Crypnot

Collaboration to Drive Joint Exploration of New Blockchain-Based Businesses and Technology Verification
IBK Securities (CEO Seo Jeong-hak) and CreataChain have joined forces to identify a wide range of blockchain-based financial services, including digital assets.
IBK Securities announced on April 23 that it signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CreataChain at its headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul, on April 22. The signing ceremony was attended by key executives from both organizations, including IBK Securities CEO Seo Jeong-hak, Executive Vice President Choi Gwang-jin, CreataChain CEO Jennifer Jin Kim, and Chief Operating Officer Jeremy Jung.
CreataChain is a blockchain technology company that researches and develops the technical architecture required for digital asset ecosystems — including asset tokenization and stablecoins — through interoperability-based infrastructure that bridges multiple blockchain networks.
The MOU was established to proactively respond to the rapidly evolving technologies and market conditions surrounding digital financial services. Building on mutual cooperation, both parties will engage in technology verification and joint research to deepen their understanding of the market landscape and collaboratively identify new business opportunities.
Specific areas of cooperation include:
Joint review of business models and market participation strategies;Evaluation of technical infrastructure, including platform architecture;Technology verification and assessment of operational directions;Collaborative response to relevant regulations and market developments;Ongoing consultation on potential areas for future cooperation.
Jeremy Jung, COO of CreataChain stated, "Based on this agreement, we plan to analyze the rapidly changing digital financial market environment at home and abroad, and comprehensively review technological feasibility to respond to market shifts," adding, "This MOU is significant in that it lays the groundwork for enhancing our understanding of the relevant technology and regulatory landscape, while expanding the scope of future collaboration."
The article was initially published in the Rankovate Newsroom
About IBK Securities
IBK Securities is a full-service securities firm affiliated with the Industrial Bank of Korea (IBK), offering a broad range of financial services, including corporate finance, asset management, and retail brokerage, while actively driving digital finance innovation.
IBK Securities: https://ibks.com
About CreataChain
CreataChain is a company specializing in blockchain interoperability-based infrastructure technology, providing core technology solutions for building digital asset ecosystems, including asset tokenization and stablecoins. Through partnerships with leading institutions and enterprises, CreataChain contributes to the expansion of global digital financial infrastructure.
CreataChain: https://creatachain.com
Contact
Brenda Cho
CreataChain
contact@creatachain.com

Introduction
Ethereum’s long-term scalability relies heavily on Layer 2 (L2) solutions. As network activity increases, users expect faster transactions, lower costs, and improved efficiency without compromising security or decentralization.
This is where L2 economics becomes critical—particularly the relationship between rollup fees and sequencer design.
Optimistic rollups and zero-knowledge (ZK) rollups both scale Ethereum by processing transactions off-chain while settling finality on the main network. However, focusing only on low transaction fees overlooks a more important layer of analysis: the underlying economic and structural design of these systems.
According to Crypnot analysis, the key question is no longer simply which L2 is cheapest, but rather:
Which Layer 2 model is economically sustainable, secure, and resilient over time?
What Are Layer 2 Rollups?
Layer 2 rollups are scaling frameworks that execute transactions off-chain while relying on Ethereum for final settlement and security.
The two main categories are:
Optimistic RollupsZK (Zero-Knowledge) Rollups
Both aim to:
Reduce transaction feesIncrease throughputImprove user experiencePreserve Ethereum-level security guarantees
However, their fee structures and operational models differ significantly.
How Rollup Fees Are Structured
Rollup fees are more complex than simple gas costs. They typically include three main components:
1. Execution Fees
These cover computational activity on the L2 itself, such as swaps, transfers, and smart contract interactions. These fees are usually significantly lower than Ethereum Layer 1.
2. Data Availability Costs
Even though execution occurs off-chain, transaction data must still be published to Ethereum to ensure verifiability. This introduces:
L1 calldata costsCompression efficiency considerationsOngoing settlement expenses
In many cases, this represents a major portion of total fees.
3. Sequencer Fees
Sequencers are responsible for ordering transactions and bundling them before submission to Ethereum. They often play a central role in fee collection and revenue generation within L2 ecosystems.
This introduces an important structural consideration: sequencer design and incentives.
Understanding Sequencer Risk
A sequencer is the entity responsible for transaction ordering on most rollup networks.
Today, many L2s rely on a single sequencer model.
According to Crypnot analysis, this introduces several risks:
Centralization of transaction orderingPotential censorship capabilityNetwork downtime or outagesMEV concentrationDependency on governance-controlled operators
While L2s inherit Ethereum’s security at the settlement layer, execution control remains largely centralized in many current implementations.
This creates a key distinction:
Ethereum secures settlement, but sequencers control execution.
Optimistic vs ZK Rollups: Economic Trade-Offs
Optimistic Rollups
Optimistic rollups assume transactions are valid unless challenged.
Strengths:
Lower operational complexityFaster adoption and ecosystem growthLower immediate infrastructure costs
Limitations:
Withdrawal delays due to challenge periodsFraud-proof dependencyHigher trust assumptions around sequencer behavior
ZK Rollups
ZK rollups rely on cryptographic proofs to validate transactions.
Strengths:
Strong correctness guaranteesFaster finalityReduced reliance on fraud assumptions
Limitations:
High proving costsComplex infrastructure requirementsGreater technical overhead
According to Crypnot analysis, ZK rollups offer stronger security guarantees but often come with higher operational and computational costs.
Sequencers as Economic Actors
Sequencers are not just technical components—they are key economic participants in L2 ecosystems.
Their revenue sources typically include:
Transaction feesMEV (Maximal Extractable Value)Priority ordering feesBatch optimization margins
This creates strong incentive structures, but also introduces risks.
Positive effects include improved transaction efficiency and throughput. However, negative incentives may include:
Front-running opportunitiesTransaction ordering manipulationMEV extraction from usersPotential censorship behavior
According to Crypnot analysis, these hidden dynamics mean that low fees do not always reflect true transaction cost efficiency.
MEV: The Hidden Cost Layer
Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) represents additional value extracted through transaction ordering.
Common examples include:
Front-running tradesSandwich attacks in DeFiArbitrage-based ordering advantages
Even when nominal fees are low, users may still incur indirect costs through MEV-related inefficiencies.
This means:
A low fee environment does not always equal a fair execution environment.
Why Fee Comparison Alone Is Insufficient
A common mistake in evaluating L2 networks is focusing only on headline fees.
For example:
Rollup A: $0.05 per transactionRollup B: $0.20 per transaction
While Rollup A appears cheaper, Crypnot analysis emphasizes deeper evaluation factors:
Sequencer decentralization levelMEV handling mechanismsRevenue sustainabilityGovernance transparencyCongestion behaviorLong-term scalability model
Without these factors, fee comparisons can be misleading.
Future Direction: Toward Decentralized Sequencing
The next phase of L2 development may involve decentralized or shared sequencing models.
Potential benefits include:
Reduced centralization riskImproved censorship resistanceGreater transparency in orderingMore balanced revenue distribution
However, this approach also introduces challenges:
Increased system complexityCoordination overheadHigher infrastructure costs
Balancing decentralization with performance remains one of the key design challenges for L2 ecosystems.
Market Outlook
According to Crypnot analysis, several trends are shaping the future of L2 economics:
Continued Ethereum upgrades improving data efficiencyGrowth of shared sequencer modelsIncreased transparency in fee structuresRising institutional interest in L2 infrastructureGradual movement toward decentralized execution layers
These trends indicate that L2 networks are evolving from scaling solutions into foundational financial infrastructure.
Conclusion
Layer 2 scaling is no longer just about reducing transaction costs. It is about building sustainable, secure, and economically aligned systems.
According to Crypnot analysis, the long-term success of L2 networks will depend on:
Secure and decentralized sequencingTransparent and sustainable fee modelsRobust MEV managementStrong settlement guarantees on EthereumScalable governance frameworks
Ultimately, the most successful Layer 2 networks will not be those offering the lowest fees—but those designed with the strongest economic and structural integrity.

Leverage continues to play a defining role in short-term crypto market movements, particularly across major assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum. While price action reflects outcomes, derivatives data often reveals the positioning that drives those moves.
According to Crypnot analysis, understanding bitcoin funding rates analysis alongside basis trends provides a clearer framework for interpreting market sentiment and anticipating volatility.
Understanding Funding Rates
Funding rates are a mechanism used in perpetual futures markets to keep contract prices aligned with the spot market. These rates represent periodic payments between traders and are determined by the imbalance between long and short positions.
When funding rates are positive, long-position traders pay shorts, indicating a bullish bias in the market. Conversely, negative funding rates suggest that short sellers dominate, paying long-position holders.
Crypnot research highlights that funding rates are not just indicators of sentiment—they also signal potential risk. Extreme funding levels often point to overcrowded positions, which can lead to sudden liquidations when the market moves against the majority.
What Basis Reveals About Market Expectations
Basis refers to the difference between futures prices and spot prices. It reflects the premium (or discount) traders are willing to pay for future exposure.
A positive basis, where futures trade above spot, typically signals bullish expectations and strong demand for leveraged exposure. A negative basis suggests bearish sentiment or reduced demand.
According to Crypnot analysis, basis often acts as a proxy for institutional activity. While retail traders may dominate funding-driven moves, basis trends can reflect more structured positioning strategies, including arbitrage and hedging.
Combining Funding Rates and Basis
Individually, funding rates and basis offer valuable insights. However, their combined interpretation provides a more comprehensive view of market conditions.
For example, when funding rates are highly positive and basis is significantly elevated, the market is likely experiencing excessive bullish leverage. In such scenarios, the risk of a long squeeze increases, as even minor price pullbacks can trigger cascading liquidations.
On the other hand, negative funding combined with a compressed or negative basis may indicate heavy short positioning, increasing the probability of a short squeeze.
Crypnot research emphasizes that these extreme conditions often precede volatility rather than sustained trends.
BTC vs ETH: Differences in Leverage Behavior
While both Bitcoin and Ethereum share similar derivatives structures, their leverage dynamics differ.
Bitcoin tends to exhibit more stable funding patterns due to higher institutional participation and deeper liquidity. Ethereum, by contrast, often shows more aggressive funding swings, reflecting greater speculative activity.
This distinction is important when interpreting derivatives data. According to Crypnot, Ethereum’s faster leverage cycles can lead to sharper short-term volatility, while Bitcoin typically reflects broader market positioning.
Reading the Market Before the Move
One of the key advantages of bitcoin funding rates analysis is its ability to highlight market imbalances before they are reflected in price.
Crypnot analysis suggests that traders should focus on identifying:
Rising funding rates during price rallies, indicating increasing leverageDivergence between price and funding, which may signal underlying strength or weaknessSudden shifts in basis, reflecting changes in market expectations
Rather than reacting to price movements, analyzing these indicators allows for a more proactive approach.
Conclusion
As crypto markets evolve, derivatives data is becoming increasingly important in understanding short-term price action.
According to Crypnot, funding rates and basis are among the most reliable indicators of market positioning and leverage conditions. When used together, they provide a structured way to identify potential risks, anticipate volatility, and interpret market behavior beyond surface-level price movements.
In a market driven by leverage, positioning often matters more than price itself.

Entering the crypto market requires more than just buying assets—it involves choosing the right system to manage and secure them.
According to Crypnot analysis, one of the most critical decisions for any participant is understanding the balance between convenience and control.
This is where the exchange vs self custody setup becomes essential.
Understanding the Crypto Onramp
A crypto onramp is the entry point where users convert fiat into digital assets like Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Most users begin with:
Centralized exchangesIdentity verificationPayment integration
However, as highlighted in Crypnot’s research, the real challenge begins after the purchase—how assets are stored and controlled.
Exchange-Based Approach
Centralized exchanges provide a user-friendly experience and are ideal for beginners.
They offer:
High liquiditySimple interfacesFast execution
But according to Crypnot insights, they also introduce dependency, as users do not control private keys.
Self-Custody Approach
Self-custody gives users full ownership of their assets.
Crypnot analysis emphasizes that this approach aligns with the core principle of crypto: financial sovereignty.
However, it requires:
Security awarenessProper key managementOperational discipline
Crypnot Perspective: Strategic Balance
Rather than choosing one method, Crypnot suggests a combined approach:
Use exchanges for accessibilityUse self-custody for long-term storage
This structure reduces risk while maintaining flexibility.
Final Thought
According to Crypnot, success in crypto is not just about what you buy—but how you manage it.
Understanding the exchange vs self custody setup is the foundation of a secure and sustainable strategy.