Monolithic architectures bundle execution with consensus and data availability. Every simple token transfer or Uniswap swap must pay for the full security of the entire network, a massive resource misallocation that directly inflates user costs.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
Why Modular Blockchains Inevitably Lower Gas Overhead
Monolithic chains are a tax on innovation. We deconstruct how separating execution, settlement, and data availability creates specialized, cost-optimized environments that permanently reduce transaction costs.
introduction
THE INEFFICIENCY
The Monolithic Tax: Why Every Transaction Pays for Consensus
Monolithic architectures force every transaction to subsidize the cost of global consensus, creating a permanent gas overhead.
Modular chains separate these functions. Execution layers like Arbitrum or Optimism offload consensus to Ethereum, paying only for the DA and finality they consume. This specialization eliminates the consensus tax, allowing gas fees to reflect actual compute cost.
The overhead is quantifiable. A simple ETH transfer on Ethereum L1 costs ~21k gas for execution but over 40k for consensus/DA. On an L2 like Base, that same transfer's cost is dominated by the tiny DA fee posted to Ethereum, slashing the user's bill by 10-100x.
This is not an optimization, it's a redesign. Projects like Celestia and EigenDA provide commoditized data availability, turning a core monolithic cost center into a competitive, pay-per-byte market. The monolithic tax is a legacy architecture tax.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
Core Thesis: Specialization Drives Efficiency
Modular blockchains reduce gas overhead by isolating execution, allowing each layer to optimize for a single, specialized function.
Monolithic architectures are inefficient. A single chain performing consensus, execution, and data availability forces every node to process every transaction, creating a universal gas tax. This is the fundamental scaling bottleneck.
Specialization eliminates redundant work. A modular stack with dedicated layers like Celestia for data and Arbitrum for execution allows each component to optimize its resource model. Execution layers only pay for compute, not global consensus.
Execution environments become hyper-optimized. A specialized rollup like dYdX can implement a custom state machine and fee market solely for perpetual swaps, achieving lower latency and cost than a general-purpose L1 like Ethereum.
Evidence: An Arbitrum Nitro rollup batch settles thousands of transactions on Ethereum for the cost of a single L1 transaction, reducing per-transaction gas overhead by over 90%. This is the specialization dividend.
key-trends
ECONOMICS OF SCALE
The Modular Pressure Points: Three Forces Driving Costs Down
Monolithic chains are a bundle of inefficiencies; modular architectures unbundle them, creating competitive markets that relentlessly drive down costs.
01
The Data Availability Auction
Monolithic chains force you to pay for expensive on-chain storage. Modular chains let specialized DA layers like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail compete on price. This creates a commodity market for data, decoupling it from expensive execution.
- Cost Reduction: DA can be ~99% cheaper than equivalent Ethereum calldata.
- Direct Impact: Lowers the fixed cost floor for every rollup transaction.
~99%
Cheaper DA
100+ TPS
Base Throughput
02
Execution Layer Specialization
General-purpose EVMs waste cycles on non-critical logic. Modular execution layers like Fuel, Eclipse, and Movement optimize for specific tasks (e.g., parallel processing, Move VM). This hyper-efficiency reduces the computational overhead passed to users.
- Parallel Execution: Enables 10,000+ TPS by sidestepping global state contention.
- Lean VMs: Custom WASM or RISC-V architectures minimize opcode gas costs.
10,000+
Theoretical TPS
10x
Efficiency Gain
03
Settlement & Proving Commoditization
Expensive L1 settlement and proving become shared utilities. Rollups batch proofs to Ethereum, Bitcoin, or Celestia, amortizing cost across thousands of transactions. Prover networks like RiscZero and Succinct create a market for cheap ZK verification.
- Cost Amortization: A single proof can secure a batch of ~10,000 tx.
- Market Pressure: Multiple proof systems and settle-to chains force fee competition.
~10,000 tx
Per Proof
-90%
Settlement Cost
deep-dive
THE COST BREAKDOWN
Deconstructing the Gas Bill: Execution, DA, and Settlement
Monolithic blockchains bundle all costs, while modular architectures disaggregate and optimize each component, fundamentally lowering the gas overhead.
Monolithic chains bundle costs. Every transaction pays for execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement on a single, expensive layer. This creates a single-point pricing failure where simple transfers subsidize complex smart contract logic.
Modular chains disaggregate pricing. Execution layers like Arbitrum or Optimism offload data posting to specialized DA layers like Celestia or EigenDA. This separates the cost of computation from the cost of data storage, the primary gas driver.
Settlement becomes a fixed cost. Dedicated settlement layers like Ethereum L1 or Celesita provide finality and dispute resolution, a service paid for in bulk by rollups, not per transaction. This amortizes the most expensive security cost.
Evidence: An Arbitrum transaction posts only a tiny calldata proof to Ethereum, costing ~$0.01, while a similar Ethereum L1 swap costs ~$5. The 500x difference is the modular discount from optimized data handling.
DATA AVAILABILITY LAYER ANALYSIS
Cost Per Byte: Data Availability Market Comparison
A first-principles comparison of data publishing costs, the primary driver of transaction fees in modular blockchains versus monolithic L1s.
| Feature / Metric | Monolithic L1 (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet) | Ethereum L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | External DA (e.g., Celestia, Avail) | Validium / Enshrined (e.g., StarkEx, zkPorter) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost per Byte (USD, est.) | $0.125 | $0.0031 | $0.000062 | $0.0000062 |
Data Storage Model | Global State + History | Batch Compression + Calldata | Blobstream / Data Availability Sampling | Off-Chain Data + On-Chain Proof |
Inherits L1 Security | ||||
Throughput Cap (TPS) | ~15-30 | ~2,000-4,000 | ~10,000+ | ~20,000+ |
Data Availability Guarantee | Consensus-Enforced | Consensus-Enforced via L1 | Cryptoeconomic / Light Client | Committee / Proof-of-Stake |
Time to Finality | ~12 minutes | ~12 minutes (L1 finality) | ~2 seconds (block) ~20 min (full) | < 1 second (state) ~20 min (full) |
Primary Cost Driver | Global Execution & Storage | L1 Calldata Auction | Marginal Bandwidth | Committee Operation |
Typical Use Case | High-Value Settlement | General-Purpose dApps | High-Volume, Cost-Sensitive Apps | Exchange Settlement, Payments |
counter-argument
THE OVERHEAD TRAP
The Monolithic Rebuttal: Integrated Optimization & Cross-Layer Fees
Modular architectures introduce unavoidable latency and cost overhead that monolithic chains optimize away.
Integrated execution and settlement eliminates the primary source of modular overhead: cross-domain messaging. A monolithic chain like Solana or Monad processes transactions within a single state machine, avoiding the costly verification and bridging required when a rollup posts data to Ethereum and settles proofs. This overhead is a permanent tax.
Cross-layer fees compound unpredictably. A user bridging from Arbitrum to Base via a canonical bridge pays L2 execution gas, L1 data posting fees, and a final L1 verification fee. This creates a fee volatility sandwich where the user is exposed to multiple independent gas markets, unlike a single, predictable fee on a monolithic chain.
Data availability is a solved cost center. Monolithic chains using technologies like Danksharding or Neon EVM internalize data availability as a core protocol function, achieving economies of scale. Modular chains must pay external DA layers like Celestia or EigenDA, adding another non-negotiable cost layer and governance dependency that monolithic designs avoid.
Evidence: The canonical bridge withdrawal delay from Optimism or Arbitrum to Ethereum is 7 days, a direct result of modular dispute windows. This latency is a functional zero on monolithic chains, enabling instant finality for all asset transfers and DeFi operations without trusted intermediaries.
protocol-spotlight
MODULAR VS. MONOLITHIC
Architectural Showdown: How Key Players Optimize
Monolithic chains force all activity through a single, congested state machine. Modular architectures disaggregate functions, isolating and optimizing execution costs.
01
Celestia: Data Availability as a Bottleneck
Monolithic chains like Ethereum bundle execution with data availability (DA), forcing L2s to pay for expensive calldata. Celestia provides a specialized DA layer with blobspace priced independently from gas fees.
- Cost: L2s pay ~$0.01 per MB vs. Ethereum's ~$100+ per MB for calldata.
- Scale: Enables ~100k+ TPS for rollups without congesting the base layer.
10000x
Cheaper DA
100k+ TPS
Theoretical Scale
02
Fuel: Parallel Execution on a Dedicated VM
Monolithic EVM processes transactions sequentially, creating gas wars. Fuel uses a parallelizable UTXO model and a purpose-built VM (FuelVM) to execute independent transactions simultaneously.
- Throughput: Achieves ~10k TPS by utilizing multiple CPU cores.
- Efficiency: No global state contention means users only pay for their specific computation, not network congestion.
10k TPS
Parallel Speed
~0 Gas
Contention Cost
03
EigenLayer & Restaking: Shared Security Overhead
Launching a new blockchain requires bootstrapping a costly validator set from scratch. EigenLayer allows protocols to rent security from Ethereum's established ~$50B+ staked ETH, eliminating this capital overhead.
- Capital Efficiency: New chains avoid billions in staking incentives.
- Trust Minimization: Inherits Ethereum's liveness and censorship resistance without the operational cost.
$50B+
Security Pool
-99%
Bootstrap Cost
04
The Arbitrum Stack: Custom Chains, Shared Sequencing
Running an independent L2 requires replicating expensive sequencing and proving infrastructure. The Arbitrum Orbit stack provides a shared BOLD (Based Orbit L2 Decentralization) sequencer and prover network.
- Cost Reduction: Orbit chains avoid ~$1M+/year in sequencer/prover ops.
- Interop: Native cross-chain messaging via the Arbitrum One/Nova hub reduces bridge gas overhead.
-$1M/yr
Ops Saved
Native
Cross-Chain
05
dYmension: RollApps & Settlement Specialization
App-specific rollups (RollApps) on dYmension offload settlement and consensus to the dYmension Hub. This separates the cost of running a state machine from the cost of verifying proofs.
- Gas Overhead: RollApps pay only for execution; settlement is a fixed, amortized cost.
- Time-to-Finality: ~2 second finality via the hub vs. waiting for Ethereum's 12-minute checkpoint.
~2s
Finality
Fixed Cost
Settlement
06
Monolithic Inefficiency: The Congestion Tax
On Ethereum or Solana, a single NFT mint or meme coin can spike gas for all DeFi, RWA, and gaming transactions. This is a congestion tax where unrelated applications subsidize each other's demand spikes.
- Inefficiency: Users pay for global state bloat, not just their computation.
- Modular Fix: Isolated execution layers (rollups, validiums) ensure a game's traffic doesn't affect a DEX's gas.
1000 Gwei
Spike Cost
0 Subsidy
Modular Ideal
takeaways
THE GAS OVERHEAD TRAP
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Monolithic blockchains force every app to pay for global consensus and execution. Modular designs unbundle this stack, eliminating redundant computation and data availability costs.
01
The Problem: Monolithic Inefficiency
Every dApp on a chain like Ethereum or Solana pays for the full security and execution of the entire network, even for simple logic. This creates massive gas overhead.
- Redundant Computation: Your app's state transitions are re-executed by every full node.
- Blob Pricing: Data for rollups is priced against all L1 demand (e.g., EIP-4844 blobs).
- Congestion Tax: One popular app (e.g., Uniswap, Blur) can spike fees for everyone.
>90%
Redundant Ops
Volatile
Fee Market
02
The Solution: Specialized Execution Layers
Move execution to a dedicated environment (rollup, validium, sovereign chain). You only pay for the resources your app actually uses.
- Sovereign Stacks: Use Celestia or Avail for cheap DA, then choose any VM (EVM, SVM, Move).
- Optimistic vs. ZK: Arbitrum and Optimism for general purpose; zkSync and Starknet for complex, private logic.
- Cost Control: Execution is decoupled from L1 settlement, enabling ~$0.01 fees and predictable pricing.
100-1000x
Cheaper Txs
Custom VM
Flexibility
03
The Enabler: Shared Security & Interop
Modularity doesn't mean fragmentation. New architectures let you inherit security without the overhead.
- Restaking: Leverage EigenLayer to secure your chain/AVS with Ethereum's stake.
- Interoperability: Use LayerZero, Axelar, or Hyperlane for cross-chain messaging without custom bridges.
- Unified Liquidity: Projects like dYdX and Aevo show you can have a dedicated chain while aggregating liquidity globally.
$10B+
Securing AVSs
Native
Composability
04
The Result: Vertical Integration Wins
The end-state is application-specific blockchains that own their entire stack, from DA to execution, optimizing for their unique needs.
- Total Control: No more competing for block space; set your own rules and fee models.
- Revenue Capture: Keep 100% of MEV and transaction fees instead of leaking value to a base layer.
- Proven Model: dYdX v4, Hyperliquid, and Injective demonstrate the performance and economic advantages.
100%
Fee Capture
~500ms
Finality
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