Layer 2 Crypto Scaling Solutions Compared 2026: Arbitrum vs Optimism vs Base

Bitcoin sits at $76,247 on May 1, 2026 — down 52% from its October 2025 all-time high of $126,198 — and Ethereum Layer 2 networks are processing more transactions daily than Ethereum mainnet itself. The L2 landscape has consolidated around three dominant players — Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base — and together they manage over $28 billion in total value locked. But with fees effectively at zero post-Pectra upgrade, the competitive dynamics have shifted from cost to ecosystem quality, developer experience, and governance. This guide breaks down exactly which L2 to use, which to invest in, and where the real value is in 2026’s Layer 2 ecosystem. Key stat: Base has grown to 4.2 million daily active addresses in under 2 years — the fastest user growth of any L2 ever — but Arbitrum still leads DeFi TVL at $7.8B. The winner isn’t obvious, and it depends entirely on what you’re trying to do.

Table of Contents

• The State of Layer 2 in Q1 2026
• Arbitrum One: The DeFi Capital
• Optimism and the Superchain Vision
• Base: The Coinbase Distribution Machine
• Head-to-Head Comparison: All Metrics
• Which L2 Should You Use? By Use Case
• Layer 2 Token Investment Analysis
• Layer 2 vs Layer 1: Is Arbitrum Better Than Ethereum?
• Emerging L2 Players and What They Mean
• The Future of Scaling: 2026 and Beyond

Figure 1: Layer 2 TVL comparison Q1 2026 — Arbitrum leads, but the gap is narrowing as Base surges in user growth.

The State of Layer 2 in Q1 2026

Ethereum Layer 2 networks have graduated from experimental scaling experiments to the primary engines of DeFi activity and on-chain transactions. The data is unequivocal: the three dominant L2s — Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism — now process more daily transactions than Ethereum mainnet itself, and the gap continues to widen quarter after quarter.

What makes 2026 a particularly fascinating moment in the L2 narrative is that the fundamental economics of the space have completely shifted. Following Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade, which dramatically optimized gas costs across the entire network, average L2 transaction costs collapsed to a range of $0.007 to $0.012. For most practical purposes, this is zero. The fee differentials that once drove users to chase cheaper L2s have evaporated almost entirely. Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism all charge fractions of a cent per transaction. When every option costs less than a single click, the competitive landscape shifts to something far more meaningful: ecosystem quality, developer tooling, governance design, and network effects.

The numbers tell a story of three very different approaches to the same problem. Arbitrum has built what might be best described as the de facto DeFi capital — it’s where the biggest protocols live, where the deepest liquidity pools converge, and where institutional capital comes to deploy. Base, by contrast, is unmistakably a consumer platform, built around the distribution power of Coinbase’s massive user base. Optimism is taking the widest-angle view of all, pursuing a network-of-networks strategy through its OP Stack that extends far beyond its own L2.

This isn’t a convergence market. The L2 landscape in 2026 is better understood as a set of complementary platforms, each solving different aspects of the scaling challenge and each attracting different kinds of users and developers. Understanding which platform fits which need is the single most valuable skill for anyone navigating this space.

Figure 2: Arbitrum’s technical architecture — Nitro VM with Stylus support for WASM-based smart contracts in Rust and C++.

Arbitrum One: The DeFi Capital

Arbitrum One holds a position in the L2 ecosystem that is difficult to quantify but impossible to ignore. It is the premier destination for decentralized finance on Ethereum, and this is not a coincidence. It is the result of deliberate architectural decisions, first-mover advantage, and an ecosystem strategy that prioritized depth over breadth from the very beginning.

What makes Arbitrum special is not any single feature, but the way these features compound over time. The platform’s technical foundation, the Nitro VM, represents one of the most elegant engineering achievements in the space. By collapsing the full Arbitrum stack into a single EVM-equivalent WASM binary, Nitro dramatically reduced the cost of running a validator while maintaining full EVM compatibility. But the real breakthrough came with Stylus — the ability to write smart contracts in Rust and C++ and deploy them as EVM-compatible contracts at dramatically lower gas costs. This is not a theoretical advantage for developers who want to leverage existing tooling and libraries outside the Solidity ecosystem. It is a genuine competitive moat that separates Arbitrum from nearly every other L2.

The DeFi ecosystem that has grown around Arbitrum is equally distinctive. GMX, the platform’s most famous protocol, alone accounts for approximately $1.2 billion of Arbitrum’s total TVL and processes roughly $4.8 billion in monthly perpetual trading volume — figures that compete directly with mid-tier centralized exchanges. For context, GMX is the largest decentralized perpetuals exchange on any chain, not just any L2. The depth of liquidity available on GMX means large traders can execute complex positions with minimal slippage, a feature that attracts both retail and institutional participants.

Then there is Pendle Finance, which manages $1.8 billion in yield-bearing instruments on Arbitrum and provides what is arguably the most sophisticated fixed-rate infrastructure layer in all of DeFi. Institutional allocators — pension funds, family offices, and treasury operations — depend on Pendle’s ability to tokenize yield and trade it as a fixed-rate instrument. This is the kind of infrastructure that doesn’t make headlines, but it is essential plumbing for the broader financial system building on-chain.

Arbitrum’s Orbit framework adds another dimension to its value proposition. Orbit enables the creation of dedicated L3 chains that settle back to Arbitrum One, creating a hierarchical scaling architecture. Projects like Treasure Chain (gaming) and Xai Games (gaming) have built their own chains on Orbit, each paying fees to Arbitrum in ETH. This creates a sustainable revenue model that doesn’t depend on token emissions or speculative dynamics — it’s a real network effect where the L2 captures value from the L3s that settle to it.

Arbitrum’s Weaknesses

No analysis of Arbitrum is complete without acknowledging its genuine challenges. The ARB DAO governance has been one of the more contentious governance experiments in crypto. The Long-Term Incentives Pilot Program (LTIPP), which allocated $71.4 million in ARB tokens over just 12 weeks in 2024, sparked intense debate about token dilution and whether the rewards were sufficient to justify the emissions. The governance structure remains complex, with multiple tiers of delegation and a treasury that some participants feel is underutilized relative to its potential.

From a user activity standpoint, Arbitrum’s 820,000 daily active addresses pale in comparison to Base’s 4.2 million. But this is not necessarily a weakness — it reflects Arbitrum’s character as a capital platform rather than a consumer platform. When you are managing billions in TVL and processing institutional-grade perpetuals volume, your daily active user count will naturally be lower than a platform designed for social tokens, meme coins, and viral consumer applications. The question is not whether Arbitrum has fewer users, but whether its users bring more capital per user. The data strongly suggests they do.

Video Deep-Dive: Arbitrum vs Optimism vs Base in 2026

For those who prefer video content, the following technical deep-dive compares the three dominant L2s across architecture, TVL, governance, and ecosystem maturity:

Recommended: Technical comparison of Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base covering Nitro vs OP Stack, TVL analysis, governance models, and use-case recommendations.

Figure 3: L2 governance models — decentralized DAO (Arbitrum), centralized corporate (Base), and bicameral collective (Optimism).

Optimism and the Superchain Vision

Where Arbitrum chose depth and Base chose distribution, Optimism chose network effects. Its strategy has been building not one L2 but a sprawling network of L2s connected through a common infrastructure layer called the OP Stack — collectively known as the Superchain. The ecosystem now includes Optimism itself, plus chains like Mode, Zora, Mint, and dozens more, each sharing the same underlying technology stack.

This approach has a fundamental strategic logic: each new OP Stack chain strengthens the entire ecosystem. Unlike Arbitrum’s approach, which centers value around a single chain, the Superchain model distributes value across many chains while keeping them interconnected. The shared security model, common message passing, and interoperable token standards mean that a user on one OP Stack chain can interact with protocols on another with near-zero friction. This is a network effects play that could compound dramatically if the ecosystem continues its current growth trajectory.

Optimism’s bicameral governance system through the OP Collective is one of the most ambitious governance designs in all of crypto. The system splits responsibilities between two chambers: the Technical Council, which handles protocol upgrades and core infrastructure decisions, and the Steward Council, which manages treasury allocation and broader policy. The intent is to balance technical rigor with community input — preventing either technocrats from making decisions without community buy-in or the community from making technical decisions without proper expertise. Whether this system will hold under stress is an open question, but it represents a genuinely novel approach to decentralized governance that has attracted attention far beyond the L2 space.

The dominant DeFi protocol on Optimism is Velodrome, a decentralized exchange built on Solidly’s ve(3,3) tokenomics model. Velodrome’s innovative approach to liquidity provisioning — where users lock votes to direct emissions toward specific pools — has proven effective at attracting and retaining liquidity. The model has been widely copied across other chains, making Velodrome something of a template for next-generation DEX design.

Optimism’s positioning as the public goods and gaming L2 is a deliberate strategy. Its Superchain model is particularly attractive for gaming projects that want their own dedicated chain but don’t want to build security infrastructure from scratch. The Treasure ecosystem, anchored by the original Treasure DAO, has been one of the most prominent examples, demonstrating how a gaming project can operate its own L3 while benefiting from Optimism’s shared security and liquidity.

The Superchain’s Trade-offs

The Superchain model is powerful, but it comes with trade-offs. The fragmentation of liquidity across dozens of chains is the most frequently cited concern. When liquidity is spread thin across many chains, each individual chain may have shallower order books and less efficient pricing than a single consolidated chain. This is the classic trade-off between network effects and liquidity depth — and it is one that Optimism’s governance will need to navigate carefully as the ecosystem grows.

The governance challenges of managing a bicameral system with dozens of constituent chains are also non-trivial. Getting the Technical Council and Steward Council to align on major upgrades, especially when different OP Stack chains have competing interests, requires coordination mechanisms that are still being stress-tested in real time.

Base: The Coinbase Distribution Machine

Launched in August 2023, Base has achieved something that no other L2 in history has accomplished: the fastest user growth of any Layer 2 network ever built. In under two years, Base has reached 4.2 million daily active addresses — a number that would have been unthinkable for any L2 project two years ago, before the Pectra upgrade collapsed fees to near-zero and the entire competitive landscape reconfigured itself around ecosystem rather than cost.

Base’s secret weapon is brutally simple: Coinbase’s 110 million verified user base. Base is the default L2 in the Coinbase Wallet app. Every single Coinbase user can access Base with a single click. This is a distribution advantage that no amount of venture capital funding or marketing spend could replicate. It is a distribution moat in the truest sense — built on the foundation of an existing business relationship between Coinbase and its customers that spans years and billions of dollars in transaction volume.

From Base’s perspective, the Coinbase integration serves a dual purpose. First, it provides an instant user base that no greenfield L2 could ever hope to build. Second, it creates a natural on-ramp for traditional finance users who are already comfortable with Coinbase’s compliance framework, KYC processes, and user experience. When a Coinbase user wants to explore DeFi, Base is the path of least resistance — zero setup, zero configuration, zero friction.

The platform’s top protocol, Aerodrome, has become the dominant DEX on Base with over $1 billion in TVL. Built on Solidly’s ve(3,3) model, Aerodrome’s governance token (AERO) drives liquidity mining across the entire Base DeFi ecosystem. The fact that Aerodrome has attracted $1B in TVL in such a short time speaks to both the effectiveness of the ve(3,3) model and the quality of Base’s user base — there are real users with real capital deploying on the platform, not just speculators chasing token emissions.

The No-Token Strategy

Base’s decision to launch without a native token is its most controversial and arguably most consequential strategic choice. This is simultaneously Base’s greatest strength and its biggest structural weakness.

The strength: Without a token, there is no speculative token trading. This stabilizes the ecosystem, prevents the kind of volatile emissions cycles that have plagued token-driven L2s, and ensures that capital flows into the ecosystem are driven by genuine demand rather than speculative token dynamics. The absence of a token means that Base’s growth metrics — TVL, user growth, protocol revenue — are not distorted by token price speculation.

The weakness: There is no speculative investment vehicle for those who want direct exposure to Base’s future success. If you believe Base will become the dominant consumer L2, there is no Base token to buy. You have to invest in Base indirectly through Ethereum (ETH) exposure, which introduces correlation with the broader Ethereum ecosystem that may or may not align with your thesis about Base specifically.

Figure 4: Transaction volume growth Q1 2026 — Base’s user growth trajectory outpaces both Arbitrum and Optimism.

Head-to-Head Comparison: All Metrics

Understanding how Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism compare requires looking at the full spectrum of metrics — not just TVL or daily users, but the complete picture of ecosystem maturity, governance quality, technical innovation, and strategic positioning. The following tables break down these dimensions in detail.

The comparison reveals a landscape where each platform excels in different dimensions. Arbitrum dominates in TVL and DeFi depth, Base leads in user growth and transaction volume, and Optimism pursues the widest network effect strategy through its Superchain model. None of these platforms is universally “better” — they are simply optimized for different use cases and different kinds of value creation.

Which L2 Should You Use? By Use Case

Perhaps the most practical question for anyone navigating the L2 landscape is not which L2 is “best” in an absolute sense, but which L2 is best for your specific needs. The following guide breaks down the optimal choice for common use cases.

For DeFi traders and perpetuals enthusiasts, Arbitrum is the clear choice. The combination of GMX’s deep liquidity, Aave’s institutional-grade lending markets, and Uniswap’s canonical deployment on Arbitrum creates a trading environment that is simply unrivaled. If you are deploying capital, this is where the liquidity is.

For consumer applications and social DeFi, Base is unmatched. The 4.2 million daily active addresses represent not just quantity but quality — these are real users accessing the platform through Coinbase’s wallet infrastructure, many of whom are new to crypto entirely. For projects building consumer-facing DeFi, social tokens, or viral applications, Base’s distribution advantage is insurmountable.

For gaming and public goods, Optimism’s Superchain model offers the most flexible foundation. Projects that need their own dedicated chain but want shared security and interoperability find the OP Stack to be the most mature and well-documented option available. The Treasure gaming ecosystem is the most prominent example, but dozens of other projects have followed.

Layer 2 Token Investment Analysis

The question of L2 token investment introduces an important distinction: of the three dominant L2s, only Arbitrum (ARB) and Optimism (OP) have tradeable governance tokens. Base has no token, which means investment in Base’s future success requires indirect exposure through Ethereum (ETH) or through protocols that are deeply integrated with the Base ecosystem.

The ARB token investment thesis centers on Arbitrum’s continued dominance in DeFi and the revenue-generating potential of its Orbit L3 framework. As more chains launch on Orbit and pay fees to Arbitrum in ETH, the ecosystem generates real economic value. The question is whether that value flows to ARB token holders through governance rights, fee sharing, or other mechanisms — and the answer to that question is still evolving. The LTIPP emissions program that allocated $71.4M in 12 weeks raised legitimate concerns about token dilution that the DAO will need to address to maintain investor confidence.

The OP token investment thesis is the network effects play: as the Superchain grows and more chains adopt the OP Stack, the value of the OP token as the governance and coordination mechanism for the entire ecosystem should increase. The bicameral governance model is designed to attract institutional interest by providing both technical credibility and community buy-in. The risk is that governance challenges on a multi-chain system prove harder to solve than initially anticipated.

For Base exposure, the most practical approach for most investors is simply holding ETH. Because L2s settle their state proofs back to Ethereum mainnet, and because Base’s success is fundamentally tied to Ethereum’s success as the settlement layer, ETH provides indirect but comprehensive exposure to the L2 ecosystem. The correlation is strong: as L2 activity grows, the demand for ETH as a settlement layer increases, and the broader Ethereum ecosystem becomes more valuable.

It is worth noting that some investors view the governance rights embedded in ARB and OP tokens as additional value that ETH holders do not possess in the L2 ecosystem. If you believe governance rights will become more valuable over time — particularly as L2s develop fee-sharing mechanisms or revenue distribution models — then holding L2 tokens directly may be preferable to indirect ETH exposure alone.

Figure 5: L2 token investment landscape — ARB and OP as investment vehicles, with risk profiles and market dynamics for 2026.

Layer 2 vs Layer 1: Is Arbitrum Better Than Ethereum?

This question comes up frequently in L2 discussions, and the answer is more nuanced than most people expect. The right question is not which is “better” but which serves which purpose. Arbitrum and Ethereum mainnet are not competitors — they are complements, each designed for a fundamentally different role in the Ethereum ecosystem.

Ethereum mainnet is the security layer. This is where the most important state transitions happen, where the highest-value settlements occur, and where the ultimate truth of the network is established. Mainnet fees range from approximately $5 to $50 per transaction, but those fees buy you the highest level of security available in the decentralized world. When billions of dollars are at stake, Ethereum’s $50 fee is not an obstacle — it is an insurance premium.

L2s are the execution layer. This is where the actual user activity happens. This is where millions of people interact with DeFi protocols, trade tokens, provide liquidity, and execute complex financial strategies. L2 transaction fees average between $0.007 and $0.012 — effectively zero for the vast majority of use cases. The L2s handle the heavy lifting of computation and data availability while periodically settling state proofs back to Ethereum mainnet.

The L2-to-L1 ratio is now approximately 3:1 in terms of transaction count — Ethereum mainnet processes fewer transactions than the combined L2s. But Ethereum still processes more value because L2s settle their state proofs back to L1. The relationship is symbiotic: L2s drive more activity to Ethereum by increasing the total number of transactions that need to be settled, while Ethereum provides the security foundation that makes L2 activity credible and trustless.

The analogy that works best is the relationship between a stock exchange and the clearing house. The exchange (L2) is where trading happens, with high speed and low cost. The clearing house (L1) is where the ultimate settlement and security live. Neither is “better” — they are different layers of the same system, each optimized for its role.

Emerging L2 Players and What They Mean

While Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism dominate the headlines, the broader L2 landscape is far more diverse. Understanding the emerging players and their positioning is essential for anyone building a comprehensive view of the ecosystem.

zkSync Era represents the zero-knowledge rollup approach, which is fundamentally different from the optimistic rollup model used by all three dominant L2s. zkSync’s ZK technology theoretically offers faster finality and stronger cryptographic guarantees than optimistic rollups, which rely on a dispute period. zkSync remains relevant in specific verticals, particularly among developers who prioritize ZK technology for its security properties. However, it has lost meaningful developer mindshare to the OP Stack and Arbitrum Orbit ecosystems, which benefit from larger networks, more tooling maturity, and deeper liquidity.

Polygon zkEVM has struggled to maintain its position in a landscape where Arbitrum’s Orbit framework and Base’s ecosystem growth have consumed much of the competitive oxygen. Polygon remains relevant for enterprise use cases, where its long history of working with traditional finance institutions provides a competitive advantage. However, in the consumer and DeFi spaces, Polygon has ceded significant ground to the three dominant L2s.

Perhaps the most significant emerging trend is the continuous launch of new OP Stack chains. Every few weeks, a new chain launches on the OP Stack, each one adding to the Superchain’s network effects. This is both the Superchain’s greatest strength and its most frequently cited challenge: each new chain adds to the ecosystem’s total transaction volume and user base, but also fragments liquidity and complicates the user experience. The key question for Optimism’s governance is how to manage this tension as the ecosystem continues to grow.

The Future of Scaling: 2026 and Beyond

The Layer 2 landscape in 2026 is at an inflection point. The fee competition that defined the early L2 era has been rendered moot by the Pectra upgrade’s gas optimizations, and the competition has shifted to a deeper and more durable set of factors. Here is where the landscape is headed.

Fee parity is permanent. With Pectra’s gas optimizations, the era of meaningful fee differentials between L2s is over. Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism all charge fractions of a cent per transaction, and there is no near-term technology change that will dramatically alter this dynamic. The competition is no longer about cost — it is about ecosystem quality, liquidity depth, governance design, and network effects. These are the factors that will determine which L2s thrive and which fade, and they are far more durable competitive dimensions than fee differentials.

Arbitrum’s Orbit flywheel is accelerating. As more L3 chains launch on Orbit, they pay fees to Arbitrum in ETH, creating a sustainable revenue model that doesn’t depend on token emissions. This is a fundamental shift in how L2 economics work — moving from an emissions-dependent model to a fee-capture model. If the Orbit flywheel continues to spin, Arbitrum could develop a revenue profile that is significantly more stable and predictable than its current token-emission model.

Base’s user moat continues to widen. Coinbase’s 110 million verified users represent a distribution advantage that is effectively insurmountable for any competitor. Every month, more users discover on-chain DeFi through Base simply because it is the default option in their Coinbase wallet. This is not a transient advantage — it is built on the foundation of a business relationship that spans years and billions of dollars in transaction volume. The question is not whether Base will maintain its user lead, but how the rest of the ecosystem will respond to that lead.

Optimism’s Superchain plays the long game. The network effects play is inherently slow-compounding. Each new OP Stack chain adds users, developers, and liquidity to the ecosystem, and the value of interoperability between chains increases with each addition. The key risk is that liquidity fragmentation grows faster than network effects in the near term, creating a period of underperformance that could undermine confidence in the strategy. But if the Superchain model reaches critical mass, the resulting network effects could be enormous.

Multi-chain is inevitable. No single L2 will “win” the scaling race. The ecosystem is too diverse, the use cases too varied, and the competitive advantages of each platform too distinct for any single chain to dominate all use cases. The future is multi-chain, and smart users and protocols will use all three L2s — Arbitrum for DeFi depth, Base for consumer reach, and Optimism for gaming and public goods — leveraging each for its respective strengths.

For investors, this means a portfolio approach to L2 exposure rather than a pick-the-winner approach. For developers, it means building with the understanding that multi-chain deployment is not a burden but a strategic advantage. For users, it means having the flexibility to use the platform that best fits each specific need — and that flexibility is one of the greatest benefits of living through this era of scaling innovation.

Related Articles on screk.com

* Decentralized AI & AI Crypto Tokens to Watch April 2026
* Crypto Regulation in 2026 Q2
* Crypto Arbitrage Strategies for 2026
* Crypto ETFs Complete Guide 2026
* Crypto Lending vs Staking in 2026

SEO Keywords & Meta

• Primary keyword: layer 2 crypto scaling solutions 2026
• Secondary keywords: Arbitrum vs Optimism vs Base, Ethereum L2 comparison 2026, best layer 2 blockchain 2026, L2 TVL comparison, Arbitrum vs Base vs Optimism fees
• Long-tail keywords: which layer 2 is best 2026, Arbitrum TVL vs Base TVL 2026, Ethereum Layer 2 DeFi comparison, OP Stack vs Arbitrum Orbit, Base L2 vs Arbitrum L2 2026
• Meta title: Layer 2 Crypto Scaling Solutions Compared 2026: Arbitrum vs Optimism vs Base | screk.com
• Meta description: Complete comparison of Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base — the three dominant Ethereum Layer 2 networks. TVL, fees, ecosystem, governance, and which to use for every use case in 2026.

Schema Markup (JSON-LD)

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "Article",
  "name": "Layer 2 Crypto Scaling Solutions Compared 2026: Arbitrum vs Optimism vs Base",
  "description": "Complete comparison of the three dominant Ethereum Layer 2 networks — Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base — covering TVL, fees, ecosystems, governance, and investment analysis.",
  "articleSection": "Cryptocurrency",
  "datePublished": "2026-05-01",
  "dateModified": "2026-05-01",
  "author": {
    "@type": "Organization",
    "name": "screk.com"
  },
  "publisher": {
    "@type": "Organization",
    "name": "screk.com"
  },
  "about": [
    {"@type": "Thing", "name": "Arbitrum"},
    {"@type": "Thing", "name": "Optimism"},
    {"@type": "Thing", "name": "Base (blockchain)"},
    {"@type": "Thing", "name": "Ethereum Layer 2"}
  ],
  "keywords": "layer 2 crypto scaling solutions 2026, Arbitrum vs Optimism vs Base, Ethereum L2 comparison 2026, best layer 2 blockchain 2026, L2 TVL comparison, Arbitrum vs Base vs Optimism fees",
  "mentions": {
    "@type": "HowTo",
    "name": "How to Choose a Layer 2 Network",
    "step": [
      {"@type": "HowToStep", "position": 1, "name": "Identify your use case", "text": "DeFi trading? Consumer app? Gaming? Each L2 excels in different areas."},
      {"@type": "HowToStep", "position": 2, "name": "Compare TVL and liquidity", "text": "Arbitrum ($7.8B) > Base ($5.1B) > Optimism ($4.2B)"},
      {"@type": "HowToStep", "position": 3, "name": "Check user activity", "text": "Base (4.2M daily) > Arbitrum (820K) > Optimism (680K)"},
      {"@type": "HowToStep", "position": 4, "name": "Evaluate governance model", "text": "ARB DAO (decentralized), Coinbase (centralized), OP Collective (bicameral)"},
      {"@type": "HowToStep", "position": 5, "name": "Consider token exposure", "text": "ARB and OP tradeable; Base requires indirect ETH exposure"}
    ]
  }
}