Security is not fungible. Shared security, like Ethereum's rollups or Cosmos' Interchain Security, trades sovereignty for a generic safety blanket. This model fails for applications where the security properties—finality speed, censorship resistance, MEV policy—are core product features.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
Why Shared Security Is a Trap for Certain Application Archetypes
An analysis arguing that high-value, regulated, and latency-sensitive applications sacrifice critical sovereignty, control, and finality guarantees by adopting shared security models like those of Cosmos and Polkadot.
introduction
THE TRAP
Introduction: The False Promise of Security-as-a-Service
Shared security models create critical misalignments for applications requiring sovereignty, performance, or unique economic design.
Sovereignty defines economic value. A gaming rollup on Arbitrum cannot monetize its sequencer or customize its data availability layer. This cedes control and revenue to the underlying L1, creating a permanent value leakage that limits long-term sustainability.
Performance is a product spec. High-frequency DeFi or on-chain order books require sub-second finality and predictable gas costs. The shared security model of an L1 like Ethereum introduces uncontrollable latency and cost volatility, making the product non-viable.
Evidence: dYdX migrated from StarkEx on Ethereum to its own Cosmos appchain. The reason was not security but sovereignty over its order book and the ability to capture 100% of sequencer fees, a revenue stream previously lost to Ethereum validators.
key-insights
WHY SHARED SECURITY IS A TRAP
Executive Summary: The Three Fatal Flaws
Shared security models like rollups and app-chains trade sovereignty for safety, but the cost is fatal for applications requiring extreme performance, custom economics, or censorship resistance.
01
The Sovereignty Tax
You inherit the base layer's economic model and governance pace. Your application's tokenomics and fee market are held hostage by an external, slow-moving DAO.
- Crippled Fee Markets: Cannot implement custom MEV capture or priority fee auctions like EigenLayer or Flashbots.
- Voting Latency: Protocol upgrades delayed by L1 governance cycles, killing agility.
- Economic Leakage: Value accrues to the shared sequencer or settlement layer, not your app.
30-90 days
Upgrade Lag
>50%
Fee Leakage
02
The Performance Ceiling
Shared sequencers and data availability layers impose a hard cap on throughput and finality, creating a lowest common denominator environment.
- Sequencer Bottleneck: Compete for block space with unrelated apps on OP Stack or Arbitrum.
- Batched Finality: Your TX finality is gated by the slowest app in the batch.
- Latency Floor: Can't achieve sub-second finality required by high-frequency DEXs or games.
~2 sec
Finality Floor
10k TPS
Shared Cap
03
The Censorship Vector
Relying on a centralized sequencer committee or a politically-targetable L1 introduces a single point of failure. Your app inherits the base layer's regulatory risk.
- Sequencer Kill Switch: A small group can halt your chain, as seen in early Optimism.
- L1 Governance Attack: A malicious L1 vote can freeze assets or upgrade your contract.
- Regulatory Blast Radius: Entire app-chain ecosystems like Cosmos or Avalanche subnets face correlated risk.
3-7 entities
Typical Committee
100%
Correlated Risk
thesis-statement
THE SHARED SECURITY TRAP
Core Thesis: Security Is More Than Validator Sets
Relying solely on a base layer's validator set creates systemic risk for applications with unique liveness or finality requirements.
Shared security is a marketing term that conflates economic security with application security. A rollup secured by Ethereum's validators inherits data availability and settlement finality, but its sequencer's liveness and state transition logic remain independent attack vectors.
High-frequency applications are exposed to base layer reorgs. A DEX on a rollup using Ethereum for security still fails if the sequencer halts, unlike a monolithic chain like Solana where execution and consensus are unified.
Sovereign rollups and appchains like dYdX V4 and Celestia-based chains explicitly reject shared security for this reason. They prioritize customizability over borrowed safety, trading validator-set security for control over their own fork choice rule and upgrade path.
The evidence is in the outages. Arbitrum and Optimism have experienced sequencer downtime, halting all applications, while the underlying Ethereum L1 remained operational. This proves that security is a multi-layered property.
SHARED SECURITY VS. SOVEREIGN EXECUTION
The Sovereignty Trade-Off Matrix
Quantifying the architectural trade-offs between deploying on a shared security layer (L2, L3) versus building a sovereign rollup or appchain for specific application archetypes.
| Critical Dimension | Shared Security L2/L3 (e.g., Arbitrum, OP Stack) | Sovereign Rollup (e.g., Dymension RollApp, Eclipse) | Sovereign Appchain (e.g., Cosmos SDK, Polygon CDK) |
|---|---|---|---|
Protocol Revenue Capture | ~0-20% (sequencer/MEV mostly captured by L1/L2) | ~80-100% (full control over sequencer fees & MEV) | ~100% (full sovereign economic stack) |
Upgrade Latency | < 1 week (governance + L1 timelock) | Instant (single operator) to < 1 day (DAO) | Instant (validator set) |
Max Theoretical TPS (Peak) | ~10k-100k (bounded by L1 data availability) | ~10k-100k (bounded by chosen DA layer) | Unbounded (limited only by node hardware) |
Forced Protocol Upgrades | |||
Cross-Domain Composability | Native & synchronous (within ecosystem) | Asynchronous via IBC/Celestia rollup bridging | Asynchronous via IBC/Custom bridges |
Time-to-Finality (User) | < 1 sec (soft) to ~12 min (hard L1) | < 1 sec (soft) to ~20 min (DA layer) | ~6 sec (Tendermint) to variable |
Minimum Viable Validator Set | 1 (Centralized Sequencer) | 1 (Centralized Sequencer) | 4 (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) |
Exit to L1 Liquidity | Native, trust-minimized (7-day challenge period) | Bridged, trust-assumed (security of bridge validators) | Bridged, trust-assumed (security of bridge validators) |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL MISMATCH
Deep Dive: Where Shared Security Breaks
Shared security models like rollups and validiums are not a universal solution and create critical trade-offs for applications requiring sovereignty or extreme performance.
Sovereignty is sacrificed for security. Rollups inherit Ethereum's liveness but cede control over upgrade paths and sequencer logic to a centralized operator or DAO. This is unacceptable for applications like permissioned DeFi or state channels that require deterministic, instant finality.
Data availability costs dominate for high-throughput apps. A ZK-rollup for a gaming chain must post all state diffs to Ethereum, making microtransactions economically impossible. Validiums like Immutable X mitigate this but trade data availability for weaker security guarantees.
Cross-domain composability breaks. An app on Arbitrum cannot atomically compose with one on Optimism without a trusted bridge. Shared security creates walled gardens, forcing protocols like Uniswap to deploy identical, fragmented liquidity pools across every major L2.
Evidence: The TVL migration from early shared security chains like Cosmos to app-specific rollups demonstrates the demand for sovereignty. dYdX left StarkEx for its own Cosmos app-chain to control its sequencer profits and upgrade timeline.
case-study
WHY SHARED SECURITY IS A TRAP
Case Studies: The Proof is in the Failure Modes
Shared security models like rollups and app-chains promise safety but introduce critical, often fatal, trade-offs for specific applications.
01
The High-Frequency DEX Illusion
Rollups inherit the base layer's slow, expensive finality, making sub-second arbitrage and liquidations impossible. The shared sequencer becomes a bottleneck, not a benefit.\n- Latency Trap: ~12s Ethereum finality vs. <1s needed for MEV capture.\n- Cost Spikes: Congestion on L1 forces all rollup apps to pay premium gas, destroying predictable fee models.
~12s
Finality Lag
100x+
Fee Volatility
02
Privacy-Preserving Apps on a Public Ledger
Applications like dark pools or confidential voting require data availability and execution privacy. Shared security chains leak intent through the public mempool and settlement layer.\n- Intent Exposure: Sequencer sees plaintext transactions, enabling front-running.\n- DA Leakage: Forced to post proofs/data to public Ethereum, breaking privacy guarantees.
0
Pre-Confirmation Privacy
100%
DA Surveillance
03
Sovereign Chains & Maximum Extractable Value
App-specific chains (e.g., dYdX, Aevo) migrated away from shared L2s primarily to capture sequencer revenue and control their MEV supply chain. Shared sequencers socialize this value.\n- Revenue Leakage: ~$50M+ annual sequencer fees diverted to L2 general fund.\n- MEV Fragmentation: Inability to implement custom auction (e.g., order flow auctions) due to shared block builder.
$50M+
Annual Revenue Leak
1
Controlled MEV Stack
04
The Interoperability Bottleneck
Apps requiring fast cross-chain composability (e.g., money markets using multi-collateral) are hostage to the shared security bridge's speed and trust assumptions. A vulnerability in the canonical bridge dooms all apps.\n- Single Point of Failure: Compromise the shared bridge (see Wormhole, Poly Network), lose $100s of millions.\n- Speed Ceiling: Cross-rollup messaging latency is gated by slow L1 finality, breaking synchronous composability.
1 Bridge
Single Failure Point
~30min
Worst-Case Settlement
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRADEOFF
Steelman & Refute: "But Interoperability!"
Shared security's interoperability promise is a strategic trap for applications requiring sovereignty or specialized performance.
Interoperability is a commodity. The argument that shared security is necessary for cross-chain composability is outdated. Specialized intent-based bridges like Across and general message passing layers like LayerZero and Wormhole abstract this away. Your application's security model should not be dictated by a bridge.
Sovereignty is non-negotiable for certain apps. Protocols requiring custom fee models, unique governance (e.g., Uniswap's fee switch), or specialized execution (like a high-frequency DEX) cede control on a shared sequencer. This creates political risk and performance bottlenecks that a dedicated chain avoids.
The cost is misallocated. Paying for global validator security is wasteful when your application, like a niche NFT marketplace or a private DeFi pool, only needs localized security. The capital is better spent on optimizing your own chain's throughput and user experience.
Evidence: Look at dYdX's migration from StarkEx to Cosmos. The exchange sacrificed Ethereum's liquidity moat for sovereign execution and custom fee capture. Their volume validates the trade-off for performance-critical applications.
takeaways
WHY SHARED SECURITY IS A TRAP
Takeaways: The Builder's Checklist
Shared security models like rollups and app-chains are not universally optimal. For certain applications, the cost of sovereignty outweighs the benefit of borrowed safety.
01
The Sovereignty Tax for High-Throughput dApps
Paying for L1 security is a direct tax on transaction throughput and user fees. For applications like high-frequency DEXs or gaming worlds requiring ~500ms finality, this overhead is fatal.
- Key Insight: Your economic security needs are defined by your own TVL, not the host chain's.
- Action: Model the break-even point where dedicated validator costs undercut L1 sequencing fees.
10-100x
Fee Multiplier
~2s+
Added Latency
02
The Customizability Illusion
General-purpose shared sequencers (e.g., Espresso, Astria) and settlement layers impose consensus-level constraints. True app-specific needs—like privacy-preserving order flow or custom fee markets—require control over the mempool and block building.
- Key Insight: You can't fork the sequencer to implement encrypted mempools or MEV capture.
- Action: Audit if your required feature is achievable via a smart contract or needs a VM/consensus change.
0
Mempool Control
High
Integration Risk
03
The Shared Failure Mode
Your application inherits the liveness and censorship risks of the shared security provider. An outage or exploit in EigenLayer, Polygon CDK, or OP Stack takes your app down too, creating correlated risk across the ecosystem.
- Key Insight: Security is not just cryptographic; it's about liveness guarantees and operator decentralization.
- Action: Evaluate the provider's historical uptime and validator churn. A dedicated chain with 10 honest validators may be more resilient than a buggy shared system with 1000.
100%
Correlated Downtime
Low
Exit Autonomy
04
When Shared Security *Does* Work: The Bridge & Stablecoin Rule
Canonical bridges and native stablecoins (like USDC on Arbitrum) are the archetypal winners. Their value is directly pegged to the security of the parent chain, making the sovereignty tax a necessary cost of doing business.
- Key Insight: If your app's core asset is a derivative of L1 state, you must inherit its security.
- Action: For all other apps, treat shared security as a costly vendor dependency, not a first principle.
$10B+
TVL Protected
Mandatory
For Pegged Assets
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