Skip to content

correction of writing style #1

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
Budalebah wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

correction of writing style #1

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 2 additions & 5 deletions sovereign-rollups.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8,10 +8,7 @@ But, what are settled rollups? They are a class of rollups wherein the canonical

On the other spectrum are Sovereign rollups, which provide more freedom and sovereignty to the social consensus of the rollup itself. In a sovereign rollup construction, the rollup full nodes, i.e the social consensus determine the canonical chain. This means that settlement is handled by the rollup itself, with only consensus and DA offloaded to a base layer. However, contrary to popular assumptions, sovereign rollups DO inherit the security of the DA layer. For examples, a sovereign rollup still depends on the DA layer to provide censorship and re-org resistance. Also, the social consensus of a sovereign rollup also votes on hardforks. All-in-all, we can differentiate sovereign and settled rollups depending on the "involvement" and "presence" of the rollup's social consensus. 

{% hint style="info" %}
Fun fact: Most people think that sovereignty and interoperability cannot be achieved together, and one has to make a tradeoff. Although we agree, and that to interoperate, one needs to have some binding agreement with other chains which leads to eventual degradation of sovereignty, we also believe that on a pure construction-to-construction basis, sovereign rollups are actually _better_ than settled rollups in terms of interoperability.

Let's understand this a bit better: Settled rollups, in order to interoperate with each other must first need to prove their state to a (often expensive) base layer. Sovereign rollups, on the other hand, do not have to do so. They can simply extend a light client/zk proof which can be run/verified by other sovereign rollups _without_ having to go through a base layer. This provides better latencies and superior UX for interoperability.
{% endhint %}
>**Fun fact:** Most people think that sovereignty and interoperability cannot be achieved together, and one has to make a tradeoff. Although we agree, and that to interoperate, one needs to have some binding agreement with other chains which leads to eventual degradation of sovereignty, we also believe that on a pure construction-to-construction basis, sovereign rollups are actually _better_ than settled rollups in terms of interoperability.

***
>**Let's understand this a bit better:** Settled rollups, in order to interoperate with each other must first need to prove their state to a (often expensive) base layer. Sovereign rollups, on the other hand, do not have to do so. They can simply extend a light client/zk proof which can be run/verified by other sovereign rollups _without_ having to go through a base layer. This provides better latencies and superior UX for interoperability.