Here’s a (very) quick mockup of how we could present such info to the user:
That looks great to me! It would definitely be much clearer to newbies than the current risk framework, which has excellent info but doesn’t really help users understand which properties are more important.
Though perhaps rename “stage” to something clearer like “security level”. And happy to accept alternate namings, tier etc.
- 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.
Ooh, good point. I guess there are a few paths to take:
- Accept that for rollups that only publish state diffs, a “full node” would just play the state diffs to compute the current state
- The rollup must offer a ZK-SNARK verifier that attempts to verify that there are valid transactions that created the transitions, though it’s ok if it’s not “plugged in” and these SNARKs are only published with a delay
- Make the decision that rollups that only publish state diffs are “not rollups” until they get to stage 1
I’m inclined to lean toward (1) particularly if we brand “stage 0” as “under construction”, because then users would understand that that’s what stage 0 means and it has very few guarantees. But something like (2) could work too. Maybe survey the ZK-EVM teams on this to get their views?