Hey @tkstanczak,
Appreciate your insights on distinguishing between OP stack-based chains and OP Mainnet within the Superchain vision (including for instance Base and Zora). To expand on that, as far as I’m aware, the idea of decentralizing the sequencer using proof of governance as leader election mechanism specifically applies to OP chains that integrate with the Superchain under the Law of Chains. This isn’t necessarily true for all OP stack-based chains.
Gotta ask some dumb questions here:
Considering that shared sequencers (e.g Espresso) are run by lightweight nodes performing primarily stateless operations (i.e., state ordering) and given that builders are sophisticated entities with significant hardware requirements. How can they effectively replace builders?
Used to have that mental model when thinking about PBS for L2s: perceiving shared sequencer as shared proposer and let’s say SUAVE as shared builder 
On a general note, agree that PBS will be essential, specially to prevent the negative externalities that happened during Ethereum’s pre-PBS days, such as :
- Failed transactions
- Lower proposer revenue
- Priority gas auctions
- Sandwich attacks
It’s crucial to learn from it to avoid these issues from reoccurring. Clearly defining the roles of builders and proposers can:
- Boost protocol revenue
- Reduce negative repercussions for the network and the users.