C1 Option · Ethereum L2
Using an Ethereum L2 (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) as the settlement substrate.
Nearly identical to L1 settlement, but with different cost/security/latency trade-offs. Same smart contracts, different execution environment.
Key Differences from L1
⚡
Faster Blocks
~2s vs. ~12s. Quicker soft confirmations for UX.
💰
Lower Gas Costs
10-100x cheaper. Workflows can post per-step without extreme batching.
🔗
L1 Finality Lag
Optimistic rollups: 7-day challenge window. ZK rollups: proof generation delay.
🛡️
Trust Assumptions
Sequencer liveness, fraud proof game, or ZK prover honesty.
Tokenomics
What ETH Pays For (L2 Settlement Gas)
●
Posting attestations to L2 contracts
●
10-100x cheaper than L1 gas
●
Eventual L1 finality (inherited)
●
L2 sequencer/prover fees
What W3 Token Pays For (Protocol Layer)
●
Workflow execution fees
●
Validator staking (orchestration)
●
Governance votes
●
Slashing penalties
Token Demand
Same as L1: validators + users must hold W3. Can deploy W3 as ERC-20 on L2 or bridge from L1.
Cost Advantage
L2 gas is 10-100x cheaper, so protocol can subsidize settlement costs more easily.
Dual Token (Same Split, Lower Costs)
Trade-offs
What You Get
- Low Gas: 10-100x cheaper than Ethereum L1.
- Fast Soft Confirmations: ~2s blocks for responsive UX.
- Same Contracts: Identical Solidity code as L1 deployment.
- L1 Security (eventual): Inherits Ethereum finality after proving delay.
What It Costs
- Finality Delay: 7 days (optimistic) or proof-gen time (ZK).
- Sequencer Risk: Single-point-of-failure (Base, Arbitrum) or decentralized set (future).
- Bridge Complexity: Users must bridge assets; additional trust surface.
- Weaker Liveness: L2 can halt if sequencer fails or L1 congests.