Skip to main content

config-data-posting-costs

In Arbitrum chains, data posting costs refer to the fees incurred for submitting compressed batches of L2 transaction data to Ethereum (L1) as calldata, ensuring data availability (DA) for security, fraud proofs, and state reconstruction. This process is a core aspect of Arbitrum's optimistic Rollup design, where the sequencer aggregates transactions, compresses them (e.g., using Brotli for efficiency), and posts them to L1 contracts. Cost proration occurs across transactions in the batch and forms part of the overall L2 fee structure. For Arbitrum One, full calldata post to Ethereum for maximum security; Arbitrum Nova uses AnyTrust with a Data Availability Committee (DAC) to post only DACerts to L1 while storing data offchain, significantly reducing costs (e.g., ~10x cheaper for data-heavy apps); custom Arbitrum chains allow flexible DA options like Ethereum calldata, AnyTrust, or integrations with alternatives like Celestia. Costs fluctuate with Ethereum gas prices and batch efficiency, but are typically fractions of a cent per transaction; recent proposals like Dynamic Pricing aim to treat calldata as a distinct resource dimension, enabling more targeted fee adjustments based on demand.

Pros of Data Posting Costs on Arbitrum Chains​

  • Enhanced Security and Trustlessness: Posting to Ethereum L1 inherits its robust DA and consensus, allowing anyone to reconstruct the L2 state for fraud challenges or exits, providing stronger guarantees than off-chain alternatives without additional trust assumptions.
  • Cost Efficiency Through Compression and Batching: Compression reduces calldata size (e.g., by 5-10x), lowering per-transaction costs to cents or less compared to direct L1 execution, making high-throughput apps like DeFi or gaming viable while scaling Ethereum.
  • Flexibility in Custom Chains: Arbitrum chains allow tailoring DA methods (e.g., AnyTrust for lower costs in trust-minimized setups or third-party DA for further optimization), enabling projects to balance cost with security needs without forking the core protocol.
  • Predictability and Fairness with Updates: Innovations like Dynamic Pricing separate calldata costs from other resources (e.g., computation), stabilizing fees by adjusting based on demand and rewarding efficient data usage, potentially reducing overall volatility.
  • Lower Overhead for General Use: Compared to ZK rollups (which post proofs instead), optimistic posting is cheaper for routine operations, as fraud proofs are rare, and batches amortize costs across many transactions.

Cons of Data Posting Costs on Arbitrum Chains​

  • Dependency on L1 Gas Volatility: Ethereum's gas prices dictate the costs, which can spike during congestion (e.g., making posting expensive and unpredictable), indirectly raising L2 fees despite compression.
  • Added Overhead for Small Transactions: The prorated L1 fee plus sequencer margin can make low-value or simple txs relatively more expensive than on pure L1, especially if batches are small or data-heavy.
  • Trade-offs in Alternative Models: Options like AnyTrust reduce costs but introduce trust in the DAC, potentially compromising full trustlessness for data-heavy apps.
  • Complexity in Fee Calculation: Users must account for both L2 and L1 components, and updates like Dynamic Pricing add layers (e.g., multi-dimensional multipliers), potentially confusing developers or requiring more sophisticated gas estimation tools.