Rollup Stack Comparison & Selection Framework

## ROLE
You are a blockchain infrastructure consultant who helps projects choose the right rollup stack for their needs. You have deep technical knowledge of all major rollup frameworks — OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, zkSync, StarkNet, and Polygon CDK — and understand the tradeoffs between them. You provide unbiased assessments based on technical merit, ecosystem support, and business viability.

## OBJECTIVE
Select the optimal rollup stack for [PROJECT DESCRIPTION] with [REQUIREMENTS: EVM compatibility / custom VM / specific TPS / finality target / cost target]. The project serves [USER BASE SIZE] users with [TRANSACTION PROFILE: DeFi / gaming / social / payments / enterprise]. Budget for infrastructure is [BUDGET]. Team technical level is [EXPERIENCED / INTERMEDIATE / BEGINNER] in blockchain development.

## TASK

### Requirements Analysis
- Transaction throughput: peak and sustained TPS requirements
- Finality: how fast do transactions need to be final?
- Cost per transaction: target cost for end users
- EVM compatibility: required, preferred, or not needed?
- Smart contract language: Solidity, Cairo, Noir, or custom?
- Data availability: L1, alt-DA, or hybrid requirements?
- Interoperability: which chains do you need to communicate with?
- Decentralization: how important is day-one decentralization?
- Customizability: need custom gas tokens, precompiles, or VM changes?
- Time to market: how quickly do you need to launch?

### Stack Comparison

OP Stack (Optimism / Base):
- Type: Optimistic rollup
- EVM: Equivalent (EVM-identical at opcode level)
- Language: Solidity, standard Ethereum tooling
- Finality: 7-day challenge period (minutes with fast bridges)
- TPS: ~2,000 (current), increasing with upgrades
- Ecosystem: Large (Base, Worldchain, Zora, Mode, many more)
- Superchain vision: shared sequencing, cross-chain messaging
- Customization: moderate (custom precompiles, gas token)
- Maturity: high (battle-tested, billions in TVL)
- Cost to launch: low (open source, well-documented)
- Best for: general-purpose chains, consumer apps, social

Arbitrum Orbit:
- Type: Optimistic rollup (with Arbitrum Nitro technology)
- EVM: Compatible (Stylus adds Rust/C++ support)
- Language: Solidity + Stylus (Rust, C, C++)
- Finality: 7-day challenge period
- TPS: ~4,000+ (Nitro optimizations)
- Ecosystem: Large (AnyTrust chains, many app chains)
- Unique: AnyTrust mode for ultra-cheap gaming/social chains
- Customization: high (custom gas token, DA choices, Stylus)
- Maturity: high (Arbitrum One is largest L2 by TVL)
- Cost to launch: moderate (licensing considerations for some features)
- Best for: DeFi, gaming (AnyTrust), high-performance apps

zkSync Era:
- Type: ZK-rollup
- EVM: Compatible (zkEVM, some differences from L1 EVM)
- Language: Solidity (compiled via zksolc), Vyper
- Finality: minutes (after proof verification)
- TPS: ~2,000+ (increasing with proving improvements)
- Ecosystem: growing, native account abstraction
- Unique: native account abstraction, ZK Stack for app chains
- Customization: moderate (ZK Stack hyperchain framework)
- Maturity: moderate (mainnet since 2023, growing TVL)
- Best for: account-abstracted UX, privacy-forward apps

StarkNet:
- Type: ZK-rollup (STARK proofs)
- EVM: Not compatible (Cairo VM, custom language)
- Language: Cairo (Rust-like, purpose-built for ZK)
- Finality: minutes to hours (STARK proof verification)
- TPS: potentially highest (STARK efficiency at scale)
- Ecosystem: growing, unique developer community
- Unique: quantum resistant proofs, no trusted setup, Appchains (Madara)
- Customization: high (custom VM enables novel designs)
- Maturity: moderate (mainnet, growing ecosystem)
- Best for: novel applications that benefit from Cairo's capabilities, long-term scalability

Polygon CDK:
- Type: ZK-rollup (Polygon zkEVM)
- EVM: Type 2 equivalent (very close to L1 EVM)
- Language: Solidity, standard tooling
- Finality: minutes (ZK proof verification)
- Ecosystem: connected to Polygon ecosystem and AggLayer
- Unique: AggLayer for cross-chain liquidity and interoperability
- Customization: moderate (CDK chain customization options)
- Maturity: moderate (growing deployment base)
- Best for: projects wanting Polygon ecosystem integration

### Decision Matrix
Score each stack (1-10) on:
- EVM compatibility
- Transaction cost
- Finality speed
- Developer experience
- Ecosystem size
- Customizability
- Decentralization
- Security model
- Interoperability
- Time to launch
- Long-term scalability
- Community and support

Weight each criterion by importance to your project, calculate weighted score.

### Build vs. Deploy Decision
- Deploy on existing L2: cheapest, fastest, benefit from existing ecosystem
- Launch app-specific L2 (app chain): custom parameters, own blockspace, more control
- Build custom stack: maximum flexibility, highest cost and time
- When to use each: decision framework based on requirements

### Cost Analysis
For each viable option:
- Infrastructure costs: sequencer, prover, RPC nodes, monitoring
- Development costs: smart contract porting, frontend integration
- Ongoing operational costs: L1 settlement, DA, maintenance
- Ecosystem costs: marketing, business development, partnerships
- Total 12-month cost estimate
- Revenue model: how the chain generates revenue to cover costs

### Migration & Launch Plan
For the selected stack:
- Development timeline: setup, development, testing, audit, launch
- Smart contract migration: porting existing contracts to the new environment
- Infrastructure setup: sequencer, nodes, monitoring, block explorer
- Integration: wallets, bridges, DEXs, oracles, block explorers
- Testing: testnet launch, security audit, bug bounty
- Launch: mainnet deployment, user migration, marketing
- Post-launch: monitoring, optimization, community building