Comparison with Other Rollups

The Fundamental Difference: Stoppability

All rollups today except Facet can be stopped by a small group of people:

Rollup	Who Can Stop It
Optimism, Arbitrum, Base, zkSync, Polygon zkEVM, Taiko, etc.	<20 multisig signers
Facet	No one

This single fact drives every other architectural decision.

Critical Control Points

Component	Traditional Rollups	Facet
Can be halted by	<20 keys	No one
Forced inclusion	Can be disabled	Always on
Gas token	Admin-controlled bridge	Native & permissionless
Protocol control	Smart contracts with admin keys	No contracts control the protocol
Emergency powers	Guardians can intervene	No emergency mechanism exists
Protocol upgrades	Forced by admins	User choice via forks

Traditional rollups have smart contracts that control the protocol. These contracts have admin keys. Facet has no controlling contracts—just an immutable L1 address.

Proof Systems: Best of Both Worlds

Traditional rollups chose one extreme. Facet combines the best of both worlds.

Approach	How It Works	Weaknesses
Optimistic (Arbitrum)	Assume honesty, 7-day disputes	Slow resolution, requires watchers, complex escalating bonds
Validity/ZK (zkSync)	Prove every transaction	Expensive even when everyone's honest
ZK Fault Proofs (Facet)	Optimistic normally, ZK for disputes	None—combines both strengths

Facet's approach:

• Normal operation: No proofs needed (like optimistic)

• Disputes: Single ZK proof resolves instantly (like validity)

• Result: Free when honest, fast when disputed

Time to Finality

Facet is a based rollup.

Stage	Traditional Non-Based Rollups	Facet
User submits transaction	Goes to centralized sequencer	Goes to Ethereum (0xface7)
Soft confirmation	~2 seconds from sequencer	N/A - no sequencer
Posted to L1	Minutes to hours later*	Immediate (it IS an L1 transaction)
Actually final	When L1 tx with batch is finalized	~15 minutes (Ethereum finality)

*Sequencers batch transactions to save costs, creating delays

Real Examples of Rollups Being Stopped

• Linea: Stopped chain to freeze hacker funds

• Blast: Disabled forced inclusion to censor addresses

• Soneium: Blocked memecoin trading

The Exit Window Myth

"Stage 2" rollups claim safety through exit windows, but three problems make them ineffective:

1. Prohibitive exit costs

• Mass exit from any major L2 would cost hundreds of millions in L1 gas

• Attackers can trigger exits cheaply while users pay the price

2. Locked assets can't exit

• Vesting contracts, staking pools, and DeFi positions have their own timeframes

• A 30-day exit window doesn't help if your assets are locked for 90 days

3. L2-native assets have nowhere to go

• Tokens created on L2 have no L1 representation

• Complex financial positions can't be "moved" to L1

Result: Exit windows create a false sense of security while leaving most users vulnerable.

Summary

Traditional rollups optimize for the happy path—when sequencers are honest, admins are benevolent, and no one needs to exit.

Facet optimizes for reality—where companies get subpoenaed, multisigs get compromised, and infrastructure must work without trust.

The choice is simple: Accept admin control or build on truly unstoppable infrastructure.