Sequencing Architectures
Understanding sequencing architectures and how Syndicate's approach compares
Introduction
Sequencing is at the heart of how blockchain networks order and process transactions. This document compares different sequencing approaches based on how they impact key appchain benefits: cost efficiency, performance, programmable ordering, custom fee markets, atomic compatibility, and decentralization.
Sequencing Approaches Compared
Onchain Sequencing (Syndicate)
Syndicate's onchain sequencing moves transaction ordering logic from centralized services into transparent smart contracts deployed on an EVM-compatible rollup. This approach gives applications full control over their transaction ordering, economics, and governance while enabling unique capabilities like programmable transaction ordering, custom fee markets, and atomic composability between chains.
| Key Advantages | Key Disadvantages |
|---|---|
|
|
Centralized Sequencer
Centralized Sequencer provides centralized rollup hosting through cloud providers, offering the simplest deployment model for rollups but with significant centralization.
| Key Advantages | Key Disadvantages |
|---|---|
|
|
How Syndicate's onchain sequencing relates: Onchain sequencing pairs well with centralised rollup hosting by replacing the centralized sequencer component. This reduces the risk of liveness failures and data loss by storing critical information onchain instead of in centralized cloud services. Centralised hosting can still provide value through RPCs, developer tooling, bridge UIs, etc.
Shared Sequencing
Shared sequencing combines individual sequencers from multiple rollups to jointly order transactions between them, enabling cross-chain composability and potentially creating revenue through mechanisms like shared block auctions.
| Key Advantages | Key Disadvantages |
|---|---|
|
|
How Syndicate's onchain sequencing relates: Onchain sequencing enables atomic composability by design, allowing networks to build "bottom-up" shared sequencing by optionally synchronizing their rulesets. This approach lets chains gradually adopt interoperability on their own terms, rather than requiring top-down mandates where everyone joins the same system.
Based Sequencing
Based sequencing allows transaction ordering to inherit Layer 1 security and liveness by using L1 validators to order and publish transactions, theoretically providing stronger decentralization.
| Key Advantages | Key Disadvantages |
|---|---|
|
|
How Syndicate's onchain sequencing relates: Syndicate's approach applies based sequencing principles at the L2 level (hence "metabased sequencing"), aligning with Vitalik's original vision of smart contracts that anyone can write to. This provides many of the benefits of based sequencing while avoiding the high L1 gas costs.
Syndicate can also potentially leverage based sequencing for a sequencing chain L2, which could improve liveness at the cost of higher fees—a tradeoff that might be worthwhile for certain appchains.
DA Layers
Data Availability (DA) layers like Celestia and EigenDA provide specialized solutions for storing blockchain data cheaply and efficiently, but with limited programmability and temporary storage.
| Key Advantages | Key Disadvantages |
|---|---|
|
|
How Syndicate's onchain sequencing relates: Syndicate's sequencing chain provides data availability while adding programmability and permanent storage. DA layers still have their place—Syndicate uses EigenDA in its sequencing chain—but onchain sequencing offers additional capabilities that pure DA layers cannot provide.
Vertical L1s/L2s
Alternative L1/L2 implementations like MegaETH and Monad focus on vertical scaling through techniques like parallelization or specialized hardware to improve performance.
| Key Advantages | Key Disadvantages |
|---|---|
|
|
How Syndicate's onchain sequencing relates: Syndicate bets on horizontal scaling through multiple application-specific chains rather than vertical scaling through a few high-performance chains. This approach gives applications control over their economics and governance, which is particularly appealing to developers who want to capture value within their own ecosystems rather than surrendering it to the underlying chain.
Avalanche Subnets and Cosmos Chains
These approaches allow developers to create new chains on top of their respective frameworks, with Avalanche focusing on EVM-compatible subnets and Cosmos enabling a wider range of chain architectures.
| Key Advantages | Key Disadvantages |
|---|---|
|
|
How Syndicate's onchain sequencing relates: Onchain sequencing enables launching application-specific chains without the need to bootstrap consensus, significantly reducing the barrier to entry for new, smaller, or pre-token networks. While Cosmos chains offer maximum sovereignty, they require substantially more work to launch and maintain.
Key Tradeoffs
Each sequencing approach offers distinct tradeoffs:
- Centralized Sequencer: Simple but centralized
- Shared Sequencing: Coordinated but requires top-down adoption
- Onchain Sequencing: Programmable and sovereign but more complex
- Based Sequencing: Secure but expensive
- DA Layers: Cost-effective but temporary
- Vertical L1s/L2s: High performance but limited control
- Avalanche Subnets and Cosmos Chains: Maximum sovereignty but high operational complexity
Syndicate's onchain sequencing combines the programmability of smart contracts with L2 efficiency, enabling applications to maintain economic sovereignty while achieving scalability through horizontal growth.