Incentive Non-Compatibility of Optimistic Rollups

Daji Landis

2024-10-16

Abstract:Optimistic rollups are a popular and promising method of increasing the throughput capacity of their underlying chain. These methods rely on economic incentives to guarantee their security. We present a model of optimistic rollups that shows that the incentives are not aligned with the expected behavior of the players, thus potentially undermining the security of existing optimistic rollups. We discuss some potential solutions illuminated by our model.

Computer Science and Game Theory,Cryptography and Security

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the incentive incompatibility issue in Optimistic Rollups. Specifically, the paper focuses on the fact that in the mechanism of Optimistic Rollups, the incentives of validators are inconsistent with their expected behaviors, which may undermine the security of existing Optimistic Rollups.

### Detailed Explanation

#### 1. **Background Introduction**
Optimistic Rollups is a Layer 2 scaling solution, aiming to increase the throughput of the blockchain by moving computations from the main chain to the L2 chain. This mechanism relies on economic incentives to ensure its security. However, the paper points out that there is a problem in the current design: **the incentive mechanism of validators is not always consistent with the desired behaviors**, which may lead to threats to the system's security.

#### 2. **Core of the Problem**
- **Verifier's Dilemma**: If validators never find any errors, they have no incentive to perform verification work because there are no rewards. In this case, the system is vulnerable to attacks.
- **Incentive Incompatibility**: When the search cost for validators is high, they may choose not to perform verification, resulting in malicious behaviors in the system not being corrected in a timely manner.

#### 3. **Model Construction**
The paper analyzes this problem by establishing a formal game - theory model. The model involves three main roles:
- **Aggregator**: Responsible for collecting and processing transactions and submitting them to the main chain.
- **Validator**: Responsible for monitoring the correctness of transactions and submitting fraud proofs when problems are found.
- **Transactor**: Pays fees and initiates transactions.

#### 4. **Conclusion**
The paper concludes through model analysis that **under certain conditions, validators will not perform searches or challenges, and aggregators may choose dishonest behaviors**. This behavior pattern is not what the system design expects, thus indicating that there are flaws in the incentive mechanism of Optimistic Rollups.

#### 5. **Potential Solutions**
The paper also discusses some possible solutions, including:
- **Random Checks**: By randomly selecting blocks for inspection, the system can maintain its lightweight efficiency while avoiding the verifier's dilemma.
- **Deliberate Introduction of Errors**: By deliberately introducing some errors, validators can be motivated to perform inspections more actively.
- **Hidden Rewards**: By using a hidden reward mechanism, validators can be motivated to perform effective searches.

### Summary
The core problem of the paper is to reveal the incompatibility of the incentive mechanism in Optimistic Rollups, and it has proven the existence of this problem through a formal model. The author also explores several potential solutions in order to improve the existing system design and ensure its security and effectiveness.