$74b。近期 zkSync 近期上線，較差的市場表現也沒有滿足市場對 Rollups 的預期。

從收入的角度來看，以太坊在2023年的收入達到了$2b，而同年表現較好的Arbitrum 和Op Mainnet 的年收入分別達到了$63m 和$37m，與以太坊有較大差距。今年新進市場表現較好的 Base 和 zkSync，分別在2024年上半年獲得了 $50m 和 $23m 的收入，而同期以太坊創造了 $1.39b 的收入，差距仍未縮小。 Rollups 目前還未能做到與以太坊匹敵的收入規模。

部分 Rollups 目前的低活躍度固然是一個原因，這是大部分公鏈都面對的問題。我們更想知道的是，Rollups 在其作為 Mass adoption infra 的使命上完成度到底如何，其價值是否因為目前的低活躍度被低估？

一切還是要回到最早的命題，Rollups 的誕生起源於以太坊的日漸擁擠，費用達到了用戶無法接受的程度。因此 Rollups 先天帶有「降低交易成本」的目的問世。 Rollups 的優點，除了大家所熟知的以太坊 L1 等級的安全性外，還包括其顛覆性的成本結構，所謂「用戶越多，Rollups越便宜」。

如果這點能很好落地，我們相信 Rollups 是有無法取代的價值的。更合理的成本結構也能提高 Rollups 在面對市場變化時的韌性。健康的現金流帶來的持續投入是競爭力的來源，在利潤率上有優勢的協議也自然會有更高的估值和長期的競爭力。

本文簡單分析了目前 Rollups 的經濟結構，並展望未來的可能性。

1. Rollups的商業模式

1.1 概述

Rollups 協議以Sequencer 為收支點，對用戶在Rollups 上的交易收取費用以覆蓋L1 和L2 上產生的利潤成本。

收入側，Rollups 向用戶收取的費用包括：

• 基礎費用（包括擁堵費用）
• 優先費用
• L1 相關的成本費用

L1 相關的成本費用

的協議。

MEV 費用

• 成本側，包括目前佔比較小的L2 執行成本和占主要部分的L1 成本，包括：
• DA 成本

驗證成本

.商業模式的差異在於其成本結構，如佔最大比例的DA 成本被視為隨資料量變化的可變成本，驗證成本和通訊成本更多被視為維持Rollups 運作的固定成本。

從商業模式的角度，我們希望釐清Rollups 的邊際成本，即一個額外交易的新增成本多大程度能小於每個交易的平均成本，來驗證「用戶越多，Rollup越便宜」成立的具體程度。

這背後原因是 Rollups 批量處理資料、資料壓縮、驗證聚合，導致相較其他公鏈效率高且邊際成本較低。理論上 Rollups 的固定成本能被很好的攤銷到每一筆交易中去，因此在交易量足夠大的情況下甚至可以忽略不計，但這一點也需要我們的驗證。

1.2 Rollups收入

1.2.1交易費收入

Rollups 主要收入來自於交易手續費即gas，手續費的目的在於覆蓋Rollups 的成本，並獲取一部分利潤以對沖長期L1 ga s變化的風險，以及獲取部分利潤。部分L2會收取交易優先費用，讓使用者優先執行緊急的交易。 🎜

Aribtrum和zkSync採取FCFS的機制，即交易處理的順序為先來先處理，並不支援「插隊」請求。 OP stack在此類問題上採取了彈性處理，允許支付優先費用進行交易的「插隊」。

Source: IOSG Ventures

對於使用者來說 Rollups L2 的費用在鏈上較不活躍時，會由下限基礎費用決定。在鏈上較為繁忙時，會由各個 Rollups 對於擁堵程度的判斷收取擁堵費用（往往呈指數級上升）。

由於 Rollups 的L2開銷極低（僅有鏈下工程和維運成本），而收取的執行成本自主性較高，導致幾乎所有用戶用於支付L2費用的收入都將成為協議的利潤。由於中心化營運Sequencer，Rollups對於基礎費用下限、擁堵費用、優先費用擁有控制權，因此L2執行費用將是協議的「參數」遊戲，在生態較為繁榮，以及價格不會引來用戶的反感的前提下，執行費用的多寡可以任由設計。

Source: David_c @Dune Analytic

1.2.2 MEV收入

MEV交易分為惡意MEV和非惡意MEV，其中惡意MEV為類似於三明治攻擊的front-running交易，更多的在於搶奪惡意MEV用戶的交易價值，例如，三明治攻擊中，攻擊者會在用戶的交易之前插入自己的交易，導致用戶以更高的價格買入或更低的價格賣出，即所謂的「被夾」。

而非惡意MEV為套利和清算等back-running交易，套利行為可以在不同交易所之間平衡價格，提高市場的有效性；清算行為則可以移除不良槓桿，降低系統風險，被視作是有益的MEV行為。

Source: IOSG Ventures

與以太坊不同的是，Rollups 不提供一個公開的mempool，只有排序器可以在交易最終確定之前看到交易，因此只有排序器有能力發起L2 鏈上的MEV，由於現絕大部分L2都是中心化排序器，暫時不太會存在惡意MEV的情況，因此目前的MEV 收入將需考慮套利和清算類型。

根據Christof Ferreira Torres等人的研究，其回放了Rollups 上的交易，得出的結論是Arbitrum, Optimism, Zksync 是存在鏈上非惡意MEV行為的，三個鏈目前總計產生了$580m的MEV價值，足以作為一個值得關注的收入來源。

Source: Rolling in the Shadows: Analyzing the Extraction of MEV Across Layer-2 Rollup

1.2.3 L1相關的成本費用

這部分是Rollups為了覆蓋L1 相關成本，而向用戶收取的相關成本具體的成本構成後文會講到。不同 Rollups 收取的方式不一樣。除了對 L1 gas 進行預測去覆蓋L1數據的費用外，Rollups 還會產生額外費用，作為應對未來 gas 波動風險的預備資金，本質上是 Rollups 的一筆收入。如 Arbitrum 會加上一筆「Dynamic」費用，OP stack 會將費用乘以「Dynamic Overhead」係數。這部分費用在 EIP4844 升級前，估算下來為 DA 費用的1/10左右。

1.2.4 分潤

Base 由於採用了OP stack 會相對特殊一點有一個分潤，Base 承諾貢獻總收入2.5%/L2交易中扣除向L1 提交數據的成本後的利潤的15%二者中取其高，給到OP stack。作為回報，Base 將參與 OP Stack 和 Superchain 的鏈上治理，並獲得最多 2.75% 的 OP 代幣供應。以最近的數據來看，Base 給 Superchain 的營收貢獻在5 ETH/天。

我們能發現 Base 為 Optimism 提供了不小的收入比例，除了現金流之外，健康的網路效應也讓OP Stack 生態在使用者和市場的眼中更具吸引力。儘管 Arbitrum 的某些表現如 TVL 或穩定幣市值高於 Base + Optimism，但目前已無法超過後者的交易量和收入。從兩者的 P/S ratio 也能看出這一點——考慮Base收入後，$OP 的 PS ratios 高於 $ARB 16%，體現了生態帶給 $OP 的額外價值。

Source: OP Lab

1.3 Rollups成本

1.3.1以太坊L1數據成本

每一條鏈的具體成本結構不同，但大類基本上可分為通訊成本，DA成本，ZK Rollups特有的驗證成本

通訊成本：主要包括 L1 和 L2 之間的狀態更新、跨鏈互動等。

DA成本：包含向DA層發布壓縮後的交易資料、狀態根、ZK證明等。

在EIP4844前，L1成本主要成本來源於DA成本（對於Arbitrum 和Base 來說超過95%，對於zkSync 超過75%，對於Starknet 超過80%）

在EIP4844後，DA 成本大幅下降，而由於不同L2 的機制，DA 成本的降低程度也不一樣，大概有50%-99%的成本下降。

1.3.2驗證成本

主要為 ZK Rollup 所用，用於透過 ZK 手段驗證 Rollups 交易的可靠性。

1.3.3其他成本

主要包括鏈下工程以及運維成本等。由於目前的Rollups 運作方式，節點的運作成本接近雲端伺服器成本，相對較小（接近企業AWS 伺服器成本）

1.4 L2的利潤和其他L1的資料比較

至此，我們大概了解了Rollup L2的整體收入-支出結構，可以和Alt L1 做一個對比，這裡Rollups 選擇了Arbitrum，Base，zkSync，Stakrnet 週平均數據作為數據來源。

Source: Dune Analytic, Growthepie

可以看出，Rollups 整體的利潤率和Solana較為接近，相較BSC有明顯優勢，體現出Rollups 的商業模式在盈利能力和成本管理方面的優秀表現。

2. Rollup橫向對比

2.1 概述

Rollups 發展的不同階段，基本面表現差異顯著。如當交易有發幣預期時，Rollups 會迎來顯著的交易量提升，隨之而來的手續費收入和費用支出也會顯著提升。

Source: IOSG Ventures

絕大部分 Rollups 仍處於早期，絕對的盈利能力對其來說沒有那麼重要，更多的是保證收支平衡，保證長期發展。這也是 Starknet 一直宣告的不向用戶收取額外費用並以此盈利所希望達到的理念。

但從三月中起，Starknet就持續負收益的狀態運作持續至今，其鏈上活躍度表現確實不佳，但負收益根本原因到底是什麼，會長期持續嗎？

讓我們帶著這個問題繼續深入。實際上，Rollups 的收入結構相對趨同，而由於每條鏈的Rollup機制帶來的邊際成本結構有區別，數據壓縮方式等計算機制不一樣也帶來了成本上的差異。

Source: IOSG Ventures

我們希望在 Rollups 中進行成本的對比，以幫助我們橫向對比不同的 Rollups 有著什麼樣的特性。

2.2 不同類型L2的成本結構ZK Rollup

ZK Rollups 主要在驗證成本有差異，驗證成本往往可以被視為其固定成本，難以透過分攤手續費收取，也是造成 Rollups 出現入不敷出狀況的根因。

Source: David Barreto@Starknet, Quarkslab, Eli Barabieri, IOSGVentures

本文主要討論兩個比較成熟有交易量的ZK Rollups。

Starknet

Starknet採用共享自家的驗證服務SHARP，交易排序、確認、出塊後，組成批次透過SHARP建構交易證明，發送至L1合約驗證，透過後將proof送到Core合約。

Starknet中的驗證和DA的固定成本分別來自區塊和批次。

Source: Starknet community - Starknet Costs and Fees

Starknet中的變動成本隨交易數量增加而增加，主要是 DA成本，這部分理論上並不會產生額外的支出。實際上甚至相反——Starknet 的交易費用是按每次寫入收費的，但其 DA 成本僅取決於更新的記憶體單元數量，而不是每個單元的更新次數。因此，Starknet 在先前收取了過高的 DA 費用。

交易費用的收取和營運成本的支付存在時間差，可能會導致部分虧損或獲利的發生。

So we see that as long as transactions are still being generated, Starknet needs to continue to produce blocks and pay the fixed costs of blocks and batches. At the same time, the greater the number of transactions, the more variable costs need to be paid. Fixed costs will not significantly increase marginal costs

Source: Eli Barabieri - Starknet User Operation Compression

Starknet has computational resource limitations (Cairo Steps) for each block, and its gas fee calculation method is based on calculation The size of resources and data volume cover fixed costs and variable costs respectively. Since the cost of producing a block/batch is difficult to allocate to each transaction, but since each block is closed after reaching a certain computing resource (the fixed cost is triggered), a part of the fixed cost can be calculated and charged through the dimension of the computing resource. cost.

But at the same time, due to the limitation of block generation time, if the transaction volume is insufficient (the amount of calculation in a single block is insufficient), the computing resources cannot well measure the price that needs to be amortized, so the fixed costs still cannot be fully covered. At the same time, "computing resource limitations" will be affected by the upgrade of Starknet network parameters. This is reflected in the large losses in short-term operations after EIP4844. The losses did not ease until the computing resource parameters in the fees charged were adjusted.

Source: Growthepie

Starknet’s charging model cannot effectively cover the fixed costs in every transaction, so when the Starknet mainnet is updated and the transaction volume is extremely low, negative income will occur.

zkSync (zkSync Era)

zkSync era shifted from block verification to batch verification and storage status difference after the Boojum upgrade, effectively reducing verification and DA costs. The process is basically similar to Starknet. The Sequencer submits the batch to the Executor contract (status difference and DA commitment), the proof node submits the verification (ZK proof and DA commitment), and the batch is executed after the verification is passed (executed every 45 batches); the difference is Starknet has verification costs for blocks and batches while zkSync only has verification costs for batches.

Cost comparison of zkSync and Starknet

Starknet batch size is much larger than zkSync Era, which has a transaction limit of 750 or 1,000 per batch, while Starknet has no transaction limit.

Source: IOSG Ventures

It seems that Starknet has stronger scaling capabilities. Since each block has computing resource limitations, the ability to process more transactions and batches in a single block makes it more suitable for high-frequency transactions. It performs better in scenarios where a large number of simple operations need to be processed, but the problem of excessive fixed costs will arise when the transaction volume is small. zkSync's compression efficiency and flexible block resources make it more advantageous when it is necessary to flexibly respond to L1 gas price fluctuations and lack of activity on its own chain, but it will be limited in terms of block production speed.

For users, Starknet’s charging model will be more user-friendly, less relevant to L1, and have stronger scale effects. The cost of zksync is more efficient but will fluctuate more with L1.

For the protocol, in the low activity stage, Starknet's high fixed costs will bring more losses, and zkSync will be more suitable for this scenario. In the stage of high activity, Starknet is more suitable for conducting a large number of high-frequency transactions and controlling costs. The current mechanism of zkSync may be slightly inferior in high transaction volume.

2.3Optimistic rollup

The cost structure of Optimistic Rollup is relatively simple. In the absence of verification costs, users only need to pay the calculation cost of L2 and the DA cost of publishing to L1 data. The release of state roots is related to block production. , more towards fixed costs, while compressed transactions are uploaded into variable costs that are easy to estimate and easy to amortize.

Compared with Zk Rollup, its fixed cost is lower and it is more suitable for scenarios with moderate transaction volume. However, since each transaction needs to include a signature, the convertible cost of DA will be higher, and the marginal cost will be higher in the large-scale adoption stage. The advantage is relatively smaller.

Source: IOSG Ventures

Based on the current scale of adoption, the fixed cost of ZK Rollups may lead to a higher fee floor for unsubsidized transactions, which brings costs to users compared to OP Rollups, but the advantages of ZK are clearly Scaling:

High transaction volume and proof aggregation will amortize the verification cost, and ultimately the marginal cost savings of L1 will exceed Optimism Rollups; running Validiums/Volitions and DA that only require status differences, faster withdrawal speeds, etc. will be more suitable for scale type of economic needs and RaaS ecosystem.

2.3 Data comparison

Income

From the gas fees charged by Rollups to users, we can see that Base’s income is higher, Starknet’s income is lower, Arbitrum and zkSync are equal, and the difference in transaction volume leads to horizontal and vertical gaps, so we calculate the income per transaction. You will find that before the EIP4844 upgrade, Arbitrum’s revenue per transaction was higher, and after the upgrade, Base’s revenue per transaction was higher.

Source: IOSG Ventures

Cost

From the perspective of the cost of each transaction, Base before EIP4844, due to the high DA cost, the transaction cost was too high, and it was actually in a situation where the marginal cost was high. The cost advantage due to scale effect has not been reflected. After EIP4844, with the significant reduction in DA costs, Base's transaction cost per order plummeted, and it is currently the lowest transaction cost among all Rollups. Compared with OP and ZK, we can see that OP Rollups is a bigger beneficiary of upgrades. The actual cost of StarkNet's L1 DA can be reduced by about 4 to 10 times, which is slightly less than an order of magnitude smaller than OP Rollups. This is also consistent with theoretical reasoning: in the EIP-4844 upgrade, the benefits of ZK Rollups are not as large as OP Rollups. The cost performance of ZK Rollup after the upgrade also reflects the impact of fixed costs on it.

Source:IOSG Ventures

Profit

From the data, Base has the highest gross profit due to scale effect, far exceeding Arbitrum, which is also Optimistic. Starknet, which is also a ZK Rollup, has a negative transaction gross profit due to its low transaction volume and cannot cover fixed costs. zkSync is positive but is also limited by fixed costs, which is lower than OP Rollup. The upgrade of EIP4844 does not bring direct help to profit margins - the main beneficiaries will be users, whose costs are significantly reduced.

Source:IOSG Ventures

3. Summary

3.1 Cost side

At present, it seems that most Rollups are still in the first half of their Margin curve. As the transaction volume increases, the marginal cost gradually decreases. At the same time, average fixed costs will also be significantly reduced. However, after the Ethereum L1 or L2 ecological transaction volume rises in the future, the increase in average transaction costs due to the capacity of the network will lead to a gradual upward trend in marginal costs (as can be seen from the performance of Base3-May). This is something that cannot be ignored in the long-term development of Rollup. question. When focusing on cost changes caused by short-term adoption, we also need to pay attention to Rollups' efforts on the long-term cost curve.

Source: Wikipedia - Cost curve

In the short term, for Rollups, reducing marginal costs more effectively is the best way to establish barriers, and adjusting revenue and cost models according to market conditions is better. solution.

3.2 Income side

In order to maintain long-term competitiveness, the protocol charges no additional fees to users as much as possible, and even rebates fees to keep user expenditures as low and stable as possible, as we see the current situation of Starknet. Priority fees will certainly bring more revenue, but the prerequisite is that the chain must be sufficiently active.

After EIP4844, the revenue of some Rollups has dropped significantly (such as Arbitrum). This is because part of the source of profit difference-the hidden income of DA data fees has been almost eliminated. The revenue model of Rollups will become relatively simple, mainly derived from L2 fees. As transaction volume increases, the priority fees and congestion fees generated will become important revenue components. At the same time, in terms of active income, MEV extraction through Sequencer will also be one of the important sources of income for Rollups in the future.

In general, Rollups’ business model does have the advantage of economies of scale, especially ZK Rollups. The current market conditions are not suitable for Rollups to leverage their advantages, and they need to wait until a Base moment similar to March to May this year. The diversity of business models and the adaptability of different Rollups to different market conditions also allow us to see the far-reaching considerations of the Ethereum L2 Rollups ecosystem.

以上是Rollup幣價是高估還是低估了？ Rollups未來展望的詳細內容。更多資訊請關注PHP中文網其他相關文章！