I'm starting to worry that based preconfirmations lead to too much centralization pressure, creating a small oligopoly of shared sequencers and provers. Is this really better than centralized sequencers (which can also give preconfirmations)? At least the centralization here is per rollup and not global.

Here is a possible design:
 - Forced inclusion blobs can be created by anyone (they are "based")
 - They have to be included after the next sequencer blob

In this case, the sequencer can always give one blob worth of preconfirmations, after which they have to include the "based" forced tx.
Worst case for based tx is to be included after 2 sequencer blobs. (We should also add a max space between sequencer blobs so they can't delay indefinitely)

An alternative proposal: Accept the centralized sequencer, but make forced inclusions super attractive (same price as normal rollup transactions, just no preconfirmations).

Blob apreciatoooor.
Other than crypto i'm Interested in technology, business, chess, running 

https://paragraph.xyz/@oliverk120

I'm more worried about integration with builders, special relations due to order flow, and proprietary software for processing (synchronous) transactions across different rollups.

Why does it lead to centralization? Is it because of the capital req’d to back the preconfs? I thought with Eeigen, this kind of capital is relatively cheap/easily accessible

Building ENS since forever.

Interested in identity, cryptography, climbing, health.

🔒💥 Secure. Trade. Connect.

Join Cyber Vault on Telegram now and take your crypto game to the next level! 🚀📈
https://t.me/Cybercryptoguardbot #1623