Lets talk about BIG ROLLUP

One thing I haven't heard anyone mention with L1 blob fee debate is the fee share given to BIG ROLLUP, ie OP superchain, zksync elastic chain, arb orbit etc

Superchain is the largest, and has made 7.4k eth last year => ~$24.4M, and ~$49.9M over its lifetime

Whats interesting is BIG ROLLUP gets top-line fees (ie straight from gas costs on the L2), vs ETH L1 getting bottom-line fees from blob price

There's a dilemma for L1: increase blob fees and risk losing rollups (especially smaller ones) to other DA solutions. Reduce blob fees further and lose value accrual to the token

If rollups need blob scaling and reduced fees, bribing ETH holders with some of this revenue would do well for their cause

Direct a portion of BIG ROLLUP revs to either a burn, or better yet, borrow USD and do massive TWAPs ala saylor

The fact is that L2 fees *are* extracting more than they are giving back currently, but they have the power to turn this around

wyt

what if the blob market was weighted by L1 stake?

𝖒𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖙𝖚𝖒 𝖆𝖉 𝖆𝖘𝖙𝖗𝖆

there seems to be several tradeoffs, would be centralizing & dilute stakers, would reinforce the preexisting landscape.

I think this is a forcing function to consider a quasi-indiscriminate proof-of-authority, proof-of-ragequit, proof-of-reserve, etc.

personally, I would love to see things like @baselinemarkets & @wildcat counterbalance the main ETH-coveting dynamic. the provenance with the intent could free up stable operational budget, while making ETH's tokenomics hypersound.

That would be interesting. Would be huge incentive to stake bridge assets for all L2s.

But what does staking provide for the L1?