Obviously Arbitrum was the leading contender vs. Optimism. Candidly both are in relatively nascent stages, and its a credit to the Optimism tech stack that they’ve got additional core contributors like Coinbase themselves given their selection of the Optimism stack for Base.
The primary differentiator here between Arbitrum and Optimism is twofold:
- Theres relatively little LINK on Optimism. (~430k on Optimism vs. 2.8m on Arbitrum.) If we can 10x the LINK on Optimism, that represents an enormous win for stake.link as a protocol.
- The relatively mature and robust grant program offered by Optimism for new protocols to deploy there. I’m aware that Arbitrum has recently started offering similar incentives.
Yes there certainly has. Their protocol (in particular the v2 contracts) have undergone security audits, and have an ImmuneFi bug bounty. But I’m not - and neither should you be - under a false impression that these are sufficient to guarantee security.
Ultimately the Bancor collaboration was only ever going to be about enabling them to put their dormant LINK to use in Chainlink staking.
The long story short is that Velodrome is the leading DEX on Optimism, and has enjoyed substantial support from the Optimism team.
A few points of clarification:
- We are not, and will not be locked in to any one L2. The technical blockers to deploying (primarily CCIP based) once resolved will essentially allow us to deploy to any other network fairly rapidly.
- I’d disagree that Arbitrum’s tech stack is “far more mature”. Optimism’s node software is much easier to launch, sync, and run. Both lack permissionless validation/fraud proofs and a decentralized sequencer. In my opinion anything prior to that is a question of how centralized it is. We’re working in a space of cutting-edge tech, and perfect must not be allowed to be the enemy of good. (Although I will always prefer secure over fast)
- Both networks have active DeFi economies with multiple teams leveraging Chainlink services.