Sovereignty is the core conflict. Monolithic chains like Solana or Sui offer a vertically integrated, performance-optimized stack where the protocol dictates the rules. Modular chains like Celestia or EigenDA decompose this stack, enabling developers to choose their own execution, settlement, and data availability layers. This choice determines who holds ultimate power over the chain's future.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
Why the Modular vs. Monolithic Debate Is Really About Sovereignty
The core conflict in the L2 wars isn't just about performance or cost. It's a fundamental trade-off between developer sovereignty over your stack and the convenience of outsourcing your roadmap to a single provider like Arbitrum, Optimism, or Base.
introduction
THE REAL STAKES
Introduction
The modular vs. monolithic debate is a proxy war for who controls the blockchain stack: the protocol or the user.
Modularity trades performance for optionality. A monolithic L1 provides a single, coherent environment, simplifying development at the cost of lock-in. A modular rollup on Arbitrum or Optimism can swap its DA layer from Ethereum to Celestia, fundamentally altering its security model and economics. This optionality is a form of political sovereignty for application developers.
The market votes with capital. The rapid growth of rollup ecosystems (Arbitrum, Base, zkSync) and specialized DA layers proves demand for sovereignty. Developers accept the complexity of a modular stack to escape the platform risk inherent in building on a single L1's roadmap. The debate isn't about which is better, but which trade-off a project is willing to make.
key-trends
FROM MONOLITHIC CHAINS TO SOVEREIGN STACKS
The Sovereignty Spectrum: Three Key Trends
The modular vs. monolithic debate is a proxy war for control. It's about who governs the stack, from execution to settlement, and who captures its value.
01
The Problem: Monolithic Chains Are Political Monopolies
Ethereum and Solana act as centralized political entities. Upgrades are slow, governed by core devs, and force all applications into a one-size-fits-all economic and security model. This stifles innovation for apps that need specialized execution or governance.
- Voting Power Centralized to token holders, not users or builders.
- Innovation Bottleneck: Protocol changes require network-wide consensus, taking 12-18 months.
- Economic Capture: All value (MEV, fees) accrues to the base layer, not the application.
12-18mo
Upgrade Cycle
>66%
L1 Fee Burn
02
The Solution: Sovereign Rollups & Appchains
Frameworks like Celestia, EigenLayer, and Arbitrum Orbit enable teams to launch chains that control their own stack. They outsource consensus and data availability but retain sovereignty over execution, governance, and fee markets.
- Full Tech Stack Control: Choose your VM (EVM, SVM, Move), sequencer, and prover.
- Capture Native Value: Keep 100% of sequencer fees and direct your own MEV flow.
- Independent Governance: Fork, upgrade, or customize without L1 politics.
100%
Fee Capture
$0.01
Avg. Tx Cost
03
The Trend: Hyper-Specialized Execution Layers
Sovereignty enables purpose-built environments. dYdX migrated to Cosmos for high-throughput trading. Aevo runs an SVM rollup for options. This trend moves beyond general-purpose L2s towards vertical integration.
- Performance Optimization: Tailor the chain for specific use-cases (~10k TPS for orderbooks).
- Custom Economics: Implement native gas tokens, fee subsidies, and tailored staking.
- Composability Control: Choose interoperability partners like LayerZero or Axelar on your terms.
10k TPS
Specialized Throughput
~500ms
Block Time
deep-dive
THE SOVEREIGNTY LAYER
The Stack as a Political Statement
The modular versus monolithic debate is a proxy war for control over a blockchain's economic and technical future.
Monolithic chains are political monopolies. A single entity like Solana or Ethereum L1 controls the entire stack, dictating upgrade paths, fee markets, and value capture. This creates a centralized governance bottleneck where protocol changes require broad, slow consensus.
Modular architectures enable political defection. A rollup like Arbitrum can fork its execution client, a sovereign rollup like Celestia can hard-fork its data layer, and an appchain can replace its shared sequencer. This exit threat disciplines the underlying providers.
The real battle is over MEV and fees. A monolithic chain internalizes all value. A modular chain's value fragments: execution to rollups, data to DA layers like Celestia/EigenDA, and settlement to L1. Sovereignty determines who profits from the chain's economic activity.
Evidence: The rise of sovereign rollups and shared sequencer sets like Espresso and Astria proves the demand for execution autonomy. Developers choose a stack based on who they want to pay and who they can fire.
THE MODULAR VS. MONOLITHIC SPECTRUM
Sovereignty Trade-Offs: Major L2 Architectures
A comparison of how architectural choices determine a chain's control over its tech stack, economics, and upgrade path.
| Sovereignty Dimension | Monolithic L1 (e.g., Solana) | Modular Sovereign Rollup (e.g., Celestia Rollup, Eclipse) | Modular Smart Contract Rollup (e.g., Arbitrum, OP Stack) |
|---|---|---|---|
Execution Client Choice | N/A (Native) | Any (e.g., SVM, MoveVM) | Limited (EVM or specific fork) |
Data Availability Control | On-chain | Choice of DA layer (Celestia, EigenDA, Avail) | Tied to parent L1 (e.g., Ethereum) |
Sequencer Control | Native Validators | Self-operated or shared (e.g., Espresso) | Initially centralized, path to decentralization |
Settlement & Bridge Sovereignty | Settles to itself | Settles to external layer (e.g., Ethereum, Celestia) | Settles to parent L1 (e.g., Ethereum) |
Upgrade Without Fork | |||
Fee Market Sovereignty | 100% to native validators | DA fees external, execution/sequencing fees internal | Base fee to L1, priority fee to sequencer |
Native Token for Gas | |||
Forced Inclusion Time (Worst Case) | < 1 sec | ~10-20 min (DA challenge period) | ~1 week (L1 challenge period) |
counter-argument
THE USER EXPERIENCE
The Convenience Counter-Argument: Why Monolithic Wins (For Now)
Monolithic chains dominate because they offer a single, integrated environment that is simpler to build and use than a fragmented modular stack.
Integrated developer experience is the primary advantage. Building on Ethereum or Solana provides a unified SDK, a single state, and synchronous composability. A modular app must manage separate execution, data availability, and settlement layers, a complexity that slows development.
Atomic composability is non-negotiable for DeFi. A Uniswap trade on Ethereum can atomically trigger a Compound loan. This is impossible across a modular stack without complex bridging protocols like Across or LayerZero, introducing latency and trust assumptions.
The security premium is clear. Users and developers pay for Ethereum's consensus directly. In a modular world, they must audit and price the security of a separate data availability layer like Celestia or EigenDA, creating cognitive and financial overhead.
Evidence: Over 90% of DeFi TVL remains on monolithic or monolithic-adjacent L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism. The convenience tax of a unified chain still outweighs the theoretical cost savings of modularity for most applications.
protocol-spotlight
ARCHITECTURAL AUTONOMY
Case Studies in Sovereign Choice
The modular vs. monolithic debate is a proxy war for control. These projects demonstrate that sovereignty is the primary design constraint.
01
Celestia: The Minimalist Settlement Layer
The Problem: Rollups were forced to inherit the execution and consensus politics of their parent chain (e.g., Ethereum).\nThe Solution: A data availability layer that provides cryptographic security and lets rollups define their own execution and governance.\n- Sovereign Rollups can fork without permission.\n- Data availability costs are ~100x cheaper than full consensus.
~100x
Cheaper DA
Sovereign
Forking
02
dYdX v4: The App-Specific Exodus
The Problem: As a high-throughput perpetuals DEX on StarkEx, dYdX was bottlenecked by Ethereum's block space and high fees for its core logic.\nThe Solution: A full migration to a Cosmos SDK app-chain, leveraging CometBFT for consensus and Celestia for data availability.\n- Control over MEV policy and sequencer profits.\n- Custom fee token (USDC) and governance.
App-Chain
Architecture
MEV Control
Key Benefit
03
Polygon Avail: The DA War Intensifies
The Problem: Ethereum's data blobs are a shared, contested resource, creating long-term cost uncertainty for rollups.\nThe Solution: A standalone, Ethereum-aligned data availability network built with Polygon's CDK, offering an alternative to Celestia and EigenDA.\n- Direct proofs to Ethereum for security inheritance.\n- Designed for validium and sovereign rollups seeking Ethereum compatibility.
Ethereum-Aligned
Security
Standalone DA
Product
04
Fuel: The Parallel Execution Monolith
The Problem: EVM's sequential execution inherently limits throughput and creates artificial contention.\nThe Solution: A monolithic, parallelized VM (FuelVM) that demonstrates sovereignty can be achieved through superior execution, not just modular decomposition.\n- UTXO model enables parallel transaction processing.\n- Native asset system avoids the ERC-20 overhead of the EVM.
Parallel VM
Architecture
UTXO Model
Core Tech
05
The Cosmos Hub's ATOM 2.0 Dilemma
The Problem: The original sovereign hub (Cosmos Hub) lacked a clear value-accrual mechanism for its native token, ATOM.\nThe Solution: The failed ATOM 2.0 proposal to become a shared security provider (like EigenLayer).\n- Highlights the tension between sovereignty and shared security.\n- Proves that economic sustainability is a core sovereign challenge.
Shared Security
Proposed Role
Economic Model
Core Challenge
06
EigenLayer: Re-hypothecating Ethereum Sovereignty
The Problem: New protocols (AVSs) must bootstrap their own validator set and trust, a massive capital and coordination problem.\nThe Solution: Restaking allows Ethereum stakers to extend cryptoeconomic security to other systems, renting Ethereum's sovereignty.\n- ~$15B+ TVL demonstrates demand for pooled security.\n- Creates a market where sovereignty is a service.
$15B+ TVL
Restaked
Security as Service
Model
future-outlook
THE SOVEREIGNTY TRADE-OFF
The Inevitable Hybrid Future
The modular vs. monolithic debate is a false binary; the real choice is a spectrum of sovereignty, forcing protocols to optimize for control versus convenience.
The debate is about sovereignty. Monolithic chains like Solana offer a unified execution environment where applications inherit security and composability, but cede control over the underlying data and consensus layers.
Modularity enables specialized sovereignty. Projects like Celestia and EigenDA provide sovereign rollups with full control over their execution logic and governance, but must manage complex bridging and interoperability overhead.
Hybrid architectures are the equilibrium. Layer 2s like Arbitrum Orbit and OP Stack chains demonstrate this, offering customizable execution on shared settlement layers, balancing sovereignty with ecosystem liquidity.
Evidence: The migration of dApps like Aave and Uniswap from L1s to multiple L2s shows that application-specific sovereignty for fee markets and upgrades outweighs the cost of fragmented liquidity.
takeaways
MODULAR VS. MONOLITHIC
TL;DR: The Sovereign Builder's Checklist
The core debate isn't about tech stacks; it's about who controls the rules, upgrades, and value capture of your application.
01
The Monolithic Trap: You're a Tenant, Not an Owner
Building on a monolithic L1 like Solana or Ethereum L1 means inheriting its governance, its upgrade schedule, and its fee market. Your sovereignty is an illusion.
- Key Constraint: Your app's performance and economics are held hostage by the base layer's congestion (e.g., Solana's $5+ fees during memecoin mania).
- Key Risk: A contentious hard fork or DAO vote can fundamentally alter your application's security assumptions overnight.
0%
Upgrade Control
100%
Fee Market Risk
02
The Sovereign Rollup: Your Own Virtual L1
A rollup with a sovereign settlement layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenLayer) decouples execution from consensus and gives you the keys.
- Key Benefit: You control the fork. Disagree with the sequencer? Fork the chain and continue with your own state.
- Key Benefit: Capture 100% of MEV and sequencer fees instead of leaking it to L1 validators. This is the real economic argument.
100%
Fee Capture
~$0.001
Settlement Cost
03
The Appchain Reality: Custom > General
General-purpose chains optimize for the average. Your application has specific needs—a custom VM, privacy, or a specialized data availability solution.
- Key Move: Use a framework like Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack, or Polygon CDK to launch a chain tailored for your logic, not someone else's.
- Key Metric: Achieve sub-second finality and predictable $0.01 fees by eliminating noisy neighbors. See dYdX's migration from L2 to Cosmos appchain.
~500ms
Finality
-90%
Cost vs. L1
04
The Interop Layer: Sovereignty Without Silos
Sovereignty is pointless if your chain is an island. The new stack requires interoperability layers that don't compromise security.
- Key Tech: Use IBC, LayerZero, or Axelar for cross-chain messaging. Sovereignty means you choose the bridge, you don't inherit one.
- Key Principle: Maintain security by using light clients and economic security (like EigenLayer AVS) instead of trusting third-party multisigs.
1 of N
Bridge Choice
$1B+
AVS Security
05
The DA Dilemma: Data is the New Battleground
Data Availability is the ultimate sovereignty lever. Cheap, scalable DA (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) lets you scale without permission.
- Key Metric: Reduce L1 calldata costs by >99%, turning the biggest operational cost into a rounding error.
- Key Trade-off: You exchange Ethereum's robust liveness for higher throughput and lower cost. The security model shifts from monolithic to modular.
-99%
DA Cost
10 KB/s
Throughput
06
The Endgame: Sovereign Superapps
The final evolution isn't a single appchain, but a sovereign ecosystem of specialized chains you control—a vertical integration of DeFi, gaming, and social.
- Key Architecture: A shared security hub (like a rollup settlement layer) with sovereign spokes for each vertical, connected via native interop.
- Key Result: You become a protocol landlord, capturing value across an entire economic zone instead of a single rental unit on L1.
N Chains
Vertical Control
10x
Value Capture
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