The abstraction of execution is the new battleground. Developers no longer choose a monolithic chain like Ethereum or Solana; they choose a virtual machine (VM) and its surrounding tooling. This decouples consensus from computation, enabling specialized environments like Arbitrum Nitro and Fuel's UTXO-based VM to compete on raw performance and developer experience.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why the Battle for Developers is Now a Battle of Execution Environments
The fight for developer mindshare has shifted from raw throughput to execution sovereignty. This analysis breaks down the war between integrated L2s and modular frameworks, explaining why VM choice is the new strategic frontier.
introduction
THE SHIFT
Introduction
The primary competition for blockchain developers has moved from consensus mechanisms to the execution environments that run their code.
The winning environment will not be the most decentralized, but the one that provides the best developer primitives. This includes parallel execution (Sei, Monad), custom state models (Berachain), and seamless interoperability via intent-based architectures (UniswapX, Across). The ease of deploying and composing smart contracts dictates network effects.
Evidence: The dominance of the EVM is not a consensus victory but an execution standard. Over 90% of TVL resides in EVM-compatible environments (Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon), proving developers optimize for familiar tooling over novel L1s. The next wave will be environments that transcend EVM limitations without sacrificing its ecosystem.
key-trends
EXECUTION LAYER WARS
The New Developer Mandate: Sovereignty Over Subsidy
The era of competing on token incentives is over. The new battleground is the execution environment itself, where developers demand full control over transaction ordering, fee markets, and state.
01
The Problem: MEV as a Tax on Users
Public mempools are a free-for-all where searchers and validators extract ~$1B+ annually from user transactions via front-running and sandwich attacks. This creates a toxic environment where the protocol's success directly funds its adversaries.\n- Value Leakage: User slippage and failed trades enrich third parties.\n- Unpredictable Costs: Gas wars make transaction outcomes and fees volatile.
$1B+
Annual Extract
>90%
DEX Trades Impacted
02
The Solution: Sovereign Sequencing (Fuel, Eclipse)
Decouple block building from state execution. A dedicated, fast sequencer provides sub-second finality and a proprietary mempool, allowing the appchain to define its own transaction ordering logic and capture MEV for its own treasury or users.\n- Fee Market Control: Set your own base fee and priority fee structure.\n- Intent Integration: Native support for UniswapX-style signed orders becomes trivial.
<1s
Time to Finality
100%
MEV Capture
03
The Problem: Inflexible & Costly State
Monolithic EVM chains force all apps to share and pay for the same global state, leading to congestion spillover and bloated storage costs. Custom state models (like an orderbook's intensive writes) are impossible without extreme overhead.\n- No Specialization: AMMs, games, and DeFi all compete for the same resources.\n- State Bloat Tax: Pay for storage you don't use in perpetuity.
10-100x
Cost Variance
TB+
Unnecessary State
04
The Solution: Parallel VMs & Custom State (Move, SVM, FuelVM)
Execution environments like Sui Move, Solana Virtual Machine (SVM), and FuelVM enable parallel execution and custom state models. An appchain can implement a native orderbook or game engine without being bottlenecked by unrelated NFT mints.\n- Deterministic Parallelism: Process non-conflicting transactions simultaneously.\n- State Rent Elimination: Opt into storage models that fit your economic logic.
10k+
TPS per Shard
-99%
State Cost
05
The Problem: Shared Security as a Straitjacket
Relying on a base layer's (e.g., Ethereum L1) consensus for safety often means inheriting its slow finality (~12 minutes) and being forced to use its canonical bridge. This creates a weak settlement guarantee for high-frequency apps and locks you into a specific liquidity silo.\n- Settlement Lag: Limits composability and user experience.\n- Bridge Dependency: Forces use of a specific, often congested, trust-minimized bridge.
12min
Finality Delay
1
Forced Bridge
06
The Solution: Modular Security & Light Clients (Celestia, EigenLayer)
Separate data availability (DA) and consensus from execution. Use Celestia for scalable DA and EigenLayer restaking to bootstrap a validator set. Deploy a light client bridge like IBC or LayerZero for permissionless connectivity, breaking the base layer's bridge monopoly.\n- Fast, Flexible Security: Choose security based on app needs, not L1 dogma.\n- Sovereign Connectivity: Integrate with any chain, not just your host.
~2s
Data Finality
N
Bridge Options
thesis-statement
THE SHIFT
The Core Thesis: Execution as a Sovereign Primitive
The primary competitive battleground for blockchain developers has shifted from consensus to execution environments.
Execution is the new sovereign primitive. The modular thesis commoditized consensus and data availability via Celestia and EigenDA. This leaves execution as the sole layer for meaningful differentiation and user experience.
Developer mindshare follows execution autonomy. Teams choose OP Stack or Arbitrum Orbit not for their DA layer, but for the customizability of their execution client. This autonomy dictates gas economics, fee markets, and precompiles.
The war is for the VM standard. EVM dominance is a distribution victory, not a technical one. The real fight is between the EVM, Move VM, and WASM for defining the next generation of state transition logic.
Evidence: Arbitrum Stylus enables Rust/C++ smart contracts within the Arbitrum Nitro stack, demonstrating that execution layer innovation is the primary vector for capturing new developer cohorts.
THE DEVELOPER STACK WARS
Execution Environment Showdown: Monolithic L2 vs. Modular Framework
A technical comparison of execution environment paradigms, focusing on developer control, performance, and ecosystem lock-in.
| Core Feature / Metric | Monolithic L2 (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Modular Rollup (e.g., Eclipse, Fuel) | Modular SVM (e.g., Eclipse Solana VM) |
|---|---|---|---|
State Model | Single, shared EVM state | Isolated, custom state model | Isolated, Solana's Sealevel state model |
Virtual Machine Flexibility | EVM or EVM-equivalent only | Any VM (Move, Fuel VM, custom) | Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) only |
Sequencer Control | Protocol-controlled (centralization vector) | App-chain: Self-sequencing possible | App-chain: Self-sequencing possible |
Data Availability Cost | ~$0.24 per 100k gas (L1 calldata) | ~$0.0001 per 100k gas (Celestia) | ~$0.0001 per 100k gas (Celestia) |
Prover / Proof System | Single, protocol-mandated (e.g., Cannon, MIPS) | Choice of proof system (e.g., RISC Zero, SP1) | Choice of proof system (e.g., RISC Zero, SP1) |
Time-to-Finality (L1 inclusion) | ~12 minutes (Ethereum block time) | < 2 minutes (sovereign rollup to Celestia) | < 2 minutes (sovereign rollup to Celestia) |
Ecosystem Portability | Locked to host L2's tooling and governance | Portable across DA layers and settlement chains | Portable across DA layers, locked to SVM semantics |
Max Theoretical TPS (theoretical) | ~4,000 (Arbitrum Nitro) | 100,000+ (limited by DA layer bandwidth) | 100,000+ (limited by DA layer bandwidth) |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION LAYER
Why VM Choice is the Ultimate Strategic Lever
The competition for developer mindshare has shifted from consensus to execution environments, making the virtual machine the primary strategic lever for blockchain ecosystems.
Developer acquisition is now VM-driven. The EVM's dominance created a massive, portable talent pool, but new VMs like Move and SVM offer superior performance and security primitives. Ecosystems like Aptos/Sui and Solana are winning developers by offering a fundamentally better programming model, not just lower gas fees.
Execution defines the application frontier. The VM's architecture dictates what is possible. The EVM's single-threaded execution limits complex DeFi compositions, while parallel VMs like Solana's Sealevel enable high-frequency trading and social apps impossible on Ethereum L1. This technical ceiling becomes the ecosystem's innovation ceiling.
Interoperability shifts to the VM layer. Cross-chain communication is evolving from simple asset bridges like LayerZero to shared execution states. Projects like Eclipse and Polygon CDK let developers deploy a single SVM or zkEVM instance across multiple rollups, making the VM a portable sovereign environment that transcends any single chain's limitations.
Evidence: The zkEVM fork war. Polygon zkEVM, Scroll, and zkSync Era are engaged in a feature race over VM-level performance (e.g., bytecode compatibility, proof speed). This competition proves the battleground is no longer about having a zkEVM, but about whose zkEVM executes developer intent most efficiently.
protocol-spotlight
THE EXECUTION LAYER WARS
Contenders Shaping the Battlefield
The fight for developer mindshare has moved up the stack, from raw L1s to the execution environments where apps are actually built. The winner defines the next generation of user experience.
01
EVM: The Incumbent's Burden
The Problem: A monolithic, synchronous execution model that forces all apps to share a single, congested, and expensive state machine. The Solution: EVM-compatible rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism) and parallel EVMs (Monad, Sei) that preserve the developer toolchain while offering ~10,000 TPS and sub-cent fees. The battle is to scale the incumbent without breaking it.
~90%
Dev Share
10k+ TPS
Target Scale
02
Move: The Security-First Challenger
The Problem: EVM's permissive, pointer-heavy design leads to endemic smart contract vulnerabilities and asset loss. The Solution: A resource-oriented programming model (Aptos, Sui) with built-in asset primitives. Move's linear types and formal verification potential make re-entrancy attacks impossible by design, trading initial flexibility for long-term security at scale.
0
Re-entrancy Bugs
~100ms
Finality
03
WASM: The Universal Runtime
The Problem: Locking dApp innovation into a single, limited VM (EVM) stifles performance and language choice. The Solution: A WebAssembly-based execution layer (Fuel, Polkadot's parachains) that allows developers to write high-performance logic in Rust, C++, or Go. This enables native parallel execution and custom fee markets, optimizing for specific application needs like on-chain gaming or order-book DEXs.
46+
Languages
~5x
Speed vs EVM
04
Intent-Centric Architectures
The Problem: Users shouldn't need to be MEV-aware routing experts to execute a simple swap across chains. The Solution: Declarative transaction systems (UniswapX, CowSwap, Across) where users specify what they want, not how to do it. Solvers compete to fulfill the intent, abstracting away complexity and capturing ~$1B+ in annual MEV that can be returned to users.
$1B+
Annual MEV
~1-Click
UX Complexity
05
ZK-VMs: The Cryptographic Frontier
The Problem: Scaling via fraud proofs (Optimistic Rollups) introduces long, insecure withdrawal delays and high capital costs. The Solution: Zero-Knowledge Virtual Machines (zkSync Era, Starknet, Polygon zkEVM) that provide Ethereum-level security with instant finality. The proving overhead is the bottleneck, but hardware acceleration (GPUs, ASICs) is driving costs down exponentially.
~5 min
Finality Time
-99.9%
L1 Gas Cost
06
Modular Execution & DA
The Problem: Monolithic blockchains force a one-size-fits-all trade-off between execution, data availability, and consensus. The Solution: Specialized layers (Celestia for DA, EigenLayer for shared security, Arbitrum Stylus for execution) that let rollups mix-and-match components. This creates a hyper-competitive market for each resource, driving costs toward marginal production prices.
$0.001
Per MB DA Cost
100+
Rollup Configs
counter-argument
THE EXECUTION WARS
The Bear Case: The Fragmentation Trap
The proliferation of execution environments is fragmenting developer mindshare and creating unsustainable complexity.
Execution environment proliferation is the new scaling bottleneck. Every major L1 and L2 now pushes its own proprietary VM: Arbitrum Stylus, Optimism Bedrock with OP Stack, zkSync's zkEVM, and Polygon's zkEVM. Developers must now choose a virtual machine architecture before writing their first line of business logic.
Fragmentation destroys composability. A dApp built for the EVM cannot natively interact with a Move-based Aptos application or a Solana program. This forces teams into walled garden ecosystems or to rely on fragile, trust-minimized bridges like LayerZero and Wormhole for cross-chain logic.
The tooling stack fractures. Foundry and Hardhat dominate EVM, but Sui Move and Aptos Move require entirely different SDKs. This increases cognitive overhead and slows iteration, as developers context-switch between incompatible development environments and security paradigms.
Evidence: The 2024 Electric Capital Developer Report shows a 52% increase in multi-chain developers, but this masks the reality that most are deploying the same Solidity code to multiple EVM chains. True multi-VM development remains a niche, high-friction activity for elite teams.
takeaways
EXECUTION ENVIRONMENTS
TL;DR for Busy Builders
The monolithic smart contract is dead. The new competitive frontier is the execution layer where your code actually runs.
01
The Monolith is a Bottleneck
EVM's one-size-fits-all runtime forces all apps to share the same constraints, creating a zero-sum game for gas and block space.\n- Sequential execution caps throughput at ~50 TPS on L1.\n- Synchronous composability is a security risk, exposing DeFi to reentrancy and sandwich attacks.\n- Global state bloats nodes, pushing decentralization out of reach.
~50 TPS
EVM Limit
1000x
State Growth
02
Parallel EVMs: Solana's Proof, Now Commoditized
Sealevel and Move proved parallel execution unlocks 10,000+ TPS. Now, Monad, Sei, and Aptos are bringing it to EVM developers.\n- Deterministic parallelism via static analysis or runtime scheduling.\n- Native orderbook support for high-frequency DeFi (e.g., Hyperliquid).\n- Sub-second finality without sacrificing composability.
10,000+ TPS
Throughput
<1s
Finality
03
Modular Stacks: Sovereignty at the App Layer
EigenLayer, Celestia, and Arbitrum Orbit let you launch a custom chain (rollup/validium) as an app feature.\n- Choose your DA layer (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) for ~$0.001 per MB.\n- Custom gas token and fee markets (see dYdX v4).\n- Instant forkability for protocol-owned liquidity and governance.
$0.001/MB
DA Cost
100%
Fee Capture
04
Intent-Based Architectures: Declarative vs. Imperative
Users state what they want, not how to do it. Solvers compete to fulfill it optimally. This abstracts execution complexity.\n- UniswapX and CowSwap for MEV-protected swaps.\n- Across and LayerZero for cross-chain intents.\n- Anoma for fully generalized intent matching.
-99%
MEV Loss
5-10x
Fill Rate
05
ZK-Proofs as a Runtime
ZKPs aren't just for scaling. They enable new trust models where execution happens off-chain and is verified on-chain.\n- zkVMs (Risc Zero, SP1) for verifiable general compute.\n- Private state via zk-proofs (Aztec, Aleo).\n- Proof aggregation (Nebra, Succinct) for cost amortization.
~100ms
Proof Time
Zero-Knowledge
State
06
The New Stack: Pick Your Battles
You no longer need to fight for L1 block space. Your execution environment is your product differentiator.\n- High-Freq Trading: Parallel EVM with embedded orderbook.\n- Social/Gaming: Appchain with custom fee token and high TPS.\n- Institutional DeFi: Validium with data privacy and KYC'd sequencer.
6+
Env. Types
$10B+
Protected Value
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