No Free Lunch: Why the Nonprofit Model in Blockchain Infrastructure Needs to Be Reconsidered

When businesses grow, everyone prefers to maximize profits with minimal contribution. In the open-source world, this principle is often called “free-riding”—taking value from the ecosystem without giving back. In blockchain, this phenomenon becomes much clearer and more painful when token prices drop. What really happens when the largest L2 project chooses to go its own way? And how should public infrastructure be funded?

This article aims to answer a fundamental question: in an increasingly complex L2 landscape, which economic model is truly sustainable?

When Base Goes Its Own Way: From Superchain Expectations to Growth Realities

On February 18, 2026, Coinbase’s Base announced a groundbreaking decision: they would leave the Optimism superchain ecosystem and switch to a fully independent code architecture. Instead of relying on the OP Stack as a foundation, Base would build its own integrated code repository with key components—including sequencers—within a cohesive unit.

Market reactions were immediate and harsh: OP tokens fell more than 20% within 24 hours.

This moment isn’t just a technical migration. It’s concrete evidence of long-standing tensions within the open-source blockchain economic model. Optimism positioned itself as a pioneer of the “superchain”—a vision where hundreds of L2 chains are interconnected, strengthening the ecosystem through network effects. But Base’s departure—being the largest L2 chain with a solid institutional user base from Coinbase—shows that not all participants remain committed to this vision.

Base’s choice to seek independence isn’t without reason. Running its own code repository grants faster upgrades (from three to six hard forks annually), full control over development, and no need to share revenue with the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) of Optimism. It’s a rational business calculation for a project of Base’s scale.

But the question remains: does this departure signal the failure of the Optimism superchain model? The answer is more nuanced than it appears.

Two Economic Philosophies: Open Optimism vs. Coordinated Approach of Arbitrum

To understand what’s happening, it’s essential to compare two fundamental approaches to L2 economics.

Optimism: Open Without Conditions

The OP Stack from Optimism is fully open source under the MIT license. Anyone can access, modify, and use the code freely—no external permissions or royalties required. Any chain can build on top of the OP Stack without financial obligations.

However, when a chain voluntarily joins the official Optimism superchain ecosystem, revenue sharing becomes active. Superchain members must contribute 2.5% of their total revenue or 15% of their net revenue (after L1 gas fees), whichever is higher. In return, they gain shared security, cross-chain interoperability, marketing resources, and collaborative governance.

This approach is elegantly logical: if dozens of L2 chains are built on the same stack, network effects will boost the value of OP tokens and the entire ecosystem. It’s a bet on exponential growth through standardization.

This strategy has attracted many Tier-1 projects. Base, Sony (via Soneium), Worldcoin (World Chain), and Uniswap (via Unichain) all adopt the OP Stack. Their reasoning is simple: MIT licensing offers maximum freedom, and the modular architecture of the OP Stack allows deep customization—execution layers, consensus, and data availability can be independently replaced.

But the structural weakness is clear: low entry barriers also mean low exit barriers. The more successful a chain built on the OP Stack becomes, the more economically advantageous it is to operate independently—especially for large players with resources to maintain their own infrastructure.

Arbitrum: Coordination Through Economic Incentives

Arbitrum takes a different approach, often described by Offchain Labs CEO Steven Goldfeder as a “community source code model.”

Arbitrum’s code remains transparent and viewable, but commercial use outside the core ecosystem incurs costs. Specifically:

• L3 chains settled directly on Arbitrum One or Nova do not pay revenue sharing fees.
• But L3 or L2 chains settled outside the Arbitrum ecosystem (e.g., directly on Ethereum) must contribute 10% of their net protocol revenue to the Arbitrum DAO—8% to the DAO treasury and 2% to the developer alliance.

This dual-structure is clever: participants within the ecosystem enjoy freedom, while those leveraging Arbitrum technology externally make tangible financial contributions.

Goldfeder claims this model ensures sustainable revenue streams for infrastructure maintenance. It’s reported that the Arbitrum DAO has accumulated around 20,000 ETH from sequencer fees, maximum extractable value (MEV) Timeboost, and project contributions. Recently, Robinhood chose to build its L2 chain on Arbitrum Orbit, with testnet recording 4 million transactions in its first week—showing this model can attract major institutional players.

Lessons from Linux, WordPress, and Other Open Source Stories

The tension between free growth and sustainable viability isn’t new in tech history. Open-source software has faced similar dilemmas for decades.

The Red Hat and Linux Case

Linux is a triumph of open source. The Linux kernel is entirely free under the GPL license and forms the backbone of modern computing—from servers to Android. But the most successful commercial company built on Linux, Red Hat, doesn’t profit directly from the code.

Instead, Red Hat sells services: 24/7 technical support, security patches, and stability guarantees for enterprise clients. This model proved hugely profitable—Red Hat was acquired by IBM in 2019 for $34 billion.

The similarity with Optimism’s strategy is clear: recently, Optimism launched OP Enterprise on January 29, 2026, a corporate-grade service for fintech and financial institutions. OP Enterprise offers full support for deploying production chains within 8-12 weeks—similar to how Red Hat monetized around free Linux code.

The MySQL and MongoDB Cases

MySQL introduced “dual licensing”—a free GPL version and a paid commercial license for business use. This concept resembles Arbitrum’s “community source code model”: code is viewable, but monetization requires a paid license.

MySQL succeeded with this model but not without consequences. When Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems—and thus MySQL—in 2010, fears about its future prompted original creator Monty Widenius and the community to fork MariaDB. This risk is inherent in open source: anyone can fork the project if their interests aren’t met.

This situation parallels what’s happening today between Optimism and Base.

MongoDB offers a more direct lesson. In 2018, MongoDB changed its license to the Server Side Public License (SSPL) in response to cloud giants like AWS and Google Cloud using MongoDB code as managed services without paying. This is the clearest form of free-riding: extracting value without contributing.

The WordPress Case

WordPress is entirely free under the GPL license and powers 40% of all websites. The company behind it, Automattic, doesn’t charge for core WordPress usage. Instead, it monetizes through hosting services (WordPress.com) and premium plugins.

This model has been successful—but free-riding remains unresolved. In recent years, WordPress founder Matt Mullenweg has openly criticized large hosting providers like WP Engine for generating huge revenues from the WordPress ecosystem without significant contributions in return. This echoes the same dynamic that Optimism faces with Base.

Why Crypto Needs a Different Logic Than Traditional Software

If these issues have existed for decades in open-source software, why does blockchain feel different and more urgent?

Tokens as Crisis Amplifiers

In traditional open-source projects, value is distributed relatively evenly. When Linux succeeded, no asset price directly rose or fell. But in blockchain, the presence of tokens makes dynamics far more sensitive to shifts in trust and incentives.

When Base announced its departure on February 18, OP’s price immediately dropped 20+. This movement happened within hours—not as a result of years of disappointment but as a real-time reaction to economic signals. Tokens serve as both ecosystem health barometers and crisis amplifiers.

Financial Infrastructure Requires Funding Certainty

L2 isn’t just software; it’s infrastructure managing billions of dollars in user assets. Maintaining security, stability, and performance requires ongoing investment—not only in research but also in operations.

In successful open-source projects like Linux, maintenance costs are often covered by corporate sponsors or foundations. But most L2s lack such dedicated funding sources. Without mechanisms for cost-sharing or coordinated contributions, it’s difficult to ensure the resources needed for long-term development.

Ideological Tensions in the Community

The blockchain community has a strong ideological tradition: “code is freedom” and “decentralization above all.” In this context, Arbitrum’s revenue-sharing model can be seen as a compromise of core values, while Optimism’s open approach is ideologically appealing but faces concrete economic challenges.

Moving Toward a Collective Dialogue: Who Should Bear Infrastructure Costs?

Base’s departure is a blow to Optimism, but concluding that the superchain model has failed would be premature.

First, Optimism isn’t standing still. The launch of OP Enterprise at the end of January 2026 is a strategic response: for most teams that aren’t infrastructure experts, working with OP Enterprise is a more rational choice than building their own. Base itself has announced it will remain a core partner of OP Enterprise during the transition and plans to maintain compatibility with the OP Stack specifications.

Second, the “community source code” model of Arbitrum faces realities different from theory. Of the 20,000 ETH accumulated in the Arbitrum DAO, most come from sequencer fees, MEV Timeboost, and project contributions—not from revenue sharing of expansion chains. This is because the expansion plans launched in January 2024 are still new, and most existing Orbit chains are built as L3s on Arbitrum One, exempt from revenue-sharing obligations.

Nevertheless, the choice of institutions like Robinhood to build on Arbitrum Orbit indicates that the value proposition exists in other dimensions—deep customization and technological maturity, especially features like Arbitrum Stylus.

The right model isn’t about winners or losers. It’s about understanding the trade-offs each approach entails:

• The open Optimism model maximizes rapid adoption and network effects but risks that the biggest beneficiaries will leave once they’re strong enough.
• The Arbitrum model aims for sustainable funding but increases complexity and initial adoption barriers.

Both are being tested in the market. What matters is that OP Labs, Sunnyside Labs, and Offchain Labs have hired world-class research talent committed to scaling Ethereum while maintaining decentralization. This work isn’t free.

No public infrastructure is free. Costs must be borne by someone—whether through coordinated revenue sharing, premium services around free code, corporate sponsorships, or other mechanisms. The question for the community isn’t which model is perfect but: who will shoulder these costs, and how can transparency and fairness be ensured?

Base may choose to leave, but this conversation has only just begun.