[Docs] Post-OP-Stack migration: obsolete references and missing post-deadline guidance

[lau90eth]

Summary

Following Base's exit from Optimism's OP Stack (Feb 2026) and the April 9 migration deadline for Farcaster mini-apps, I found several docs inconsistencies.

Issues Found

1. Obsolete OP Stack reference in fee docs

   • Page: /base-chain/network-information/network-fees
   • Text links to "op-stack developer documentation"
   • Base now runs the unified base/base stack

2. Missing post-deadline guidance in migration guide

   • Page: /apps/quickstart/migrate-to-standard-web-app
   • Deadline was April 9, 2026
   • No section explaining what happens to unmigrated apps (grace period? hard stop? error messages?)

3. README base/node still claims "built on Optimism's OP Stack"

   • Should reflect the unified stack architecture

4. README base/contracts says "utilizes Optimism's bedrock contracts"

   • Needs clarification post-migration

Suggested Fixes

• Update fee docs to reference Base's own fee mechanics or clarify OP Stack heritage
• Add "Post-April 9" FAQ to migration guide
• Update base/node and base/contracts READMEs to reflect current architecture

[schoolkamsergj]

Thanks for the detailed write-up — these are real inconsistencies worth fixing.

A few thoughts on prioritisation:

Point 1 — OP Stack reference in fee docs is the most actionable right now. The /base-chain/network-information/network-fees page links to OP Stack developer docs for fee mechanics. Since Base now runs its own stack, replacing that link with a reference to Base's own fee documentation (or the network fees overview) would be a clean, low-risk change.

Point 2 — Post-deadline migration guidance is trickier because the correct answer depends on what actually happens to unmigrated apps — the docs team likely has context on grace periods or error behaviour that isn't public yet. Worth a label like needs-team-input if that's an option.

Points 3 & 4 — base/node and base/contracts READMEs are separate repos, so those fixes would need PRs there rather than here.

I'm happy to submit a PR for point 1 if the team confirms the preferred target link for the fee mechanics reference. Happy to tackle point 2 as well if there's a source of truth for post-April-9 behaviour I can reference.

[osr21]

Following up on the existing comment — I've verified the exact stale text in Points 3 & 4 (separate repos), so those can be filed and fixed independently of the docs PR.

---

Point 3 — base/node README

File: README.md line 3
Current text:

Base is a secure, low-cost, developer-friendly Ethereum L2 built on Optimism's [OP Stack](https://docs.optimism.io/).

Suggested replacement:

Base is a secure, low-cost, developer-friendly Ethereum L2 running on the [Base stack](https://github.com/base/base).

---

Point 4 — base/contracts README

File: README.md lines 3–4
Current text:

Note that Base primarily utilizes Optimism's bedrock contracts located in Optimism's repo here.

Suggested replacement:

Note that Base's core protocol contracts are maintained in the [base/base](https://github.com/base/base) repository.
For contract deployment artifacts, see [base/contract-deployments](https://github.com/base/contract-deployments).

---

Both are one-line changes in separate repos and don't require team input — the new architecture is reflected in the base/base repo that already exists. Happy to submit PRs to base/node and base/contracts for these.

[lau90eth]

PRs submitted for Points 3 & 4:

• base/node: [Docs] Update README to reflect unified Base stack node#1044
• base/contracts: docs: update README to reflect Base stack architecture post-OP-Stack … contracts#273

Points 1 and 2 (fee docs + post-deadline migration guidance) still open — pending team input.