Sovereignty demands execution control. An appchain's value is its ability to customize transaction ordering, fee markets, and state transitions. Relying on a generic VM like the EVM forfeits this core advantage.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
Why Every Appchain Needs a Dedicated Execution Layer Strategy
Choosing your execution environment—EVM, CosmWasm, SVM, or Move—isn't a technical afterthought. It's a foundational product decision that dictates your user experience, cost structure, and developer moat. This analysis breaks down the trade-offs for Cosmos, Polkadot, and sovereign rollup builders.
introduction
THE EXECUTION LAYER
The Appchain Illusion: Sovereignty Without Strategy is Suicide
Sovereignty without a dedicated execution layer strategy creates operational fragility and economic inefficiency.
Sequencer revenue is non-negotiable. Without a dedicated sequencer, MEV and fee revenue leaks to a shared network like Arbitrum or Optimism. This erodes the appchain's economic foundation.
Proposer-Builder-Separation (PBS) is mandatory. A naive single-sequencer model creates a centralization vector and censorship risk. Implement a PBS framework like Espresso or Astria from day one.
Evidence: dYdX v4's migration to Cosmos included a custom mempool and order-book matching engine. This execution layer strategy enabled its core product, which a generic rollup could not.
key-trends
THE APPCHAIN IMPERATIVE
Execution Layer Trends: Beyond the EVM Monoculture
The EVM is a one-size-fits-all runtime; high-performance applications require specialized execution environments.
01
The Parallel Execution Mandate
EVM's sequential processing caps throughput at ~50 TPS per chain. High-frequency DeFi and gaming require concurrent transaction execution.
- Solana's Sealevel and Aptos' Block-STM achieve 50k+ TPS via optimistic parallelization.
- Appchains can adopt SVM or MoveVM for native parallelism, avoiding EVM's bottleneck.
1000x
Throughput Gain
~100ms
Finality
02
Sovereign Settlement & MEV Capture
Relying on a shared L1 like Ethereum exports value via bridge fees and MEV. A dedicated execution layer lets the appchain become its own economic center.
- dYdX v4 on Cosmos keeps 100% of sequencer fees and MEV.
- Custom block builders and encrypted mempools (SUAVE, Shutter Network) can internalize and democratize extractable value.
100%
Fee Capture
$1B+
Annualized MEV
03
Gas Abstraction & Intent-Based UX
Requiring users to hold a native gas token is a catastrophic UX failure. The execution layer must abstract this complexity.
- ERC-4337 Account Abstraction enables sponsored transactions and social recovery.
- Intent-based architectures (inspired by UniswapX, CowSwap) let users specify outcomes, not transactions, delegating execution to professional solvers.
0
Gas Tokens Needed
~90%
UX Friction Removed
04
The Modular Data Availability (DA) Trade-off
Using Ethereum for DA is secure but expensive (~$0.50 per KB). High-throughput apps must optimize for cost without compromising security.
- Celestia and EigenDA offer ~$0.001 per KB DA, enabling <$0.01 transaction costs.
- The trade-off is a lighter security budget; appchains must match DA security to the value they secure.
-99%
DA Cost
100 KB/block
Scaled Throughput
05
WASM: The Multi-Language Future
Solidity limits developer talent pool and introduces reentrancy bugs. WebAssembly (WASM) runtimes enable execution in Rust, Go, and C++.
- CosmWasm and Polkadot's parachains demonstrate secure, high-performance smart contracts in Rust.
- This attracts traditional developers and enables safer, more auditable codebases.
10x
Dev Pool
-80%
Vulnerability Risk
06
Interoperability as a First-Class Citizen
An appchain is useless if isolated. The execution layer must natively support secure cross-chain communication without trusted bridges.
- IBC provides minimal-trust interoperability across 100+ Cosmos chains.
- LayerZero and Axelar offer generalized messaging, but introduce external security assumptions.
2s
IBC Latency
$0.01
Cross-Chain Cost
APPCHAIN ARCHITECTURE
Execution Layer Feature Matrix: The Builder's Trade-Off
A first-principles comparison of execution layer strategies for sovereign appchains, evaluating the trade-offs between shared EVM L2s, custom VMs, and specialized app-specific L1s.
| Critical Feature | Shared EVM L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, OP Stack) | Custom VM Appchain (e.g., Fuel, Eclipse) | App-Specific L1 (e.g., dYdX v4, Sei) |
|---|---|---|---|
Sovereignty / Forkability | |||
Max Theoretical TPS (Peak) | ~4,000 | ~10,000+ | ~20,000+ |
Time-to-Finality | ~12 sec (L2) + ~12 min (L1) | ~2 sec | < 1 sec |
State Bloat Control | Inherits L1 constraints | Custom gas for state ops | Full control, pruneable history |
MEV Capture & Redistribution | Limited (via sequencer) | Customizable (e.g., PBS to DAO) | Native (integrated into protocol) |
Upgrade Governance Complexity | High (L1 + L2 multisig) | Moderate (on-chain governance) | Total (chain-level governance) |
Developer Tooling Maturity | Ethereum-equivalent | Emerging (new SDKs) | Bespoke (requires internal dev) |
Cross-Chain Interop Complexity | Native L1 bridge (high security) | Requires new bridge (e.g., IBC, LayerZero) | Requires new bridge (e.g., IBC, Axelar) |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION LAYER
Gas Models as a Product Feature: From Tax to Tokenomics
A chain's gas model is its primary product lever, dictating user experience, developer incentives, and long-term sustainability.
Gas is a product feature. On monolithic chains like Ethereum, gas is a tax users pay to the network. On an appchain, gas is a revenue model and UX lever you control. You design the fee market, subsidize operations, and decide who profits.
Subsidized gas drives adoption. Protocols like dYdX and Immutable subsidize transaction costs to onboard users. This creates a seamless user experience that monolithic L2s cannot match, as their gas is a shared, volatile commodity.
Native token utility is non-negotiable. A token used only for governance is a ghost town. The fee switch must be on. Your execution layer must burn, distribute, or stake fees in your token, creating a sustainable flywheel for validators and holders.
Evidence: Arbitrum's sequencer captures 100% of priority fees in ETH, a missed opportunity for ARB tokenomics. In contrast, a well-designed appchain like dYdX v4 funnels all trading fees to stakers of its native token.
case-study
STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES
Execution in Action: Appchain Case Studies
Abstracting execution is a competitive necessity. These case studies show how dedicated execution layers solve existential appchain bottlenecks.
01
The dYdX v4 Migration: Why a Cosmos Appchain Chose a Custom Stack
The Problem: dYdX's orderbook model on L1 Ethereum was crippled by ~$5 gas fees per trade and ~15 TPS, making retail trading untenable. The Solution: Migrating to a Cosmos SDK chain with Sei's parallelized execution engine. This enables sub-second block times and ~2,000 orders per second, moving the matching engine on-chain.
- Key Benefit: ~$0.001 average trade cost enables micro-transactions and high-frequency strategies.
- Key Benefit: Full control over mempool logic prevents front-running and MEV extraction by external searchers.
2000x
Cheaper Trades
~1s
Finality
02
Aevo's L2: Isolating High-Frequency Options Trading from General Congestion
The Problem: Running a perpetuals and options DEX on a shared L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism meant competing for block space with NFTs and memecoins, causing latency spikes and unpredictable fees during market volatility. The Solution: Deploying a dedicated OP Stack L2 with a custom sequencer. This provides guaranteed block space and enables off-chain order matching with on-chain settlement.
- Key Benefit: Tailored fee market where traders, not speculative degens, set the gas price.
- Key Benefit: Ability to implement proprietary pre-confirmations and RPC-level order bundling for professional clients.
-90%
Fee Volatility
~100ms
Pre-confirm
03
The Inevitability of Parallel Execution: How Monad and Sei Win
The Problem: Serial execution, as used by Ethereum and most EVM L2s, forces all transactions into a single queue, capping throughput at ~100-200 TPS regardless of hardware. The Solution: Monad's parallel EVM and Sei's v2 upgrade implement optimistic parallel processing. They analyze dependencies and execute non-conflicting transactions simultaneously.
- Key Benefit: Theoretical 10,000+ TPS by utilizing modern multi-core servers, not just faster single cores.
- Key Benefit: Native orderbook feasibility—exchanges can now run matching engines on-chain without compromising user experience.
100x
Throughput Gain
10k+
Theoretical TPS
04
Fuel's Modular Execution: Treating the VM as a Sovereign Service
The Problem: EVM-centric rollups are locked into a ~1990s architectural model—single-threaded, high overhead, and incapable of true innovation at the VM level. The Solution: Fuel's purpose-built VM, delivered as a modular execution layer. It features native asset support, parallel transaction execution, and a UTXO-based state model for strict access lists.
- Key Benefit: Deterministic fee markets where users pay only for the resources they consume, not network congestion.
- Key Benefit: Interoperable execution—the same VM can be deployed as a rollup, sovereign chain, or even a layer 3, creating a unified developer experience across deployments.
-99%
State Bloat
Parallel
By Design
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL DEBT
The EVM Default: A Trap of Convenience
Choosing EVM compatibility as a default strategy creates long-term technical and economic constraints that undermine appchain sovereignty.
EVM compatibility is a tax. It forces your chain to inherit the EVM's architectural limitations, including its single-threaded execution model and global state design, which directly caps your peak performance and fee market efficiency.
Sovereignty requires execution-layer control. An appchain using the EVM as a black box cedes its most critical upgrade path—execution logic—to Ethereum's governance timeline, creating a hard dependency that protocols like dYdX and Injective avoided by building custom VMs.
The economic model breaks. EVM's gas model is a blunt instrument for app-specific resource pricing. A gaming chain needs a fee market optimized for session-based interactions, not a generic opcode pricing table designed for DeFi arbitrage.
Evidence: The migration of high-throughput dApps from L2s to dedicated chains (e.g., dYdX v4, ApeChain) proves the EVM's generic execution environment fails to meet specialized vertical requirements for cost and latency.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Execution Layer FAQ for Appchain Builders
Common questions about why every appchain needs a dedicated execution layer strategy.
An execution layer is the environment that processes and validates transactions, making it the core engine for your appchain's logic. Without a dedicated strategy, you inherit the performance and economic constraints of your underlying L1 or L2, like Ethereum's gas auctions or Solana's network congestion. A custom strategy using frameworks like Arbitrum Nitro or OP Stack lets you optimize for your specific use case.
takeaways
WHY EVERY APPCHAIN NEEDS A DEDICATED EXECUTION LAYER STRATEGY
TL;DR: The Execution Layer Mandate
General-purpose L1s are a bottleneck. Sovereignty over execution is the only path to sustainable scaling and user experience.
01
The Shared Sequencer Trap
Relying on a shared sequencer like EigenLayer or Espresso Systems outsources your most critical component: transaction ordering and MEV capture. This creates a single point of failure and revenue leakage.
- Lost Revenue: MEV from your app's order flow is extracted by the sequencer network, not your treasury.
- Latency Dependency: Your finality is gated by the shared sequencer's performance, capping UX.
- Protocol Risk: A bug or attack on the shared sequencer halts your entire chain.
>90%
MEV Leakage
~2s+
Added Latency
02
The Sovereign Rollup Imperative
A dedicated execution client (e.g., OP Stack, Arbitrum Nitro, Polygon CDK) with a custom sequencer is non-negotiable for serious applications. This is the appchain thesis in practice.
- Full MEV Capture: All value from transaction ordering and bundling accrues to your protocol.
- Tailored Gas Economics: Set your own fee market and subsidize transactions for users.
- Instant Pre-Confirmations: Provide sub-second UX with local sequencing before batch settlement to a DA layer like Celestia or EigenDA.
$0.001
Avg. Tx Cost
~200ms
Pre-Confirmation
03
Execution Client as a Competitive Moat
Your choice of execution environment (EVM, SVM, MoveVM, CosmWasm) dictates your developer ecosystem and performance ceiling. A bespoke Arbitrum Stylus or FuelVM instance can enable use cases impossible on vanilla EVM.
- Vertical Performance: Optimize the VM for your specific state access patterns (e.g., gaming, DeFi).
- Developer Attraction: Tap into native Solana or Move devs without bridging.
- Future-Proofing: Upgrade the execution client on your own timeline, decoupled from L1 politics.
10k+
TPS Potential
1
Upgrade Sovereignty
04
The Intent-Based Abstraction Endgame
The final evolution is abstracting execution away from users entirely. Integrate with UniswapX, CowSwap, or Across to become a destination for settled intents, not just signed transactions.
- Gasless UX: Users sign intents, solvers compete to fulfill them optimally on your chain.
- Cross-Chain Native: Your appchain becomes a liquidity endpoint in a network powered by Anoma or SUAVE.
- Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) becomes Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) for your ecosystem, captured by your designated solvers.
0
User Gas
100%
Fill Rate
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