Kris from L2BEAT team here.
I love the proposal. One of the things we struggle with in L2BEAT is explaining difficult technical terms to non-tech-savvy users. The risk framework is great, but it’s full of technical jargon. A precise categorization would definitely help us explain risks to users in an easier to comprehend way.
To give folks some idea, with the current framework:
-
Stage 0 rollups: Optimism (missing FPs),
-
Stage 1 rollups: Arbitrum (FPs are behind a whitelist) + with small adjustments to msig structure zkSync v1 and dYdX could be listed here,
-
Stage 2 rollups: Fuel v1,
Here’s a (very) quick mockup of how we could present such info to the user:
Few points:
- IMO naming should indicate that “Stage 2” is final and desired. Maybe instead of naming stages with numbers, we should use tiers like “Tier A - Fully secured by Ethereum”, “Tier B - Limited security“, “Tier C - Under construction”
- In Stage 0, “rollup full node” for zk rollups might not meet this criteria as often zk rollups don’t push all tx on chain but only state diffs.