The blockchain industry has seen significant evolution over the years, with Ethereum playing a pivotal role in shaping decentralized applications (dApps) and smart contract technology. However, as Ethereum gained popularity, scalability issues arose due to network congestion and high gas fees. To address these challenges, Layer 2 solutions like Base have been introduced, offering improved scalability, reduced transaction costs, and enhanced efficiency.

Ethereum and Base are fundamentally connected, as Base operates as a Layer 2 scaling solution built on top of Ethereum. Understanding the relationship between these two platforms provides insight into the future of decentralized applications, blockchain scalability, and the broader Web3 ecosystem.

Overview of Both Platforms

Ethereum: A Decentralized Smart Contract Platform

Ethereum is one of the most influential blockchain platforms in the world. Launched in 2015 by Vitalik Buterin and a group of co-founders, Ethereum expanded the use of blockchain beyond simple transactions by introducing smart contracts—self-executing agreements that run on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).

Key Features of Ethereum

1. Smart Contracts

1. Ethereum allows developers to write and deploy smart contracts using Solidity, a specialized programming language.
2. Smart contracts execute automatically when predefined conditions are met, removing the need for intermediaries.
3. Decentralized Applications (dApps)

2. Developers build dApps on Ethereum for various use cases, including finance (DeFi), gaming, supply chain management, and more.
3. dApps run on Ethereum’s decentralized network, ensuring security and resistance to censorship.
4. Ethereum’s Consensus Mechanism: Proof-of-Stake (PoS)

3. Ethereum transitioned from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) in 2022 via Ethereum 2.0 (The Merge).
4. PoS is more energy-efficient and enables faster transaction finality. Validators stake ETH to secure the network instead of relying on computational power.
5. Ethereum’s Security Model

4. Ethereum is known for its robust security due to its decentralized structure and strong cryptographic algorithms.
5. However, Ethereum transactions can be slow and expensive due to network congestion and high gas fees.
6. Challenges of Ethereum

5. Scalability Issues: The Ethereum network can handle around 15-30 transactions per second (TPS), which leads to congestion.
6. High Gas Fees: Transaction costs increase during peak times, making it expensive to use.
7. Slow Confirmation Times: Transactions can take minutes to hours to finalize, depending on network activity.

Due to these challenges, Ethereum relies on Layer 2 scaling solutions like Base to enhance its performance.

Base: A Layer 2 Scaling Solution for Ethereum

Base is a Layer 2 blockchain developed by Coinbase in partnership with Optimism. It is an Optimistic Rollup, meaning it processes transactions off-chain and periodically posts them to Ethereum for final settlement. This approach significantly reduces transaction costs and improves scalability while maintaining Ethereum’s security.

Key Features of Base

1. Optimistic Rollup Technology

1. Base operates using Optimistic Rollups, which bundle multiple transactions together and submit them to Ethereum as a single batch.
2. This method reduces gas fees and increases transaction throughput.
3. Low-Cost Transactions

2. Base transactions are significantly cheaper than those processed directly on Ethereum’s mainnet.
3. This makes it an attractive option for developers and users looking for cost-effective blockchain interactions.
4. Ethereum Security with Layer 2 Efficiency

3. Base inherits Ethereum’s security because transactions are ultimately settled on the Ethereum mainnet.
4. It balances scalability with trust minimization, ensuring decentralization remains intact.
5. Developer-Friendly Environment

4. Base is EVM-compatible, meaning Ethereum developers can easily migrate their dApps to Base without major modifications.
5. It supports Solidity, the same programming language used for Ethereum smart contracts.
6. Coinbase’s Involvement

5. Unlike other Layer 2 solutions, Base is backed by Coinbase, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world.
6. This provides strong institutional support and potential integration with Coinbase’s ecosystem.
7. Bridging Assets from Ethereum to Base
8. Users can bridge assets from Ethereum to Base, allowing them to transact with lower fees while benefiting from Ethereum’s security.
9. Future of Base

7. Base aims to become a core part of the Ethereum scaling ecosystem, supporting more decentralized applications and financial activities.
8. It has the potential to improve DeFi, NFTs, gaming, and other Web3 applications by making them more affordable and scalable.

---

Ethereum vs. Base: A Quick Comparison

Feature	Ethereum	Base
Type	Layer 1 Blockchain	Layer 2 Optimistic Rollup
Scalability	Limited (15-30 TPS)	High throughput
Transaction Fees	High Gas Fees	Low-cost transactions
Consensus Mechanism	Proof-of-Stake (PoS)	Uses Ethereum’s security
Smart Contracts	Solidity, EVM-compatible	Fully compatible with Ethereum smart contracts
Security	Highly secure, decentralized	Secured by Ethereum
Main Use Case	Decentralized applications, DeFi, NFTs	Scaling Ethereum, reducing costs

Here’s a detailed explanation of the Key Differences Between Base and Ethereum in terms of Technical Differences:

Key Differences Between Base and Ethereum

Ethereum and Base are both integral to the blockchain ecosystem but serve different purposes. Ethereum is a Layer 1 blockchain that provides the foundation for decentralized applications (dApps), smart contracts, and financial transactions. Base, on the other hand, is a Layer 2 scaling solution designed to enhance Ethereum’s performance by reducing transaction fees and increasing scalability through Optimistic Rollup technology.

A crucial distinction between these platforms lies in their technical architecture, which affects their transaction speed, cost, and efficiency. The following sections highlight the technical differences between Ethereum and Base, focusing on block time and transactions per second (TPS).

Technical Differences

1. Block Time

Ethereum: Block Production Every 12 Seconds

Ethereum follows a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, where validators propose and confirm transactions to create new blocks. The average block time in Ethereum is approximately 12 seconds, meaning a new block is added to the blockchain roughly every 12 seconds.

While this is an improvement compared to earlier Proof-of-Work (PoW) blockchains like Bitcoin (which has a block time of 10 minutes), Ethereum’s block time can still cause network congestion during high demand periods.

• Implications of 12-Second Block Time on Ethereum:
  • Slower transaction finalization compared to Layer 2 solutions.
  • Higher gas fees due to congestion.
  • Limited ability to process high-volume applications, such as high-frequency trading or blockchain gaming.

Base: Block Production Every 2 Seconds

Base, as a Layer 2 solution, is designed for higher scalability. It produces blocks much faster than Ethereum, with a block time of approximately 2 seconds.

This faster block time significantly improves transaction speed and enhances user experience. With new blocks added more frequently, Base ensures that transactions settle quicker, making it suitable for applications requiring real-time or near-instant processing.

• Implications of 2-Second Block Time on Base:
  • Transactions are confirmed 6x faster than on Ethereum.
  • Lower latency, improving usability for decentralized applications (dApps) like DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces, and gaming applications.
  • Reduces the likelihood of network congestion.

🔹 Key Takeaway: Base’s 2-second block time makes it more efficient than Ethereum in processing transactions and reducing delays. This improvement is particularly valuable for applications that require fast, low-latency interactions.

2. Transactions Per Second (TPS)

Ethereum: Limited TPS (15-30 Transactions per Second)

Ethereum’s base layer, while highly secure and decentralized, can only handle approximately 15-30 transactions per second (TPS). This limitation arises because:

• Ethereum’s architecture prioritizes security and decentralization, making it less scalable by design.
• The network gets congested when demand is high, leading to higher gas fees and longer transaction processing times.

This low TPS makes Ethereum inefficient for high-frequency transactions and expensive for users interacting with smart contracts.

Base: Higher TPS for Scalability

Base significantly improves Ethereum’s TPS by utilizing Optimistic Rollups. Instead of processing every transaction on the Ethereum mainnet, Base bundles multiple transactions off-chain and submits them as a single batch to Ethereum. This reduces the computational load and increases throughput.

While the exact TPS of Base varies depending on network activity, it is substantially higher than Ethereum. Some estimates suggest Base can achieve over 1,000 TPS, making it one of the more scalable Layer 2 solutions available.

• Benefits of Base’s High TPS:
  • Lower gas fees as transactions are processed more efficiently.
  • Faster confirmation times, improving user experience.
  • Scalability for dApps, enabling applications like decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and blockchain-based gaming to operate seamlessly.

🔹 Key Takeaway: Base offers a much higher TPS compared to Ethereum, making it better suited for applications that require fast, frequent transactions at a lower cost.

Ethereum vs. Base: Technical Comparison Summary

Feature	Ethereum (Layer 1)	Base (Layer 2)
Block Time	~12 seconds	~2 seconds
Transaction Per Second (TPS)	~15-30 TPS	Hundreds to over 1,000 TPS
Consensus Mechanism	Proof-of-Stake (PoS)	Inherits Ethereum’s security via Optimistic Rollups
Scalability	Limited due to Layer 1 constraints	High scalability with off-chain transaction processing

Opcodes and Transaction Types in Ethereum and Base

Ethereum and Base share the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) as their core execution environment. However, because Base operates as a Layer 2 (L2) scaling solution, it introduces differences in how opcodes function and adds specialized transaction types for bridging assets between Ethereum and Base.

This section provides a detailed comparison of how EVM opcodes behave on both platforms and explains the different transaction types supported by Base.

Opcode Differences

Opcodes are the low-level instructions that the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) executes when processing smart contracts. While Base is fully EVM-compatible, meaning it can run any Ethereum smart contract, certain opcodes behave differently due to Base’s Layer 2 architecture.

Key Opcode Differences in Base vs. Ethereum

1. ORIGIN Opcode

• Ethereum:
  • The ORIGIN opcode returns the address of the externally owned account (EOA) that originally initiated a transaction.
  • This value remains the same throughout the transaction execution, even if multiple smart contracts are called in sequence.
• Base:
  • Since Base transactions are often batched and processed off-chain before being finalized on Ethereum, ORIGIN may not always return the expected Ethereum mainnet address.
  • This can affect smart contracts that rely on ORIGIN for user authentication.

2. DIFFICULTY Opcode (Now PREVRANDAO in Ethereum PoS)

• Ethereum:
  • Before Ethereum’s transition to Proof-of-Stake (PoS), the DIFFICULTY opcode provided the mining difficulty of the current block.
  • After The Merge, it was replaced by PREVRANDAO, which returns a randomness value derived from the previous block’s beacon chain randomness.
• Base:
  • Base does not have traditional block mining, so DIFFICULTY/PREVRANDAO might return a different pseudorandom value generated within Base’s rollup environment.
  • This affects smart contracts that depend on randomness for lotteries, gaming, or secure cryptographic functions.

3. TIMESTAMP Opcode

• Ethereum:
  • The TIMESTAMP opcode returns the block timestamp when a transaction is processed.
  • This value is set by the validator producing the block.
• Base:
  • Since Base aggregates transactions off-chain before submitting them to Ethereum, the timestamp may not match Ethereum’s Layer 1 (L1) block timestamps exactly.
  • Applications that rely on precise timestamps, such as time-based smart contracts (subscriptions, auctions, etc.), need to account for this potential delay.

🔹 Key Takeaway: While Base retains full EVM compatibility, differences in ORIGIN, DIFFICULTY (PREVRANDAO), and TIMESTAMP behavior can impact smart contracts designed specifically for Ethereum’s Layer 1 execution. Developers must test their contracts in the Base environment to ensure proper functionality.

Transaction Types in Base vs. Ethereum

Base supports all standard Ethereum transaction types while introducing Layer 2-specific transactions to facilitate interaction between Base and Ethereum mainnet.

1. Standard Ethereum Transaction Types Supported on Base

Base maintains full compatibility with Ethereum’s transaction types, including:

• Legacy Transactions (Type 0):
  • Basic Ethereum transactions with gas price and nonce values.
• EIP-1559 Transactions (Type 2):
  • Uses base fee + priority fee for dynamic gas pricing, reducing volatility in gas costs.

This ensures that existing Ethereum wallets and dApps can interact seamlessly with Base.

2. Layer 2-Specific Transaction Types in Base

Base introduces new L2-specific transaction types designed for cross-chain interaction between Ethereum (L1) and Base (L2).

L1-to-L2 Transactions (Bridging to Base)

• These transactions originate on Ethereum mainnet (L1) and are forwarded to Base (L2).
• Use cases include:
  • Bridging assets from Ethereum to Base (e.g., sending ETH, ERC-20 tokens, or NFTs).
  • Deploying smart contracts on Base from an L1 contract.

L2-to-L1 Transactions (Withdrawing from Base to Ethereum)

• These transactions originate on Base (L2) and are finalized on Ethereum (L1).
• Due to Base’s use of Optimistic Rollups, L2-to-L1 transactions typically have a delay period (7 days) for fraud-proof verification before they are executed on Ethereum.
• Use cases include:
  • Withdrawing funds from Base back to Ethereum mainnet.
  • Settling large transactions on Ethereum for higher security.

🔹 Key Takeaway: Base extends Ethereum’s standard transaction types by introducing L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1 transactions, enabling seamless asset bridging and cross-chain interoperability.

Ethereum vs. Base: Opcode & Transaction Comparison Summary

Feature	Ethereum (Layer 1)	Base (Layer 2)
ORIGIN Opcode	Returns the EOA that initiated the transaction	May behave differently due to batched transactions
DIFFICULTY / PREVRANDAO Opcode	Uses beacon chain randomness in PoS	Returns a different pseudorandom value
TIMESTAMP Opcode	Block timestamp at transaction execution	May differ due to rollup batching
Standard Ethereum Transactions	Type 0 (Legacy), Type 2 (EIP-1559)	Fully supported
L1-to-L2 Transactions	Not applicable	Used for bridging assets from Ethereum to Base
L2-to-L1 Transactions	Not applicable	Used for withdrawing assets from Base to Ethereum

Fee Structure in Base vs. Ethereum

One of the key advantages of Base, as a Layer 2 (L2) solution, is its lower transaction costs compared to Ethereum’s Layer 1 (L1) fees. Base achieves this through a dual-fee model, which consists of two types of fees:

1. L2 Execution Fee – Covers the cost of executing transactions on Base.
2. L1 Data Fee – Covers the cost of submitting batched transactions to Ethereum mainnet.

This section explains how these fees work, how they differ from Ethereum’s gas fees, and their impact on users and developers.

---

1. Ethereum Fee Structure (Layer 1)

Ethereum uses a gas-based fee model, where users pay fees based on the computational resources required for transaction execution and network congestion.

Ethereum Gas Fee Breakdown

Ethereum’s EIP-1559 transaction fee model consists of:

• Base Fee (Mandatory, Burned):
  • The minimum fee required for a transaction to be processed.
  • Automatically adjusts based on network congestion.
• Priority Fee (Optional, Paid to Validators):
  • A tip paid to Ethereum validators to incentivize faster processing.
• Total Fee Paid:
  • Total Fee = Gas Used × (Base Fee + Priority Fee)

🔹 Key Takeaway: Ethereum’s Layer 1 fees are often high due to network congestion and the cost of storing data on-chain.

---

2. Base Fee Structure (Layer 2 Dual-Fee Model)

Base significantly reduces fees by offloading computation and transaction processing to Layer 2 while only periodically submitting batched transactions to Ethereum Layer 1.

Base’s Dual-Fee Model

1. L2 Execution Fee

1. Paid in ETH or ERC-20 tokens for executing transactions on Base.
2. Much lower than Ethereum L1 fees because Base processes transactions off-chain before finalizing them on Ethereum.
3. Covers costs like smart contract execution, token transfers, and dApp interactions.
4. L1 Data Fee

2. Paid in ETH to cover the cost of submitting compressed transaction data back to Ethereum.
3. Since Base operates as an Optimistic Rollup, it periodically submits bundled transactions to Ethereum L1 for security and finalization.
4. This fee ensures that Base transactions remain verifiable on Ethereum, maintaining decentralization and trust.

🔹 Key Takeaway: Users on Base pay a small L2 execution fee and a lower L1 data fee, making transactions much cheaper than on Ethereum.

---

3. Comparison of Ethereum and Base Fees

Fee Type	Ethereum (L1)	Base (L2)
Transaction Processing	Expensive due to on-chain execution	Cheaper as computation happens off-chain
Base Fee	High due to congestion	Lower due to efficient batching
Priority Fee	Required for faster confirmation	Minimal priority fee required
L1 Data Fee	Not applicable	Small fee for submitting transaction batches to Ethereum
Fee Payment	Only in ETH	Can be paid in ETH or ERC-20 tokens

4. Benefits of Base’s Fee Structure

• Lower Transaction Costs:
  • Base users pay significantly lower fees than Ethereum L1 users.
• More Flexible Payment Options:
  • Users can pay execution fees in ETH or ERC-20 tokens.
• Scalability Without Sacrificing Security:
  • Transactions are finalized on Ethereum, ensuring security while reducing costs.

Governance and Adoption of Ethereum and Base

Both Ethereum and Base play crucial roles in the blockchain ecosystem, with Ethereum serving as the leading smart contract platform and Base acting as a Layer 2 scaling solution. While both platforms continue to evolve, governance and adoption remain key areas of focus for their long-term sustainability and growth.

1. Governance Models of Ethereum and Base

Ethereum Governance

Ethereum’s governance is primarily off-chain, meaning decisions are made through community discussions, developer meetings, and Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs).

• Ethereum Foundation: Oversees research, development, and upgrades.
• Core Developers & Community: Participate in decision-making via EIP discussions.
• On-Chain Proposals (Partial): Some Ethereum governance aspects (e.g., protocol upgrades) are influenced by voting mechanisms like DAOs.

🔹 Key Takeaway: Ethereum has a decentralized governance model, but it still relies on off-chain coordination and developer consensus.

Base Governance

As an Optimistic Rollup built on Ethereum, Base is still developing its governance model.

• Controlled by Coinbase: Since Base was launched by Coinbase, governance is currently centralized.
• Future Decentralization: Coinbase has expressed plans to transition Base towards a more decentralized governance structure.
• No Formal DAO Yet: Unlike some other Layer 2 solutions, Base does not yet have a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) for decision-making.

🔹 Key Takeaway: Base is still in the early stages of governance and is expected to gradually decentralize over time.

2. Adoption and Growth of Ethereum vs. Base

Ethereum’s Adoption

Ethereum has established itself as the most widely adopted blockchain for smart contracts and decentralized applications (dApps).

• Largest DeFi Ecosystem: Home to major DeFi platforms like Uniswap, Aave, and MakerDAO.
• NFT Market Leader: Ethereum powers top NFT platforms, including OpenSea and Blur.
• Enterprise Adoption: Used by companies like JP Morgan, Visa, and Microsoft for blockchain-based solutions.
• Layer 2 Expansion: Many Layer 2 networks (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base) rely on Ethereum’s security.

🔹 Key Takeaway: Ethereum’s widespread adoption makes it the foundation of the decentralized finance (DeFi) and Web3 ecosystem.

Base’s Adoption

Despite being a new Layer 2 solution, Base has quickly gained significant traction.

• Largest Layer 2 by DeFi Deposits: As of recent reports, Base has surpassed other Layer 2 networks in total value locked (TVL).
• Coinbase Integration: Base benefits from direct integration with Coinbase, giving it access to millions of users.
• DeFi & Gaming Growth: Several DeFi projects and blockchain games are launching on Base due to its low fees and scalability.
• Fastest-Growing L2: Base has experienced rapid adoption among developers and users seeking cheaper and faster transactions.

🔹 Key Takeaway: Base’s strategic advantage comes from Coinbase’s ecosystem, helping it become the largest Layer 2 network in a short time.

3. Comparison of Governance and Adoption

Feature	Ethereum (L1)	Base (L2)
Governance Model	Decentralized (Ethereum Foundation, core devs, EIPs)	Centralized (Coinbase-controlled, future decentralization planned)
Governance Participation	Developers, community, DAOs	Coinbase-led, limited community governance
DeFi & dApps	Largest ecosystem, supports major DeFi projects	Growing adoption, fueled by Coinbase integration
Total Value Locked (TVL)	Highest in DeFi, securing Layer 2 networks	Fastest-growing L2 in terms of TVL
User Adoption	Millions of active users	Rapid growth due to Coinbase’s user base

Conclusion

In summary, while Ethereum and Base are interconnected through the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) ecosystem, they exhibit key differences in scalability, transaction processing, fee structure, and adoption.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Scalability Features:

• Base offers faster block times (~2 seconds) compared to Ethereum (~12 seconds).
• Base has a higher transaction throughput (TPS), making it more efficient for scaling.

✅ Technical Differences:

• Certain EVM opcodes behave differently on Base compared to Ethereum.
• Base supports Layer 2-specific transaction types, including L1-to-L2 and L2-to-L1 interactions.

✅ Fee Model:

• Base follows a dual-fee system:
  • L2 execution fee (paid in ETH or ERC20 tokens).
  • L1 data submission fee (paid in ETH).

✅ Adoption & Growth:

• Base has seen rapid adoption in DeFi, becoming one of the largest Layer 2 networks due to its integration with Coinbase’s ecosystem.

Final Thoughts:

Ethereum remains the backbone of decentralized applications, while Base serves as an efficient scaling solution that enhances Ethereum’s usability. As the ecosystem evolves, both platforms will continue to play critical roles in blockchain adoption, innovation, and efficiency.

FAQs

1. What are the main advantages of using Base over Ethereum?
Base offers faster transactions, lower fees, and greater scalability due to its Layer 2 structure, making it ideal for high-volume applications and DeFi use cases.

2. How does the fee structure differ between Ethereum and Base?
Ethereum charges higher gas fees directly for each transaction, whereas Base uses a dual-fee model, including a low L2 execution fee (paid in ETH or ERC20 tokens) and an L1 data submission fee for posting transaction batches to Ethereum.

3. What are the key technical differences between Ethereum and Base?
Base has faster block times (~2 seconds vs. Ethereum’s ~12 seconds), higher TPS, L2-specific transaction types, and modified EVM opcode behavior to optimize performance for Layer 2.

4. How does Base handle transactions compared to Ethereum?
Base processes transactions off-chain on Layer 2, reducing congestion and fees. It then batches transactions and submits them to Ethereum’s mainnet for final settlement, ensuring security and decentralization.

5. What makes Base a more scalable option than Ethereum?
Base leverages Optimistic Rollups to increase efficiency, allowing for higher TPS, lower fees, and faster confirmation times compared to Ethereum’s direct execution model.