Centralised solutions, and the belief in them, come from a specific type of mindset. It’s the mindset that says: efficiency first, trust later. This mindset is creeping into Ethereum, and nowhere is it more visible than in the world of Layer 2 rollups and their sequencers.
The Problem with Centralised Sequencers
Most L2s today run on a single, centralised sequencer. Yes, it makes transactions fast and cheap. But it also hands enormous power to a single operator:
- Censorship: The sequencer decides who gets in and who doesn’t.
- MEV extraction: Ordering becomes a profit machine for the operator.
- Downtime: If the sequencer goes offline, the rollup is effectively bricked.
This is not decentralisation. It’s outsourcing control to trusted intermediaries, the very thing Ethereum exists to replace.
Why It Matters for Ethereum’s Ethos
Ethereum’s social contract is built on a simple idea: no one should be forced to trust an authority. Consensus and cryptography eliminate coercion.
Centralised sequencers spit in the face of that ethos. They may “work” for now, but they recreate chokepoints and gatekeepers. If Ethereum L2s become just another layer of corporate-controlled rails, then what are we even building?
Ethereum is not just a scaling platform. It’s a cultural movement that refuses to accept “just trust us” as an answer.
Shining a Light: L2BEAT
This is why projects like L2BEAT matter so much. They document, dissect, and publicise the hidden trust assumptions in every rollup. They force the ecosystem to confront uncomfortable truths: that most “decentralised” L2s today are still dependent on single operators, multisigs, and opaque governance.
Without this transparency, the mindset of centralisation would quietly take root, sold as “temporary” compromises but destined to ossify into permanent control structures. L2BEAT is the light that keeps us honest.
Paths Toward Decentralisation
The good news is that alternatives are emerging:
- Shared sequencing: Rollups coordinating on a neutral sequencing layer.
- Decentralized sequencer sets: Operators rotating like Ethereum validators.
- MEV auctions & PBS-style markets: Removing privilege and replacing it with open competition.
- Fallback mechanisms: Users retain the right to force-include transactions on L1.
- L1-based sequencing: Inheriting ordering directly from Ethereum.
These solutions are not perfect. They add latency, complexity, and cost. But they also dismantle unilateral power and return control to users.
The Mindset Divide
Here’s the core divide:
- If you think the problem is efficiency, centralised sequencers are a fine “temporary” hack.
- If you think the problem is coercion, centralisation is unacceptable even as a stopgap.
Ethereum has consistently rejected the notion that authority is necessary to enforce trust. Trust must emerge from transparency, incentives, and shared verification. Sequencers are simply the latest battleground where this philosophy is being tested.
The question is simple: do we want an Ethereum where power flows back to users, or one where new gatekeepers dictate the rules?