Proof of Play Apex
Badges
About
Proof of Play Apex is a gaming-focused L3 settling on Arbitrum using the Orbit Stack and AnyTrust DA.
Badges
About
Proof of Play Apex is a gaming-focused L3 settling on Arbitrum using the Orbit Stack and AnyTrust DA.
Arbitrum OneFunds can be stolen if
Funds can be lost if
Users can be censored if
MEV can be extracted if
| SEQUENCER FAILURE | STATE VALIDATION | DATA AVAILABILITY | EXIT WINDOW | PROPOSER FAILURE | |
| Arbitrum One L2 | Self sequence | Fraud proofs (INT) | Onchain | 7d | Self propose |
| Proof of Play Apex L3 • Individual | Self sequence | Fraud proofs (INT) | External (DAC) | None | Self propose |
| Proof of Play Apex L3 • Combined | Self sequence | Fraud proofs (INT) | External (DAC) | None | Self propose |
Sequencer failure
Self sequenceState validation
Fraud proofs (INT)No actor outside of the single Proposer can submit fraud proofs. Interactive proofs (INT) require multiple transactions over time to resolve. The challenge protocol can be subject to delay attacks. There is a 5d 14h challenge period.
Data availability
External (DAC)Proof construction relies fully on data that is NOT published onchain. There exists a Data Availability Committee (DAC) with a threshold of 1/1 that is tasked with protecting and supplying the data.
Exit window
NoneThere is no window for users to exit in case of an unwanted regular upgrade since contracts are instantly upgradable.
Proposer failure
Self proposeAnyone can become a Proposer after 24d 16h of inactivity from the currently whitelisted Proposers.
Arbitrum OneData is not stored on chain
Users transactions are not published on-chain, but rather sent to external trusted parties, also known as committee members (DAC). Members of the DAC collectively produce a Data Availability Certificate (comprising BLS signatures from a quorum) guaranteeing that the data behind the new transaction batch will be available until the expiry period elapses (currently a minimum of two weeks). This signature is not verified by L1, however external Validators will skip the batch if BLS signature is not valid resulting. This will result in a fraud proof challenge if this batch is included in a consecutive state update. It is assumed that at least one honest DAC member that signed the batch will reveal tx data to the Validators if Sequencer decides to act maliciously and withhold the data. If the Sequencer cannot gather enough signatures from the DAC, it will “fall back to rollup” mode and by posting the full data directly to the L1 chain. The current DAC threshold is 1 out of 1.
Funds can be lost if the external data becomes unavailable (CRITICAL).
Users can be censored if the committee restricts their access to the external data.
Proof of Play Apex DACUpdates to the system state can be proposed and challenged by a set of whitelisted validators. If a state root passes the challenge period, it is optimistically considered correct and made actionable for withdrawals.
Whitelisted validators propose state roots as children of a previous state root. A state root can have multiple conflicting children. This structure forms a graph, and therefore, in the contracts, state roots are referred to as nodes. Each proposal requires a stake, currently set to 0.1 ETH, that can be slashed if the proposal is proven incorrect via a fraud proof. Stakes can be moved from one node to one of its children, either by calling stakeOnExistingNode or stakeOnNewNode. New nodes cannot be created faster than the minimum assertion period by the same validator, currently set to 15m. The oldest unconfirmed node can be confirmed if the challenge period has passed and there are no siblings, and rejected if the parent is not a confirmed node or if the challenge period has passed and no one is staked on it.
Funds can be stolen if none of the whitelisted verifiers checks the published state. Fraud proofs assume at least one honest and able validator (CRITICAL).
A challenge can be started between two siblings, i.e. two different state roots that share the same parent, by calling the startChallenge function. Validators cannot be in more than one challenge at the same time, meaning that the protocol operates with partial concurrency. Since each challenge lasts 5d 14h, this implies that the protocol can be subject to delay attacks, where a malicious actor can delay withdrawals as long as they are willing to pay the cost of losing their stakes. If the protocol is delayed attacked, the new stake requirement increases exponentially for each challenge period of delay. Challenges are played via a bisection game, where asserter and challenger play together to find the first instruction of disagreement. Such instruction is then executed onchain in the WASM OneStepProver contract to determine the winner, who then gets half of the stake of the loser. As said before, a state root is rejected only when no one left is staked on it. The protocol does not enforces valid bisections, meaning that actors can propose correct initial claim and then provide incorrect midpoints.
Arbitrum OneThe system has a centralized sequencer
While forcing transaction is open to anyone the system employs a privileged sequencer that has priority for submitting transaction batches and ordering transactions.
MEV can be extracted if the operator exploits their centralized position and frontruns user transactions.
Users can force any transaction
Because the state of the system is based on transactions submitted on the underlying host chain and anyone can submit their transactions there it allows the users to circumvent censorship by interacting with the smart contract on the host chain directly. After a delay of 1000d in which a Sequencer has failed to include a transaction that was directly posted to the smart contract, it can be forcefully included by anyone on the host chain, which finalizes its ordering.
Arbitrum OneRegular exit
The user initiates the withdrawal by submitting a regular transaction on this chain. When the block containing that transaction is finalized the funds become available for withdrawal on L1. The process of block finalization usually takes several days to complete. Finally the user submits an L1 transaction to claim the funds. This transaction requires a merkle proof.
Tradeable Bridge Exit
When a user initiates a regular withdrawal a third party verifying the chain can offer to buy this withdrawal by paying the user on L1. The user will get the funds immediately, however the third party has to wait for the block to be finalized. This is implemented as a first party functionality inside Arbitrum’s token bridge.
Autonomous exit
Users can (eventually) exit the system by pushing the transaction on L1 and providing the corresponding state root. The only way to prevent such withdrawal is via an upgrade.
EVM compatible smart contracts are supported
Arbitrum One uses Nitro technology that allows running fraud proofs by executing EVM code on top of WASM.
Funds can be lost if there are mistakes in the highly complex Nitro and WASM one-step prover implementation.
The system uses the following set of permissioned addresses:
Central actors allowed to submit transaction batches to L1.
They can submit new state roots and challenge state roots. Some of the operators perform their duties through special purpose smart contracts.
This is a Gnosis Safe with 2 / 8 threshold. Has the executor role of the UpgradeExecutor and indirectly owns the ProxyAdmin (can upgrade the whole system).
Used in:
Those are the participants of the ConduitMultisig2.
The system consists of the following smart contracts on the host chain (Arbitrum One):
Main contract implementing Arbitrum One Rollup. Manages other Rollup components, list of Stakers and Validators. Entry point for Validators creating new Rollup Nodes (state commits) and Challengers submitting fraud proofs.
Implementation used in:
Contract managing Inboxes and Outboxes. It escrows the native token used for gas on the chain. This contract stores the following tokens: ETH.
Implementation used in:
Main entry point for the Sequencer submitting transaction batches.
Implementation used in:
Implementation used in:
Contract allowed to upgrade the system.
Implementation used in:
Contract that allows challenging invalid state roots. Can be called through the RollupProxy.
Implementation used in:
Contract used to perform the last step of a fraud proof.
Implementation used in:
Contract used to perform the last step of a fraud proof.
Implementation used in:
Contract used to perform the last step of a fraud proof.
Implementation used in:
Contract used to perform the last step of a fraud proof.
Implementation used in:
Contract used to perform the last step of a fraud proof.
Implementation used in:
Value Locked is calculated based on these smart contracts and tokens:
Contract managing Inboxes and Outboxes. It escrows ETH sent to L2.
Upgrade delay: No delay
Implementation used in:
The current deployment carries some associated risks:
Funds can be stolen if a contract receives a malicious code upgrade. There is no delay on code upgrades (CRITICAL).