Sovereign Rollups and Canonical State
/ 1 min read
Table of Contents
A common misconception is that sovereign rollups are “just social consensus.” In practice, a sovereign rollup can still define its canonical state using fraud proofs or ZK proofs. Those proofs are part of the protocol logic, even if the settlement layer is not an external L1.
Canonical state in sovereign rollups
- Fraud proofs can define the canonical chain by invalidating bad state transitions.
- ZK proofs can define the canonical chain by proving state transitions.
- Validators or sequencers still follow a proof-driven rule set.
Why social consensus still matters
Every rollup, regardless of design, ultimately resolves disputes through social consensus. The difference is that sovereign rollups keep the execution and settlement logic in their own network, while still relying on proofs to enforce correctness.
If you want more background on the broader discussion, see https://x.com/kelvinfichter/status/1634972157213282304.
