SuperEx Copy Trading (Futures): Copy Pro Strategies in One Click, Earn More Efficiently
Bread always belongs to the brave pioneers. This sentence is extremely fitting in the crypto market. Whether it was the “genesis mining rewards” that everyone fought over in the mining era, or the IDO/IEO wave that once swept the entire space, all of it proves the same point: being new, being progressive, and leading the era is the core tone of the crypto ecosystem. This became even clearer after studying SuperEx users more deeply. Since SuperEx futures copy trading went live, users have spon...
Kadena Chain Shuts Down: Why Did This “JPMorgan-Bred” Public Chain Reach Its End?
#Kadena #JPMorgan Once waving the banner of an “enterprise-grade PoW smart-contract platform” and founded by former JPMorgan blockchain team members, Kadena has now announced it is ceasing operations. Its native token KDA plunged more than 60% intraday, and ecosystem development has nearly ground to a halt. From a nearly $4B “star chain” to today’s exit announcement, Kadena is not just a case study in a project’s failure — it also reflects systemic risks and a turning point in the crypto infr...
SuperEx Research Institute | Guide to Upcoming Crypto Conferences & Events (Next 30 Days)
#Crypto #Event If you’ve recently had the feeling that prices haven’t moved much, but there’s suddenly a flood of things happening — group chats, calendars, and Twitter full of “something big next week” or “this month is key” — Then your intuition is spot on. Every real bull run never starts with price — it starts with event density. Mainnet upgrades, airdrop farming, testnet sprints, protocol launches, governance votes, ecosystem summits… These events may not instantly move the candles, but ...
<100 subscribers
Support SuperEx
SuperEx Educational Series: Understanding Based Rollup
Support SuperEx
SuperEx Educational Series: Understanding Based Rollup
SuperEx Copy Trading (Futures): Copy Pro Strategies in One Click, Earn More Efficiently
Bread always belongs to the brave pioneers. This sentence is extremely fitting in the crypto market. Whether it was the “genesis mining rewards” that everyone fought over in the mining era, or the IDO/IEO wave that once swept the entire space, all of it proves the same point: being new, being progressive, and leading the era is the core tone of the crypto ecosystem. This became even clearer after studying SuperEx users more deeply. Since SuperEx futures copy trading went live, users have spon...
Kadena Chain Shuts Down: Why Did This “JPMorgan-Bred” Public Chain Reach Its End?
#Kadena #JPMorgan Once waving the banner of an “enterprise-grade PoW smart-contract platform” and founded by former JPMorgan blockchain team members, Kadena has now announced it is ceasing operations. Its native token KDA plunged more than 60% intraday, and ecosystem development has nearly ground to a halt. From a nearly $4B “star chain” to today’s exit announcement, Kadena is not just a case study in a project’s failure — it also reflects systemic risks and a turning point in the crypto infr...
SuperEx Research Institute | Guide to Upcoming Crypto Conferences & Events (Next 30 Days)
#Crypto #Event If you’ve recently had the feeling that prices haven’t moved much, but there’s suddenly a flood of things happening — group chats, calendars, and Twitter full of “something big next week” or “this month is key” — Then your intuition is spot on. Every real bull run never starts with price — it starts with event density. Mainnet upgrades, airdrop farming, testnet sprints, protocol launches, governance votes, ecosystem summits… These events may not instantly move the candles, but ...
#EducationalSeries #BasedRollup
Today, we continue our exploration of the Rollup narrative. As described in previous articles, this is a vast family, with each member carrying unique technical DNA and application visions, all playing indispensable roles on the blockchain stage.
And today, the member we are diving into — Based Rollup — is arguably the most sensitive one in this family.
Back to the core topic. In the world of Rollups, we have become accustomed to one key role: the Sequencer. It is responsible for ordering transactions, batching blocks, and submitting state to L1. It is the “heart” of most Rollups. But precisely because of this, the Sequencer has also become the most sensitive component in the system:
Who controls transaction ordering?
Can transactions be censored?
Can MEV be extracted?
What happens if the Sequencer goes down?
The emergence of Based Rollup is essentially an answer to one fundamental question: Can we get rid of the Sequencer altogether?
Today, we continue our exploration of the Rollup narrative. As described in previous articles, this is a vast family, with each member carrying unique technical DNA and application visions, all playing indispensable roles on the blockchain stage.
In traditional Rollups, the flow looks like this:Users → send transactions to the Sequencer → the Sequencer performs local ordering and execution → results are submitted to L1.
In a Based Rollup, the process changes to:User transactions enter the L1 mempool directly → L1 validators/miners determine the ordering → the Rollup only handles execution and state proofs.
In other words, the Rollup no longer decides ordering itself, but instead reuses L1’s consensus ordering. This is the meaning of “Based” — based on L1’s ordering and liveness.
The problems introduced by Sequencers boil down to two dimensions: liveness risk and concentration of power. Even if a Rollup inherits L1 security at the settlement layer, it still heavily depends on a centralized actor at the “process layer.”
The logic of Based Rollup is straightforward:If we ultimately have to trust L1 anyway, why not let L1 control ordering from the very beginning?
This naturally brings several properties:
No centralized Sequencer required
Stronger censorship resistance
MEV aligned with L1
Liveness directly inherited from L1
At its core, this turns a Rollup from a “semi-independent system” into an execution extension of L1 itself.
A Based Rollup can be broken down into three components:
Transactions enter the Ethereum (or other L1) mempool directly.Block ordering is determined by L1 blocks, with no additional ordering protocol required, and censorship resistance is shared with L1.This is the biggest point of divergence.
Although ordering happens on L1, actual execution is still performed by the Rollup client:
Compute state transitions
Generate state roots
Produce ZK or Optimistic proofs
Final results are still submitted to L1 and protected by Fraud Proofs or Validity Proofs.Assets remain custody-managed by L1 contracts.
Therefore:Based Rollup ≠ a new security model
It is a new ordering model.
One easily overlooked detail is that these layers are not equal peers — they have a strict causal relationship.
The ordering layer defines the “timeline of the world”
The execution layer computes state transitions along that timeline
The settlement layer anchors the result as final truth
This is the exact inverse of traditional Rollups:
Previously: Rollup decides ordering → submits a “fait accompli” to L1
With Based Rollup: L1 decides ordering first → Rollup can only compute within that order
This inversion may look simple, but it produces a crucial shift:The Rollup transforms from a semi-autonomous system into an execution plugin within L1’s consensus process.
Once transaction ordering is fixed by L1 blocks, the Rollup client has zero flexibility:
No reordering
No filtering
No queue-jumping
It behaves like a deterministic virtual machine that produces a single output for a fixed input.
This makes Rollup execution resemble an “offline EVM calculator” for Ethereum.
Whether ZK or Optimistic, both answer the same question:Given L1-defined ordering, did the state transition follow the rules?
The proof does not concern who ordered transactions, but whether computation was correct under that order.
Traditional trust path: User → Sequencer → Rollup → L1
Based Rollup trust path: User → L1 → Rollup → L1
The “powerful intermediary” in the middle is removed.
That is why we say: Based Rollup does not introduce a new security model — it realigns the power structure.
Security still comes from:
L1 data availability
Correctness of the proof system
Immutability of settlement contracts
Only one thing truly changes: who determines historical ordering.And in blockchains, ordering power is often the highest form of power.
You can think of Based Rollup as:
L1: the operating system kernel
Rollup: a user-space execution process
The process can perform complex computation, but scheduling authority always belongs to the kernel.This is the fundamental difference from standard Rollups.
What Problems Does Based Rollup Actually Solve?
In traditional architectures, a Sequencer can:
Refuse transactions
Delay inclusion
Selectively reorder
Users must wait or force transactions onto L1.
In a Based Rollup, as long as a transaction can be included on L1, the Rollup must accept it.Censorship difficulty and attack cost therefore become equivalent to attacking L1 itself.
This is the most “political” aspect of Based Rollups.
Traditional model: MEV accrues to the Sequencer, separated from L1 and capable of forming a new power center
Based Rollup: MEV flows directly into L1’s value stream, aligning with PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) and the broader L1 economic system
In effect, instead of creating a small kingdom at L2, MEV returns to L1’s open marketplace.
Worst case for normal Rollups: Sequencer goes offline → users must force exit → degraded experience
Based Rollup: as long as L1 continues producing blocks, the Rollup remains usable, with no special emergency mechanism required
This is an especially elegant engineering property.
Every transaction must first land on L1. Costs approach calldata-level gas usage, and efficiency is lower than centralized Sequencer batching.
Ordering follows L1 block times. Sub-second confirmations are impossible, and user experience resembles L1 more closely — unfriendly for high-frequency use cases.
Many Sequencer-driven optimizations are hard to implement:
Pre-confirmations
Private mempools
Custom ordering logic
These are largely incompatible with the Based model.
Security-first rather than UX-first systems
Decentralization over speed
Use cases strongly aligned with L1
A More Intuitive Analogy
Traditional Rollup: runs its own company, only filing accounts with the central bank
Based Rollup: directly uses the central bank’s clearing system and focuses solely on business execution
Their power structures are fundamentally different.
Based Rollup is not a “faster Rollup,” but a “more L1-like Rollup.”
It sacrifices some performance and flexibility in exchange for:
Pure censorship resistance
The simplest possible trust model
Full alignment with L1’s economic structure
Whether this path will become mainstream remains uncertain.
But it clearly highlights one thing:
The endgame of Rollups may not be to look more like L2 — but to become an integral part of L1 itself.
#EducationalSeries #BasedRollup
Today, we continue our exploration of the Rollup narrative. As described in previous articles, this is a vast family, with each member carrying unique technical DNA and application visions, all playing indispensable roles on the blockchain stage.
And today, the member we are diving into — Based Rollup — is arguably the most sensitive one in this family.
Back to the core topic. In the world of Rollups, we have become accustomed to one key role: the Sequencer. It is responsible for ordering transactions, batching blocks, and submitting state to L1. It is the “heart” of most Rollups. But precisely because of this, the Sequencer has also become the most sensitive component in the system:
Who controls transaction ordering?
Can transactions be censored?
Can MEV be extracted?
What happens if the Sequencer goes down?
The emergence of Based Rollup is essentially an answer to one fundamental question: Can we get rid of the Sequencer altogether?
Today, we continue our exploration of the Rollup narrative. As described in previous articles, this is a vast family, with each member carrying unique technical DNA and application visions, all playing indispensable roles on the blockchain stage.
In traditional Rollups, the flow looks like this:Users → send transactions to the Sequencer → the Sequencer performs local ordering and execution → results are submitted to L1.
In a Based Rollup, the process changes to:User transactions enter the L1 mempool directly → L1 validators/miners determine the ordering → the Rollup only handles execution and state proofs.
In other words, the Rollup no longer decides ordering itself, but instead reuses L1’s consensus ordering. This is the meaning of “Based” — based on L1’s ordering and liveness.
The problems introduced by Sequencers boil down to two dimensions: liveness risk and concentration of power. Even if a Rollup inherits L1 security at the settlement layer, it still heavily depends on a centralized actor at the “process layer.”
The logic of Based Rollup is straightforward:If we ultimately have to trust L1 anyway, why not let L1 control ordering from the very beginning?
This naturally brings several properties:
No centralized Sequencer required
Stronger censorship resistance
MEV aligned with L1
Liveness directly inherited from L1
At its core, this turns a Rollup from a “semi-independent system” into an execution extension of L1 itself.
A Based Rollup can be broken down into three components:
Transactions enter the Ethereum (or other L1) mempool directly.Block ordering is determined by L1 blocks, with no additional ordering protocol required, and censorship resistance is shared with L1.This is the biggest point of divergence.
Although ordering happens on L1, actual execution is still performed by the Rollup client:
Compute state transitions
Generate state roots
Produce ZK or Optimistic proofs
Final results are still submitted to L1 and protected by Fraud Proofs or Validity Proofs.Assets remain custody-managed by L1 contracts.
Therefore:Based Rollup ≠ a new security model
It is a new ordering model.
One easily overlooked detail is that these layers are not equal peers — they have a strict causal relationship.
The ordering layer defines the “timeline of the world”
The execution layer computes state transitions along that timeline
The settlement layer anchors the result as final truth
This is the exact inverse of traditional Rollups:
Previously: Rollup decides ordering → submits a “fait accompli” to L1
With Based Rollup: L1 decides ordering first → Rollup can only compute within that order
This inversion may look simple, but it produces a crucial shift:The Rollup transforms from a semi-autonomous system into an execution plugin within L1’s consensus process.
Once transaction ordering is fixed by L1 blocks, the Rollup client has zero flexibility:
No reordering
No filtering
No queue-jumping
It behaves like a deterministic virtual machine that produces a single output for a fixed input.
This makes Rollup execution resemble an “offline EVM calculator” for Ethereum.
Whether ZK or Optimistic, both answer the same question:Given L1-defined ordering, did the state transition follow the rules?
The proof does not concern who ordered transactions, but whether computation was correct under that order.
Traditional trust path: User → Sequencer → Rollup → L1
Based Rollup trust path: User → L1 → Rollup → L1
The “powerful intermediary” in the middle is removed.
That is why we say: Based Rollup does not introduce a new security model — it realigns the power structure.
Security still comes from:
L1 data availability
Correctness of the proof system
Immutability of settlement contracts
Only one thing truly changes: who determines historical ordering.And in blockchains, ordering power is often the highest form of power.
You can think of Based Rollup as:
L1: the operating system kernel
Rollup: a user-space execution process
The process can perform complex computation, but scheduling authority always belongs to the kernel.This is the fundamental difference from standard Rollups.
What Problems Does Based Rollup Actually Solve?
In traditional architectures, a Sequencer can:
Refuse transactions
Delay inclusion
Selectively reorder
Users must wait or force transactions onto L1.
In a Based Rollup, as long as a transaction can be included on L1, the Rollup must accept it.Censorship difficulty and attack cost therefore become equivalent to attacking L1 itself.
This is the most “political” aspect of Based Rollups.
Traditional model: MEV accrues to the Sequencer, separated from L1 and capable of forming a new power center
Based Rollup: MEV flows directly into L1’s value stream, aligning with PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) and the broader L1 economic system
In effect, instead of creating a small kingdom at L2, MEV returns to L1’s open marketplace.
Worst case for normal Rollups: Sequencer goes offline → users must force exit → degraded experience
Based Rollup: as long as L1 continues producing blocks, the Rollup remains usable, with no special emergency mechanism required
This is an especially elegant engineering property.
Every transaction must first land on L1. Costs approach calldata-level gas usage, and efficiency is lower than centralized Sequencer batching.
Ordering follows L1 block times. Sub-second confirmations are impossible, and user experience resembles L1 more closely — unfriendly for high-frequency use cases.
Many Sequencer-driven optimizations are hard to implement:
Pre-confirmations
Private mempools
Custom ordering logic
These are largely incompatible with the Based model.
Security-first rather than UX-first systems
Decentralization over speed
Use cases strongly aligned with L1
A More Intuitive Analogy
Traditional Rollup: runs its own company, only filing accounts with the central bank
Based Rollup: directly uses the central bank’s clearing system and focuses solely on business execution
Their power structures are fundamentally different.
Based Rollup is not a “faster Rollup,” but a “more L1-like Rollup.”
It sacrifices some performance and flexibility in exchange for:
Pure censorship resistance
The simplest possible trust model
Full alignment with L1’s economic structure
Whether this path will become mainstream remains uncertain.
But it clearly highlights one thing:
The endgame of Rollups may not be to look more like L2 — but to become an integral part of L1 itself.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
No comments yet