Honestly, I still can’t tell if @Optimism and @0xPolygon are truly collaborating or just throwing the nicest shade ever...

Huge respect to both teams:

1. Props to the OP team for building and open-sourcing a modular rollup stack framework

2. Props to the Polygon team for advancing open-source zk proving infrastructure

That said, if the endgame is an interop layer, I do believe the zk-based approach has a better shot at winning on scalability. The Superchain model comes with too many trade-offs beyond the 15% tax (i.e., limited chain customization, requirement to run a follower node for each other). And frankly, both teams need to ship faster.

Some of my personal thoughts on interop:

1. Interop is overrated. Most issues can be addressed via intent-based bridges. Interop matters more to long-tail or app-specific rollups to access liquidity and users from larger, general-purpose rollups that have their own economic zones (e.g., Base).

2. Chains will increasingly need deep customization, it will make seamless interop hard. Even if you only look at sequencing, @unichain uses TEE-based sequencing, @Celo has its own consensus, some chains want to be based, others want real-time pre-confirmation. These divergences will always exist. You can try to mask it all behind “chain abstraction,” but that comes with heavy trade-offs.

3. I see the Superchain more as a social and relational network than a technical moat. Without a new kind of moat, it’ll be hard to coordinate and govern such a diverse chain ecosystem effectively in the very long term.