Why No One Wants To Be A Shared Sequencer Anymore

A few weeks back, Andy put out a tweet saying "no one wants to be branded as a shared sequencer anymore" and it triggered quite a few people.

The "loss of revenue" is the biggest, ongoing misconception of why shared sequencing isn't the best option for rollups.

Today were tackling that notion head on with Noah Pravecek from NodeKit and their shift from shared sequencing to building a Superbuilder.

Initially, NodeKit aimed to build a shared sequencer, similar to what other projects like Espresso and Astria have worked on. Shared sequencers can coordinate block building and bring composability across chains, but NodeKit quickly recognized the limitations. While these solutions offer atomic inclusion (ensuring transactions are seen by all rollups), they don’t guarantee that the transactions will actually be executed according to the rollups’ state transitions.

That gap—between inclusion and execution—is what their new design in the Superbuilder addresses head on.

However, isn't it a winner takes all market?

Why did Noah decide to build in this market?

Where is the blue ocean to create meaningful PMF in a crowded space?

The market for shared sequencing is highly competitive, but Noah answered and defended the technical differences quite well. We also discussed the obstacles of raising as a college dropout and first time founder, as well as what it's like building a brand in the space.

And, of course, we touched on Noah's views of chain abstraction and how Nodekit fits into the picture.

If you've been paying attention to our content focused around interoperability, this one's for you. A big problem space to be solved and were confident in the teams shipping. Enjoy.

The Rollup