Question 1

Optimistic Rollup Architecture

Accepted Answer

Our optimistic rollup development approach leverages the unique characteristics of Arbitrum and Optimism's technology stacks. We implement fraud-proof systems with optimized challenge periods, efficient batch processing for transaction throughput, and specialized data compression techniques to minimize Ethereum calldata costs. Our development methodology includes Layer 2-specific security practices addressing unique attack vectors, gas optimization techniques tailored to each rollup's fee model, and direct sequencer interactions when applicable. For Arbitrum specifically, we leverage Nitro's advanced WASM-based architecture and ArbOS capabilities, while for Optimism, we implement Bedrock-compatible patterns and leverage the fault proof system. Our architectures maintain maximum EVM equivalence while taking advantage of L2-specific optimizations.

Question 2

ZK Rollup Implementation

Accepted Answer

Our ZK rollup development encompasses specialized techniques for StarkNet, zkSync, and Polygon zkEVM environments. We implement zero-knowledge proof systems with Cairo programming for StarkNet applications, efficient circuit design for optimized proof generation, and validity proof verification mechanisms. Our ZK implementations include specialized data availability solutions, batch processing optimizations for proof generation, and L2-specific security considerations. For StarkNet applications, we leverage Cairo's unique programming paradigm and account abstraction capabilities, while for zkSync, we implement specialized zkPorter data availability when appropriate. Our approach to Polygon zkEVM maximizes compatibility with existing Ethereum codebases while leveraging the security benefits of validity proofs.

Question 3

L2 Bridging & Interoperability

Accepted Answer

Our L2 bridging architecture implements secure cross-layer communication with optimized token bridges, message passing systems, and multi-chain liquidity solutions. We develop custom bridge implementations with enhanced security features such as fraud detection, rate limiting, and multi-signature verification. Our bridges include fast withdrawal mechanisms leveraging liquidity networks, optimistic verification with appropriate challenge periods, and emergency shutdown capabilities. For maximum interoperability, we implement cross-L2 messaging protocols, unified asset representation across multiple L2s, and chain-agnostic frontend interfaces. Our bridge monitoring systems provide real-time tracking of cross-layer transactions with appropriate alerting for anomalies or delays in the bridging process.

Question 4

Frontend Integration & Wallet Support

Accepted Answer

Our frontend development for L2 applications focuses on seamless wallet integration with specialized providers for each target L2. We implement comprehensive support for leading wallets including MetaMask, Coinbase Wallet, Rainbow, and mobile wallets with L2 awareness. Our UX designs implement network switching patterns, gas estimation for L2 environments, and transaction status tracking specific to rollup confirmation models. For enhanced user experience, we develop L2-aware transaction interfaces with appropriate status indicators for pending, confirmed, and finalized states across different rollup architectures. Our implementations include network detection and auto-switching capabilities, unified transaction histories across multiple L2s, and specialized error handling for network-specific issues.

Question 5

Multi-L2 Strategy & Chain Selection

Accepted Answer

Our multi-L2 development approach begins with strategic chain selection based on application requirements, considering factors like transaction costs, finality time, security models, ecosystem maturity, and target user base. We implement chain-appropriate architecture patterns with unified backend interfaces for cross-L2 operations, chain-specific optimizations, and appropriate consensus adaptation. For applications spanning multiple L2s, we develop liquidity aggregation systems, cross-L2 state management, and unified frontend interfaces with chain-switching capabilities. Our strategic approach includes implementation of chain abstraction layers that isolate business logic from chain-specific implementations, allowing flexible deployment across different L2 solutions as the ecosystem evolves.

Question 6

What is an Ethereum Layer 2 solution?

Accepted Answer

Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) solutions are scaling technologies built on top of the Ethereum mainnet (Layer 1) that process transactions off the main chain while inheriting Ethereum's security. These solutions address Ethereum's scalability limitations by bundling multiple transactions together before submitting them to the mainnet, significantly reducing gas fees and increasing throughput. The main categories include optimistic rollups (like Arbitrum and Optimism) which assume transactions are valid unless challenged, ZK rollups (like StarkNet and zkSync) which use validity proofs to verify transaction batches, and sidechains/validiums with alternative security models. All L2s maintain a connection to Ethereum for security and interoperability while enabling faster, cheaper transactions that would be prohibitively expensive on the mainnet.

Question 7

How do I choose between different L2 solutions?

Accepted Answer

Selecting the optimal L2 solution depends on several key factors: Transaction costs vary across platforms, with ZK rollups typically offering lower costs for simple transfers while optimistic rollups may be more efficient for complex contract interactions. Security models differ, with rollups inheriting strong Ethereum security while some sidechains use independent validation. Settlement time varies from near-instant user experience to hours or days for final settlement on Ethereum. Ecosystem maturity affects available integrations, developer tools, and user adoption. EVM compatibility determines whether existing Ethereum code can be deployed as-is or requires modification. Additional considerations include the existence of native tokens, governance structures, available developer tools, and targeted use cases. Our approach involves analyzing your specific requirements across these dimensions to recommend the optimal L2 solution or multi-L2 strategy for your application.

Question 8

What are the security considerations for L2 development?

Accepted Answer

L2 security requires attention to several unique aspects beyond standard Ethereum considerations: Rollup-specific attack vectors like malicious sequencers, invalid state transitions, or bridge vulnerabilities must be addressed. Different trust assumptions exist for optimistic rollups (fraud proofs), ZK rollups (validity proofs), and sidechains (independent validators). Bridge security is critical as cross-layer transfers represent significant attack surfaces. Each L2 has unique upgrade mechanisms and governance that may affect contract security. Withdrawal periods vary, with optimistic rollups requiring challenge periods before finalizing withdrawals. Additionally, L2-specific issues like sequencer centralization, data availability challenges, and potential consensus failures must be considered. Our security approach combines L2-agnostic best practices with specialized testing for each target environment, ensuring applications remain secure across the entire L2 technology stack.

Question 9

How do you handle cross-L2 and L1-L2 interactions?

Accepted Answer

Our approach to cross-layer interactions combines several specialized techniques: For asset transfers, we implement secure bridging patterns with appropriate verification and challenge periods, often leveraging established bridges with optional fast liquidity paths for improved UX. For cross-layer messaging, we develop asynchronous messaging patterns using each L2's native messaging protocols with robust error handling and retry mechanisms. Our user experience design abstracts complex bridging operations with clear status indicators reflecting the different security assumptions and finality times across layers. For applications requiring multi-L2 presence, we implement chain-agnostic core logic with layer-specific adapters, unified identity systems across layers, and liquidity-efficient bridging strategies. Our monitoring systems track cross-layer operations with appropriate alerting for delays or anomalies, ensuring reliable operations across the entire cross-layer transaction lifecycle.

Question 10

What is the development effort to migrate from Ethereum to L2?

Accepted Answer

Migration effort from Ethereum mainnet to L2s varies based on several factors: For EVM-equivalent L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon, code migration is minimal, often requiring only gas optimization and bridge integration. ZK rollups with custom VMs like StarkNet require more significant rewrites using languages like Cairo. Contract deployment costs are substantially lower on L2s, enabling more complex designs previously prohibited by mainnet gas costs. Frontend updates are needed to support network switching, L2-specific RPC providers, and bridge interfaces. Specific L2 features like Arbitrum's ArbOS calls or Optimism's L1 gas price derivatives may require adaptation. For maximum future flexibility, we recommend an approach that abstracts core business logic from chain-specific implementations, allowing deployment across multiple L2s as needed. Our migration methodology includes comprehensive testing on L2 testnets before production deployment, ensuring a smooth transition with minimal disruption.

Question 11

How do you approach multi-L2 strategy for applications?

Accepted Answer

Our multi-L2 strategy creates applications that can operate effectively across different scaling solutions. We implement chain-agnostic architecture with a core business logic layer separated from chain-specific adapters, allowing flexible deployment across multiple L2s. Our frontend design includes unified user interfaces with seamless network switching, consistent transaction handling across different L2 environments, and appropriate status indicators for each network's confirmation model. For data and asset consistency, we develop cross-L2 state synchronization, unified asset representation across chains, and efficient bridging strategies that optimize for cost and speed. Our approach to liquidity includes multi-chain treasury management, liquidity distribution optimization, and capital efficiency strategies for assets locked across multiple chains. This comprehensive strategy allows applications to leverage the unique advantages of each L2 while presenting users with a unified, seamless experience regardless of their preferred network.

Solution	Type	Key Features	Ideal For	Considerations
Arbitrum	Optimistic Rollup	EVM compatibility, Nitro architecture, AnyTrust chains (Nova), Stylus for Rust/C++ contracts	Complex dApps requiring full EVM features, high-value transactions, gaming with Nova's lower costs	7-day withdrawal period for maximum security, sequencer centralization (being improved)
Optimism	Optimistic Rollup	Near-perfect EVM equivalence, OP Stack for custom chains, Bedrock architecture, retroactive funding	EVM applications requiring minimal changes, protocol teams wanting custom L2 chains, public goods projects	7-day challenge period, more complex fault proof system than Arbitrum
Polygon PoS	Sidechain / Commit Chain	High throughput, low fees, mature ecosystem, EVM compatibility with minimal changes	Applications requiring very low fees, high transaction volume, gaming applications, user onboarding	Different security model than true rollups, separate validator set
Polygon zkEVM	ZK Rollup	ZK proofs with EVM compatibility, faster finality than optimistic rollups, growing ecosystem	Applications needing faster finality than optimistic rollups while maintaining EVM compatibility	Newer ecosystem, ZK proof generation complexity
StarkNet	ZK Rollup	Strong ZK security, Cairo programming language, account abstraction by default, ZK-specific optimizations	High-security applications, specialized ZK use cases, applications leveraging account abstraction	Different programming model (Cairo), fewer EVM compatibility features
zkSync	ZK Rollup	EVM compatibility, native account abstraction, zkPorter data availability options, growing ecosystem	Applications wanting ZK security with familiar Solidity development, account abstraction features	Evolving technology stack, proving system complexity

Ethereum Layer 2 Development

Ethereum L2 Solutions

Arbitrum Development

Optimism Development

Polygon Development

ZK Rollup Development

Cross-L2 Applications

L2 Bridge Development

L2 Technologies & Development Stack

L2 Development Process

L2 Strategy & Selection

L2-Specific Architecture

Smart Contract Development

Frontend & Integration

Bridging & Interoperability

Testing & Security Audit

Ethereum L2 Development FAQs

Layer 2 Solutions Comparison

Layer 2 Solutions We Support

Optimism

Arbitrum

zkSync

StarkNet

Polygon zkEVM

Base

Immutable X

Ready to Build on Ethereum Layer 2?

Related Services

Ethereum Ecosystem Development

Smart Contract Development

Multichain & Cross-Chain Development Solutions