Redundant security is a tax on every cross-chain transaction. Each new rollup or appchain must bootstrap its own validator set, fragmenting liquidity and capital. This creates a massive capital inefficiency where billions in staked assets sit idle, securing isolated state machines instead of productive applications.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
The Hidden Cost of Redundant Security
Monolithic blockchains force every app to pay for its own full security stack, a massive capital inefficiency. Modular architectures unlock shared security, turning a cost center into a revenue stream for validators.
introduction
THE CAPITAL TRAP
Introduction
Blockchain's modular future is being strangled by the compounding cost of redundant security.
Shared security is the scaling bottleneck. The debate between monolithic chains like Solana and modular stacks like Celestia/EigenLayer misses the core issue: both models force applications to pay for security they don't fully utilize. This is a fundamental economic misalignment that limits composability and user experience.
The evidence is in the TVL. Over $100B is locked in bridge contracts and rollup sequencers, capital that generates minimal yield while creating systemic risk points like the Wormhole or Nomad exploits. This is the hidden cost of fragmentation that users ultimately pay for in fees and slippage.
thesis-statement
THE COST OF REDUNDANCY
The Core Argument: Security is a Commodity, Not a Feature
Blockchain teams waste billions replicating security models that users do not value as a primary differentiator.
Security is a table-stake commodity. Users assume a base level of safety; they choose chains for liquidity, applications, and cost. No one picks Ethereum L2s for their unique fraud proofs—they pick them for Uniswap and low fees.
Redundant security models create massive waste. Every new app-chain or L2 funds its own validator set, sequencer, and bug bounty. This capital and engineering effort is a deadweight loss, replicating the work of EigenLayer, Babylon, or shared sequencer networks.
The market prices security as a utility. The success of Across Protocol and Stargate proves users route via the cheapest, fastest bridge, not the one with the most elaborate cryptographic attestations. Security is a cost center to minimize, not a premium feature to market.
Evidence: Ethereum's rollup-centric roadmap assumes L2s will purchase security from L1. The proliferation of validiums and optimistic chains using Ethereum for data availability confirms the trend—developers buy security wholesale instead of building it bespoke.
key-trends
THE HIDDEN COST OF REDUNDANT SECURITY
The Inefficiency in Numbers: Three Pain Points
The current multi-chain landscape forces protocols to pay for security they don't need, wasting billions in capital and developer time.
01
The Capital Sink: Staking for Every Chain
Every new L2 or appchain must bootstrap its own validator set, fragmenting liquidity and security. This creates a $50B+ opportunity cost in idle staked capital that could be deployed elsewhere.\n- TVL Duplication: Security budgets are siloed, not shared.\n- Lower Yields: Fragmented stake dilutes validator rewards and network effects.
$50B+
Capital Locked
-30%
Avg. Yield
02
The Developer Tax: Rebuilding the Wheel
Teams waste months re-implementing core security primitives (bridges, oracles, multisigs) instead of building their product. This is the hidden technical debt of modular stacks like OP Stack and Arbitrum Orbit.\n- Time to Market: Adds 6-12 months to launch timelines.\n- Attack Surface: Each custom implementation introduces new vulnerabilities.
6-12mo
Delay
10x
Code Audit Cost
03
The Liquidity Trap: Fragmented Pools
Native bridging locks assets in canonical bridges, while third-party bridges like LayerZero and Axelar create wrapped derivatives. This fractures liquidity, increasing slippage and impairing composability for DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Aave.\n- Slippage Impact: Can exceed 5-10% for large cross-chain swaps.\n- Composability Break: Smart contracts cannot natively interact with assets on foreign chains.
5-10%
Slippage
70%
Lower Utilization
ECONOMIC SECURITY ANALYSIS
The Capital Lockup: Monolithic vs. Modular Security
A comparison of capital efficiency and security assumptions between monolithic blockchains and modular rollups using shared sequencers and data availability layers.
| Security Metric / Assumption | Monolithic L1 (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) | Modular Rollup (Sovereign Sequencer) | Modular Rollup (Shared Sequencer e.g., Espresso, Astria) |
|---|---|---|---|
Capital Lockup for Security | $100B+ (Full Validator Stake) | $0 (Inherits from L1) | $0 (Inherits from L1) |
Time to Finality (Economic) | 15 min - 12 hrs (Checkpointing) | 12 hrs - 7 days (Challenge Period) | 12 hrs - 7 days (Challenge Period) |
Security Redundancy | Full (100% of own security) | Full (100% of L1 security) | Full (100% of L1 security) |
Capital Efficiency | 0% (Sunk cost) | 100% (Reused L1 stake) | 100% (Reused L1 stake) |
Validator/Sequencer Overhead | High (Run full node + consensus) | Medium (Run rollup node only) | Low (Rely on shared network) |
Trust Assumption Added | None (Sovereign) | None (Verifiable via L1) | 1/N Honesty of Shared Sequencer Set |
Cross-Rollup Atomic Composability | |||
Time to Finality (Soft) | 12-15 seconds | 2-5 seconds | < 1 second |
deep-dive
THE COST OF REDUNDANCY
Deconstructing the Shared Security Stack
Shared security models create hidden inefficiencies by forcing protocols to pay for protection they do not need.
Shared security is a tax on application logic. Protocols like EigenLayer and Babylon sell pooled validator security, but a rollup securing a game does not need the same economic guarantees as a billion-dollar DeFi protocol. This mismatch forces all participants to subsidize the highest-risk user.
Redundant validation creates deadweight loss. A rollup using Celestia for data and EigenLayer for restaking still requires its own sequencer and prover network. The security stack becomes a patchwork of overlapping, non-fungible guarantees that inflates costs without linearly improving safety.
The market optimizes for cost, not security. Projects choose the cheapest adequate security layer, creating a race to the bottom. Alt-DA layers and permissioned validator sets undercut Ethereum's cost, fragmenting security budgets instead of consolidating them.
Evidence: Ethereum's full security costs ~20% of rollup revenue. Celestia-based rollups reduce this to <5%, but introduce new trust assumptions. The trade-off is not security vs. cost, but between different, incomplete security models.
protocol-spotlight
THE HIDDEN COST OF REDUNDANT SECURITY
Architects of the New Security Economy
The current multi-chain landscape forces protocols to pay for security they already have, creating massive capital inefficiency.
01
The Re-staking Tax
Every new chain or rollup demands its own validator set and staked capital, forcing protocols to pay for security from scratch. This is a $50B+ opportunity cost locked in redundant cryptoeconomic security.
- Capital Silos: ETH securing Ethereum cannot secure an L2 without complex re-staking mechanisms.
- Diluted Yields: Security budgets are fragmented, lowering effective yields for all stakers.
- Barrier to Launch: New chains require ~$1B+ in TVL just to be considered 'secure', stifling innovation.
$50B+
Locked Capital
-80%
Efficiency Loss
02
EigenLayer: The Security Marketplace
EigenLayer creates a marketplace for pooled cryptoeconomic security, allowing Ethereum stakers to opt-in to secure other systems (AVSs). This turns security from a fixed cost into a reusable, monetizable resource.
- Shared Security Pool: ETH stakers can re-stake to secure bridges, oracles, and new chains.
- Capital Efficiency: One stake secures multiple services, amplifying yield for operators.
- Rapid Bootstrapping: New protocols can rent security from a $20B+ pool instead of bootstrapping their own.
$20B+
TVL Pool
10x
Faster Launch
03
Babylon: Extending Bitcoin's Finality
Bitcoin's $1T+ security is the most expensive and idle asset in crypto. Babylon enables Bitcoin to act as a staking asset, providing finality to PoS chains and reducing their own security spend.
- Time-Locked Staking: BTC is staked via timelock scripts, slashed for misbehavior.
- Unlocks Trillions: Makes Bitcoin's dormant security productive for the entire ecosystem.
- Universal Finality: PoS chains can inherit Bitcoin's immutable finality without a bridge.
$1T+
Security Base
-90%
Staking Cost
04
The Interoperability Security Trap
Bridges and cross-chain messaging protocols like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole must bootstrap their own validator networks, creating critical centralization and cost bottlenecks. Each is a separate security silo.
- N² Security Problem: N chains require N*(N-1)/2 trust-minimized bridges, each with its own security budget.
- Validator Overlap: The same entities (Figment, Chorus One) secure most networks, creating systemic risk.
- User Pays: Every cross-chain swap includes a hidden fee to fund this redundant security.
100+
Security Silos
30%+
Fee Overhead
05
Omnichain VMs as the Endgame
Frameworks like Polygon AggLayer, Cosmos IBC, and Avalanche Subnets abstract chain boundaries, allowing a single security pool to govern a unified state machine. The chain becomes an implementation detail.
- Unified Security Zone: One validator set secures all connected execution environments.
- Atomic Composability: Assets and logic move seamlessly without bridging or wrapped assets.
- Developer Simplicity: Build one app that runs everywhere, with security handled by the meta-protocol.
1
Security Model
0
Bridge Risk
06
The Modular Capital Stack
The future stack separates execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement. Projects like Celestia (DA), EigenDA, and Near DA allow rollups to plug into specialized security layers, paying only for what they use.
- À La Carte Security: A rollup uses Celestia for cheap DA, Ethereum for high-value settlement, and EigenLayer for its sequencer.
- Cost Optimization: Security becomes a variable operating expense, not a massive capital raise.
- Specialization Breeds Efficiency: Each layer competes on security/price, driving down costs for all.
100x
Cheaper DA
-99%
Launch Cost
counter-argument
THE SECURITY TRAP
The Monolithic Rebuttal (And Why It's Wrong)
Monolithic scaling's security redundancy is a systemic capital inefficiency that fragments liquidity and developer focus.
Redundant security is expensive. Every monolithic L1, from Solana to Avalanche, must bootstrap its own validator set and economic security. This creates massive capital overhead that is replicated, not shared.
Security fragments liquidity. Capital securing a chain is capital not providing liquidity in its DeFi pools. This is the hidden liquidity tax of monolithic design, a direct trade-off between safety and utility.
Modular chains externalize security. Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism inherit Ethereum's validator set. This eliminates the security bootstrap cost, freeing capital for productive use within the ecosystem.
Evidence: Ethereum's staked ETH exceeds $100B. A new L1 needs billions to approach similar security, capital that could instead fund protocols on a shared security layer like EigenLayer or Babylon.
risk-analysis
THE HIDDEN COST OF REDUNDANCY
The New Risks of Shared Security
Shared security models like restaking and shared sequencers create systemic risk by concentrating failure modes and imposing hidden economic costs.
01
The Slashing Cascade
A single slashing event on a base layer like EigenLayer can propagate across hundreds of actively validated services (AVS), creating correlated failures. The economic model assumes uncorrelated risk, but shared operators create a single point of failure.
- Correlated Failure Risk: One operator fault slashes all its delegated AVS positions.
- Systemic Contagion: $15B+ in restaked ETH creates a massive, interconnected liability pool.
- Liquidity Crunch: Mass unbonding and slashing can trigger a liquidity crisis across the ecosystem.
$15B+
At Risk
100+
AVS Correlated
02
The Validator Dilemma
Node operators are incentivized to maximize yield by joining every high-paying AVS, creating security over-subscription and performance degradation. This turns security into a commodity, diluting its quality.
- Over-Subscription: Operators run dozens of AVS clients, increasing latency and crash risk.
- Yield > Security: Economic pressure favors reward optimization over robust validation.
- Performance Tax: ~500ms+ latency penalties as node resources are split, hurting UX for apps like Hyperliquid or Lyra.
~500ms
Latency Add
50+
AVS/Node
03
LST Liquidity Fragmentation
Liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like stETH become the primary collateral for restaking, tying DeFi liquidity to validator security. A crisis in one system drains liquidity from the other, creating a reflexive death spiral.
- Collateral Re-hypothecation: The same stETH is used in DeFi lending and restaking, multiplying leverage.
- Reflexive Risk: A drop in LST price triggers margin calls and forced AVS exits.
- TVL Illusion: $30B+ in "secured" TVL is actually the same liquidity double-counted across EigenLayer, Aave, and Compound.
$30B+
Double-Counted
2.5x
Effective Leverage
04
The Interoperability Attack Surface
Shared security layers like EigenLayer and Babylon aim to secure cross-chain bridges and rollups, but they create a new meta-layer vulnerable to governance attacks. Controlling the shared security layer means controlling all bridged assets.
- Meta-Layer Risk: Compromise the shared sec layer, compromise every chain it secures.
- Bridge Centralization: Projects like Across and LayerZero may outsource security, creating a single point of censorship.
- Governance Capture: A $5B stake could theoretically control security for hundreds of chains, defeating decentralization.
$5B
Attack Cost
100+
Chains Exposed
future-outlook
THE COST OF REDUNDANCY
The Endgame: Security as a Liquid Market
Redundant security models waste billions in capital, creating a massive inefficiency that a liquid market for security will commoditize.
Security is a commodity that every blockchain and rollup must purchase. Today, each chain buys its own bespoke security, leading to massive capital fragmentation and waste.
Proof-of-Stake capital is idle on L1s like Ethereum and Solana. This capital could be restaked via EigenLayer or Babylon to secure other protocols, turning a sunk cost into a revenue stream.
Rollups overpay for security by posting full data to Ethereum. Validiums and zkPorter demonstrate that cheaper, tailored security models are viable when the market allows for it.
The end state is a security yield curve. High-value settlements will pay for Ethereum-level security, while gaming states will rent cheaper security from AltLayer or Avail, optimizing cost for risk.
takeaways
THE REDUNDANCY TRAP
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Every layer of security you add to your protocol has a quantifiable, often hidden, cost in capital, latency, and complexity.
01
The Problem: The Bridge Security Tax
Every major bridge (e.g., LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole) runs its own independent validator set. Your protocol pays for this security overhead on every cross-chain transaction, resulting in ~30-50% higher gas fees and ~2-5 second latency per hop. This is the direct cost of redundant attestation.
+30-50%
Gas Overhead
2-5s
Latency Tax
02
The Solution: Shared Security Layers
Architect on a shared security base layer like EigenLayer or Babylon. Instead of bootstrapping your own validator set, you rent economic security from an established pool of $10B+ in restaked ETH. This cuts capital costs by ~90% and eliminates the validator recruitment/coordination overhead that plagues new chains.
-90%
Capital Cost
$10B+
Security Pool
03
The Problem: The Oracle Consensus Overlap
Your DeFi protocol likely uses Chainlink for price feeds and a separate bridge for cross-chain messages. Both systems run parallel, independent consensus mechanisms for the same underlying data (e.g., ETH/USD price). You're paying twice for the same security guarantee, a direct inefficiency.
2x
Redundant Cost
Multiple
Trust Assumptions
04
The Solution: Intent-Based Abstraction
Use an intent-based architecture (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap, Across) that abstracts away execution. Users submit a desired outcome ("swap X for Y"), and a solver network competes to fulfill it optimally. This eliminates the need for your protocol to manage the security of every possible execution path, offloading it to a specialized layer.
Optimal
Execution
Offloaded
Security Burden
05
The Problem: The L2 Sequencer Monoculture
Most Optimistic and ZK Rollups rely on a single, centralized sequencer for transaction ordering. While the execution is secured by L1, the liveness and censorship-resistance of the chain is not. This creates a single point of failure you're forced to trust, negating the decentralized security you think you're buying.
1
Sequencer
High
Liveness Risk
06
The Solution: Decentralized Sequencer Pools
Build on or migrate to an L2 with a decentralized sequencer set (e.g., Espresso Systems, Astria). This replaces the single operator with a permissionless network, distributing liveness guarantees and MEV capture. It's the only way to achieve true L1-grade security for transaction ordering.
Permissionless
Network
Distributed
MEV
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