arXiv:2610.12220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An optimistic rollup is safe as long as at least one honest validator executes its state transition function (STF) and disputes any assertion that is inconsistent with the result of the execution. Allowing anyone to participate, however, does not give incentive to do so: as long as every assertion is correct, verifying assertion correctness goes unpaid. Attention mechanisms address this by paying nodes to execute the rollup's STF, regardless of whether they participate in the validation process. Since a single node operator can back many registered identities with a single execution, paying per identity does not buy execution diversity, that is, the number of operators that independently execute. In this work we provide a new modeling framework for this problem. We formalize the underlying cryptographic primitive as a new notion, arguments with registered provers, whose properties include a form of non-amortizability that, to our knowledge, has not been studied for modern succinct cryptographic proofs before. We design validation and attention reward mechanisms and analyze them as two coupled Tullock-like contests, in which an operator pays once for the required execution and then chooses how many identities to deploy in each role. We quantify the attainable range of execution diversities in equilibrium as a function of the marginal cost of deploying an extra attention identity. We use our framework as a lens through which we compare two attention mechanisms, TRACE (MARBLE 2026) and Proof of Diligence (AFT 2024). In particular, we show that as opposed to Proof of Diligence, in TRACE the marginal cost mentioned above can be adjusted to support a higher execution diversity. As a case study, we apply our results to Arbitrum One, a widely deployed optimistic rollup.