Monolithic designs are hitting walls. Early L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism bundled execution, settlement, data availability, and consensus into one stack, creating a single point of failure for upgrades and performance.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
Why the Next Wave of L2 Innovation Will Be Modular
The current L2 wars are a distraction. The real battle is architectural. Breakthroughs in ZK proving, shared sequencing, and alternative data availability will be integrated first by agile modular stacks, leaving monolithic L2s playing catch-up on a legacy tech stack.
introduction
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Monolithic Mirage
The pursuit of a single, all-encompassing blockchain is a dead end, as the next wave of scaling will be defined by specialized, modular components.
Modularity unlocks specialization. Separating the stack allows each layer to be optimized independently: Celestia for data availability, EigenDA for restaking security, and Arbitrum Stylus for multi-VM execution.
The market demands flexibility. Protocols like dYdX migrated from StarkEx to a Cosmos appchain, proving application-specific sovereignty beats a one-size-fits-all environment.
Evidence: Ethereum's roadmap is modular by definition, with danksharding (EIP-4844) creating a separate data market that rollups like Base and zkSync already use.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Modular Innovation Thesis
The next wave of L2 innovation will be defined by specialized, modular components rather than monolithic, vertically-integrated stacks.
Monolithic scaling is a dead end. Integrated L1s and early L2s like Optimism Classic forced consensus, execution, and data availability into one layer, creating a single point of failure and innovation bottleneck.
Modularity unlocks specialization. Separating execution (Arbitrum), settlement (Celestia), and data availability (EigenDA) allows each layer to optimize independently, creating a competitive market for each resource.
The rollup stack is now a commodity. With SDKs like OP Stack and Arbitrum Orbit, launching a rollup is trivial; the real innovation shifts to modular components like shared sequencers (Espresso) and interoperability layers (LayerZero).
Evidence: Celestia's launch created over 50 modular rollups in 6 months, proving demand for specialized DA. The OP Stack now powers over 30 chains, demonstrating the shift from building chains to assembling them.
key-trends
WHY THE NEXT WAVE OF L2 INNOVATION WILL BE MODULAR
The Three Breakthroughs Monolithic L2s Can't Handle
Monolithic L2s are hitting fundamental scaling walls. The next performance leap requires specialized execution, data, and security layers.
01
The Problem: Hyper-Specialized Execution
Monolithic EVM execution can't optimize for gaming, DeFi, and AI simultaneously. A single VM is a performance bottleneck for parallel transaction processing and custom state models.
- Key Benefit 1: Dedicated app-chains (e.g., dYdX v4) can achieve ~10,000 TPS for a single use case.
- Key Benefit 2: Rollups with custom VMs (e.g., FuelVM, SVM) enable ~2-5x higher throughput than EVM-equivalents.
10,000+
Specialized TPS
2-5x
Throughput Gain
02
The Problem: Sovereign Data Availability
Publishing all transaction data to Ethereum L1 creates a ~$0.10-$1.00 per tx cost floor. This makes microtransactions and high-frequency apps economically impossible.
- Key Benefit 1: Modular DA layers (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA, Avail) reduce data costs by ~99%, enabling <$0.001 per tx.
- Key Benefit 2: Independent DA enables sovereign rollups that can fork and upgrade without L1 governance, a feature monolithic stacks like Arbitrum or Optimism cannot offer.
-99%
DA Cost
<$0.001
Per Tx Cost
03
The Problem: Shared Security as a Service
Bootstrapping a new chain's validator set is slow and creates security fragmentation. Monolithic L2s force you to inherit their (often expensive) security model.
- Key Benefit 1: Restaking protocols (e.g., EigenLayer, Babylon) allow chains to rent Ethereum's $50B+ economic security, slashing bootstrap time from years to weeks.
- Key Benefit 2: Interchain Security models (inspired by Cosmos) and proof aggregation (e.g., Espresso Systems) enable lightweight chains to share verifier costs, improving capital efficiency.
$50B+
Security Pool
Weeks
Bootstrap Time
L2 STACK DECOMPOSITION
Architectural Agility: Modular vs. Monolithic
Comparison of execution layer architecture paradigms, detailing core trade-offs in sovereignty, cost, and upgrade velocity.
| Architectural Feature | Monolithic L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Modular Rollup (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack) | Modular Sovereign (e.g., Celestia Rollup, Eclipse) |
|---|---|---|---|
Execution Client Control | Protocol-defined (Arbitrum Nitro, OP Stack) | Choice of EVM, SVM, MoveVM | Any VM (EVM, SVM, CosmWasm, MoveVM) |
Data Availability Source | L1 Ethereum only | Choice: L1 Ethereum, Celestia, Avail, EigenDA | Choice: Celestia, Avail, EigenDA, near-zero-cost DA |
Settlement Layer | L1 Ethereum | L1 Ethereum or designated L2 (e.g., OP Mainnet) | Self-settle or any L1/L2 (e.g., Ethereum, Celestia) |
Sequencer Control | Centralized by core team (decentralization roadmap) | Self-operated or shared sequencer (e.g., Espresso, Astria) | Self-operated or shared sequencer |
Upgrade Governance | L1 timelock / DAO multisig (7-10 days) | Self-governed (instant to 1 day) | Self-governed (instant) |
Avg. Cost per Tx (Data) | $0.10 - $0.50 (L1 calldata) | $0.01 - $0.10 (external DA) | < $0.01 (external DA) |
Time to Fork / Launch Chain | 6-12 months (full protocol dev) | 1-4 weeks (using shared stack) | < 1 week (using generic rollup framework) |
Inherited Security | Full Ethereum economic security | Hybrid (Ethereum execution + external DA) | Minimal (relies on DA layer & fraud proofs) |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION LAYER
Why Integration Speed is the New Moat
The competitive advantage for L2s has shifted from raw throughput to the velocity of integrating new infrastructure primitives.
Monolithic L2s are integration bottlenecks. Their singular, integrated stacks force developers to wait for core team roadmaps to adopt new data availability layers like Celestia or Avail, or new VMs like the Move-based Aptos VM.
Modular L2s abstract integration complexity. A chain built with the OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, or Polygon CDK configures its DA and execution environment at genesis, enabling instant access to innovations from EigenDA, Espresso, or RISC Zero.
The moat is now API surface area. The winning L2 framework provides the most composable interfaces for its rollup, allowing builders to swap components as easily as installing a library, mirroring the AWS vs. on-premise servers dynamic.
Evidence: Starknet's planned migration to a zk-validium on Celestia demonstrates this shift; the core protocol is re-architecting to gain the integration speed of a modular stack from day one.
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRAP
The Monolithic Rebuttal (And Why It's Wrong)
Monolithic scaling is a local maximum that sacrifices long-term adaptability for short-term simplicity.
Monolithic designs hit a wall. Integrating execution, settlement, consensus, and data availability into a single layer creates an inherent performance ceiling. This architecture cannot leverage specialized hardware or parallelized innovation, creating a single point of failure for upgrades and scalability.
Modularity enables specialization. Separating the stack into dedicated layers like Celestia for data availability and EigenDA for restaking security allows each component to scale independently. This creates a competitive market for each function, driving efficiency and innovation that a single monolithic chain cannot match.
The market votes with capital. The rapid adoption of rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism, which are inherently modular by outsourcing data and settlement, demonstrates the demand. Their combined value locked and transaction volume now rivals many monolithic L1s, proving the economic viability of the model.
Evidence: The Cost Curve Divergence. The cost to scale a monolithic chain increases linearly with its own congestion. A modular chain's cost scales with the cheapest available data layer, which follows a hyper-competitive, deflationary curve driven by providers like Avail and NEAR DA.
protocol-spotlight
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Vanguard: Modular Stacks in Action
Monolithic L2s are hitting scaling and innovation ceilings. The next wave is about specialized, interoperable components.
01
The Problem: Monolithic Inefficiency
Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism bundle execution, settlement, and data availability, forcing trade-offs. This creates high fixed costs and slow innovation cycles for new features like privacy or custom VMs.\n- Execution Bottleneck: All apps compete for the same VM, causing volatile fees.\n- Innovation Lag: Upgrading one layer (e.g., DA) requires a hard fork of the entire chain.
~2-4s
Finality Lag
+300%
Cost Spikes
02
The Solution: Sovereign Rollups with Celestia
Decouple data availability (DA) from execution. Celestia provides cheap, scalable DA, allowing rollups to be their own settlement layer. This enables sovereignty and rapid iteration.\n- Cost Control: DA costs drop to ~$0.01 per MB, decoupled from L1 gas.\n- Flexible Stack: Teams can mix-and-match execution layers (EVM, SVM, Move) and shared sequencers like Astria.
100x
Cheaper DA
Sovereign
Governance
03
The Solution: Optimistic + ZK Hybrids (Arbitrum Orbit)
Combine the cheap fraud proofs of Optimistic Rollups with the fast finality of ZK for cross-chain messaging. Arbitrum Orbit chains use AnyTrust for DA and can settle to Ethereum or Celestia.\n- Best of Both Worlds: ~24hr challenge period for cheap disputes, ~20min finality via ZK proofs for bridges.\n- Modular Security: Inherits Ethereum's security for settlement while opting for cheaper DA.
~20min
Bridge Finality
-90%
DA Cost
04
The Solution: Shared Sequencer Networks (Espresso, Astria)
Prevent MEV extraction and fragmentation by outsourcing block production. Shared sequencers like Espresso provide cross-rollup atomic composability and fair ordering.\n- Unified Liquidity: Enables atomic arbitrage across modular chains, akin to UniswapX across L2s.\n- MEV Resistance: Commit-reveal schemes and threshold encryption mitigate frontrunning.
Atomic
Cross-Rollup TX
-70%
MEV Leakage
05
The Problem: Liquidity Fragmentation
Modularity creates isolated execution environments. Moving assets between Fuel, Eclipse, and an Arbitrum Orbit chain requires complex, slow bridging, killing user experience.\n- Capital Inefficiency: $100B+ in TVL is siloed across hundreds of chains.\n- Security Risk: Users are exposed to bridge hacks like Nomad or Wormhole.
100+
Isolated Chains
$2B+
Bridge Hacks
06
The Solution: Intent-Based Universal Liquidity (Across, LayerZero)
Abstract bridging through solver networks. Users submit intents ("swap X for Y on chain Z"), and solvers compete to fulfill via the best route using shared sequencers and liquidity aggregators.\n- Unified UX: Feels like a single chain. Inspired by CowSwap and UniswapX on L1.\n- Optimized Execution: Solvers leverage EigenLayer restaking for cryptoeconomic security.
~5s
Cross-Chain Swap
Best Price
Execution
takeaways
MODULAR L2S
TL;DR for Busy Builders
Monolithic L2s are hitting scaling walls. The next wave is about specialized, interoperable execution layers.
01
The Problem: Monolithic L2s Are a Scaling Dead End
Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism bundle execution, settlement, and data availability (DA). This creates a single point of failure and limits optimization.\n- Cost Inefficiency: Paying for expensive on-chain DA for all apps.\n- Innovation Bottleneck: Hard forks needed for new VMs or features.
~$0.50
Avg. L2 TX Cost
1-2 Weeks
Upgrade Lead Time
02
The Solution: Sovereign Rollups & Shared Sequencers
Decouple the stack. Let rollups choose their own DA layer (Celestia, EigenDA) and use a shared sequencer network (like Espresso, Astria).\n- Cost Control: DA costs can drop to ~$0.0001 per tx.\n- Instant Interop: Atomic cross-rollup composability via shared sequencing.
1000x
Cheaper DA
~500ms
Cross-Rollup Latency
03
The Enabler: Intent-Based Infrastructure
Modularity fragments liquidity. Solving this requires intent-centric architectures that abstract complexity from users.\n- Unified UX: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap route orders across L2s.\n- Efficiency: Solvers compete to fulfill user intents, optimizing for cost and speed.
30-40%
Better Price Execution
Gasless
User Experience
04
The New Stack: Rollup-As-A-Service (RaaS)
Launching a modular L2 is now a configuration, not a 2-year engineering project. Providers like AltLayer, Conduit, and Caldera abstract the complexity.\n- Time-to-Market: Launch a custom VM rollup in weeks, not years.\n- Specialization: Optimize for gaming, DeFi, or privacy with tailored execution environments.
< 4 Weeks
Rollup Launch Time
$10K-$50K
Initial Setup Cost
05
The Risk: Fragmented Security & Liquidity
Modularity introduces new trust assumptions. Using an external DA layer or shared sequencer changes the security model.\n- Data Availability Risk: If the chosen DA layer fails, the rollup halts.\n- Liquidity Silos: Native bridges and fragmented liquidity pools become attack vectors.
New Trust Assumptions
Security Model
10-20 Bridges
Per Rollup
06
The Play: Build for Interoperability First
Winning in a modular world means designing for native cross-chain flows. This is the LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole thesis.\n- Universal Messaging: Contracts that natively read/write state across rollups.\n- Aggregated Liquidity: Protocols that treat all modular L2s as a single liquidity pool.
$1B+
Messaging TVL
1-Click
Cross-Rollup Actions
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