Monolithic chains are resource dictators. Every dApp, from a simple DEX to a complex game, must fight for the same block space, compute, and storage on a single execution layer like Ethereum L1 or Solana.
crypto-marketing-and-narrative-economics
Blog
Why Monolithic Chains Can't Keep Up with Customization
The demand for app-specific VMs, fee tokens, and governance is exploding. This analysis argues that monolithic L1s are architecturally incapable of meeting this need, making modularity a first-order requirement for the next wave of applications.
introduction
THE BOTTLENECK
Introduction
Monolithic architectures fail to scale because they force all applications to compete for the same, limited resources.
Customization requires sovereignty. High-performance applications need specialized virtual machines, data availability layers, and fee markets that a one-size-fits-all chain cannot provide. This is why dYdX and Aevo migrated to their own app-chains.
The evidence is transaction cost. During peak demand on Ethereum, a Uniswap swap costs $50, while a simple NFT mint paralyzes the network. This congestion tax stifles innovation and user adoption.
thesis-statement
THE MONOLITHIC BOTTLENECK
The Core Argument
Monolithic architectures force a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to meet the specialized demands of modern applications.
Monolithic chains are resource-constrained. Every application competes for the same global block space, creating a zero-sum game where a popular NFT mint cripples DeFi transaction finality. This is the inherent flaw of a single execution environment.
Customization requires sovereignty. A high-frequency DEX needs a mempool-less AMM, while a social app needs cheap, batched writes. A monolithic chain like Ethereum or Solana forces both to use the same, compromised execution model.
The market has already voted. The dominance of Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism) and app-specific chains (dYdX, Aave's GHO chain) proves the demand for specialized execution layers. These are early, fragmented attempts to escape the monolithic bottleneck.
key-trends
WHY MONOLITHS FAIL
The Customization Demand: Three Unmet Trends
Monolithic architectures impose a one-size-fits-all execution environment, creating friction for applications with specialized needs in security, performance, and economics.
01
The MEV Problem: A Generalized L1 is a Public Auction
On a shared chain, all applications compete in the same transparent mempool, creating predatory MEV extraction. This forces protocols like Uniswap and Aave to leak value to searchers.
- Custom Solution: App-specific chains can implement private mempools or encrypted transactions.
- Key Benefit: Native integration of MEV-capturing mechanisms like MEV-Share or CowSwap's batch auctions.
- Key Benefit: Enables predictable, application-retained value instead of public leakage.
$1B+
Annual MEV
-90%
Extractable Value
02
The Performance Tax: Paying for Others' Inefficiency
A monolithic chain's global gas market forces high-performance apps to subsidize spam and inefficient contracts, leading to unpredictable costs and latency.
- Custom Solution: Sovereign execution environments with tailored VM (WASM, SVM, Move) and gas metering.
- Key Benefit: Guaranteed sub-second finality and ~500ms latency for high-frequency DeFi.
- Key Benefit: Eliminates gas price volatility from unrelated network congestion.
10x
Throughput
-50%
Cost Variance
03
The Sovereignty Gap: Protocol-Led Innovation vs. Governance Capture
Protocol upgrades on a monolithic L1 require broad-consensus governance, which is slow and risks capture by competing interests. This stifles rapid iteration.
- Custom Solution: Application-specific chains grant teams full sovereignty over their tech stack and upgrade path.
- Key Benefit: Enables rapid feature deployment, akin to dYdX's move to Cosmos for custom order books.
- Key Benefit: Isolates protocol risk; a bug in one app doesn't halt the entire network.
Weeks → Days
Upgrade Time
100%
Feature Control
THE CUSTOMIZATION IMPERATIVE
Architectural Trade-Offs: Monolithic vs. The Market
Comparing the inherent limitations of monolithic blockchains (single-layer execution) against specialized, modular market solutions for application-specific needs.
| Architectural Dimension | Monolithic Chain (e.g., Ethereum L1, Solana) | Application-Specific Rollup (e.g., dYdX, Aevo) | Modular Settlement Layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) |
|---|---|---|---|
Execution Environment | Single, global VM (EVM, SVM) | Custom VM (e.g., StarkEx, zkWasm) | None (Data Availability only) |
Gas Token Dependence | Native token only (ETH, SOL) | Can be any token or fee abstraction | Pays for data, execution is separate |
Throughput (TPS) Ceiling | Governed by base layer consensus (<100 TPS EVM, ~5k TPS Solana) | Determined by prover/sequencer capacity (10k+ TPS achievable) | Scalable with data availability sampling (MB/s of data) |
Sovereignty / Forkability | Governance-dependent hard forks | Full sovereignty; instant, permissionless forks | Provides forkable data, enabling rapid chain deployment |
Time-to-Finality | Base layer finality (12-15 sec Ethereum, ~400ms Solana) | Proposer finality (<1 sec) + base layer finality for proofs | Data availability finality (~2 sec Celestia, ~10 min EigenDA) |
State Bloat Management | All apps share global state; pruning is complex | App-specific state; can be pruned or archived independently | No state; only data availability commitments |
MEV Capture & Redistribution | Extractable Value flows to L1 validators | App can internalize MEV via sequencer (e.g., dYdX order flow) | None; MEV is an execution-layer concern |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRAINT
The Inevitable Fracture: Why One Chain Can't Rule Them All
Monolithic architectures cannot simultaneously optimize for security, decentralization, and performance, forcing specialization.
Monolithic chains face a trilemma. A single execution environment forces a universal trade-off between security, decentralization, and throughput. This creates a one-size-fits-none architecture where high-frequency DeFi and low-cost social apps compete for the same, suboptimal block space.
Customization demands fracture the stack. Applications require specialized execution environments. A high-throughput gaming rollup needs a fast VM like the Fuel Virtual Machine, while a privacy-preserving DEX needs a zk-circuit environment like Aztec. A monolithic L1 like Ethereum or Solana cannot natively provide both.
The market votes with liquidity. Capital and developers migrate to chains that optimize for their use case. Arbitrum dominates general-purpose DeFi, Base captures social applications, and dYdX operates its own app-chain for perpetual swaps. This fragmentation is a feature, not a bug.
Evidence: Ethereum's roadmap itself validates this. Its end-state is a modular settlement layer secured by restaking via EigenLayer, with execution delegated to thousands of specialized rollups. The monolithic era is over.
counter-argument
THE SCALING TRAP
The Monolithic Rebuttal (And Why It's Wrong)
Monolithic scaling creates a fundamental trade-off that destroys application-level innovation.
Monolithic scaling prioritizes consensus. A single chain must optimize for global state agreement, forcing every application to share the same execution, data availability, and settlement environment. This creates a one-size-fits-all bottleneck that cannot be optimized for specific use cases like high-frequency trading or on-chain gaming.
Customization requires sovereignty. Applications need to control their own execution stack. A gaming rollup uses a custom VM for cheaper state transitions, while a DeFi app needs sub-second finality. Monolithic chains like Solana or Ethereum L1 force these diverse workloads onto identical hardware, sacrificing efficiency for homogeneity.
The modular rebuttal is economic. Dedicated block space via rollups (Arbitrum, zkSync) or appchains (dYdX, Aevo) creates predictable costs and performance. This sovereign execution layer is why Polygon CDK and OP Stack chains proliferate—developers pay for what they use, not a shared, congested resource.
Evidence is in the data. The migration of dYdX from an L2 to a Cosmos appchain, and the rise of specialized L3s via Arbitrum Orbit, demonstrate that top-tier applications will not tolerate the performance volatility of a monolithic chain as they scale.
takeaways
THE MONOLITHIC BOTTLENECK
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
General-purpose blockchains are hitting fundamental scaling and design limits, creating a massive market for specialized execution layers.
01
The One-Size-Fits-None Problem
Monolithic L1s like Ethereum force all dApps to compete for the same, expensive, and slow global state. This creates a tragedy of the commons where a single NFT mint can congest DeFi for everyone.\n- Throughput Ceiling: Capped by single-threaded execution (e.g., ~15-30 TPS on base Ethereum).\n- Cost Inefficiency: Simple games pay the same high gas fees as complex derivatives.
~15 TPS
Base Layer Limit
$100+
Peak TX Cost
02
The Sovereignty & Customization Trade
Projects need control over their tech stack for competitive advantage. A monolithic chain offers zero sovereignty—you cannot modify the VM, transaction ordering, or fee market.\n- Tailored VMs: Use SolanaVM for high-frequency trading or EVM for composability, not be forced into one.\n- Custom Gas Tokens: Accept fees in your app's native token, not just ETH.
100%
Stack Control
Flexible
Fee Model
03
The Modular & Rollup Solution
Decoupling execution from consensus/settlement (the modular thesis) is the answer. Rollups (Optimistic, ZK) and app-specific chains (via Celestia, EigenLayer, Polygon CDK, Arbitrum Orbit) provide the escape hatch.\n- Vertical Scaling: Achieve ~10,000+ TPS in your own environment.\n- Horizontal Scaling: Add infinite chains as user demand grows.
10,000+ TPS
App-Chain Throughput
<$0.01
Target TX Cost
04
The Investor Lens: Follow the Developers
Developer migration signals value migration. The flow is from generic L1s to Ethereum L2s, Solana for speed, and Cosmos for sovereignty. The infrastructure winners are the shared security and interop providers.\n- Infrastructure Bets: Celestia (data availability), EigenLayer (restaking), LayerZero (messaging).\n- App-Chain Proliferation: Expect 1000s of chains, not 10s of L1s.
1000s
Future Chains
$50B+
Modular TAM
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall