Execution layers are political entities. A chain's sequencer or validator set controls transaction ordering and fee extraction, creating a centralized point for governance capture. This is not a bug of specific implementations like Arbitrum or Optimism, but a structural feature of any sovereign rollup or L2.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Independent Execution Layers Risk Governance Capture
The modular blockchain thesis promises specialization, but it creates a critical vulnerability: small, focused execution layer communities are prime targets for governance capture by well-funded actors. This is the hidden cost of sovereignty.
introduction
THE GOVERNANCE TRAP
Introduction
Independent execution layers create a fundamental misalignment between network operators and users, leading to systemic risk.
Value capture precedes value creation. The economic model for these chains prioritizes sequencer revenue and token speculation over user outcomes. This misalignment manifests as proposer-builder separation (PBS) failures, where the entity ordering transactions also builds blocks, extracting maximal value via MEV.
Users cede sovereignty for liquidity. Developers choose chains based on ecosystem size and grants, not architectural purity. This creates a liquidity moat that protects incumbent L2s from competition, even as their governance becomes more extractive. The recent Celestia-driven modular stack proliferation exacerbates this by lowering chain-creation costs without solving the core alignment problem.
Evidence: Arbitrum's sequencer has never been forcibly decentralized despite DAO governance, and Optimism's initial sequencer upgrade required a hardcoded multisig override, demonstrating the practical inertia of centralized control points.
key-trends
WHY INDEPENDENT EXECUTION LAYERS RISK GOVERNANCE CAPTURE
The Governance Attack Surface is Expanding
Decoupling execution from consensus creates new, high-value attack vectors for coordinated actors.
01
The Problem: The Sequencer is a Single Point of Failure
Rollup governance controls the sequencer, which orders all transactions. A captured governance can censor, front-run, or extract MEV at will. This centralizes power that the underlying L1 was designed to prevent.
- Control over transaction ordering enables maximal extractable value (MEV) theft.
- Censorship becomes trivial, breaking the credibly neutral promise.
- Upgrade keys can be used to introduce malicious code, risking $10B+ TVL.
1
Critical Failure Point
$10B+
TVL at Risk
02
The Problem: Economic Incentives Favor Cartel Formation
Governance token distribution is often concentrated among early investors and the foundation. A small coalition can control voting outcomes to capture sequencer revenue and protocol fees, creating a self-reinforcing oligarchy.
- Low voter turnout (often <10%) makes capture cheap.
- Proposal bribes via platforms like Snapshot or Tally can swing votes.
- Revenue siphon directly to token holders, disincentivizing decentralization.
<10%
Typical Voter Turnout
O(1B)
Token Supply Controlled
03
The Solution: Enshrined Sequencing & Proposer-Builder Separation
Mitigation requires architectural changes that reduce governance's power over live operations. Enshrined sequencing (where the L1 orders transactions) or PBS (separating block building from proposing) removes discretionary control.
- L1 Consensus as Sequencer: Adopted by designs like EigenLayer's shared sequencer and Near's Nightshade.
- Credibly Neutral PBS: Inspired by Ethereum's roadmap, it prevents a single entity from controlling the transaction pipeline.
- Force Inclusion: Guarantees users can submit tx directly to L1, a last-resort check.
0
Governance Control Points
L1-Grade
Security Assumption
04
The Solution: Progressive Decentralization with Hard Forks
Treat the initial centralized sequencer as a temporary training wheel. The protocol must have a credible, irreversible path to remove governance keys and transition to permissionless validation, enforced by social consensus and code.
- Sunset Clauses: Smart contracts that automatically disable admin functions after a set period.
- Social Consensus Fork: The community must be willing to fork the chain if governance is captured, as seen with Ethereum/ETC.
- Gradual Power Reduction: Sequencer revenue sharing must decrease as decentralization increases.
Irreversible
End State
Community
Final Arbiter
deep-dive
THE GOVERNANCE TRAP
The Slippery Slope: From Specialization to Subjugation
Independent execution layers create a fatal governance asymmetry where sequencer profits fund protocol capture.
Sequencer revenue funds governance attacks. Profits from MEV and transaction ordering on chains like Arbitrum and Optimism create a war chest. This capital directly finances the acquisition of governance tokens to influence protocol upgrades and treasury decisions.
Specialization creates a single point of failure. A monolithic L2's value is its execution. This makes its governance the only meaningful lever for value extraction, unlike modular stacks where separate layers (e.g., Celestia for DA, EigenLayer for security) distribute power.
The endgame is protocol ossification. Captured governance stalls innovation that threatens the sequencer's revenue model. Proposals for decentralized sequencer sets or permissionless proving, as seen in early Arbitrum debates, face coordinated opposition.
Evidence: Lido Finance's dominance in Ethereum staking illustrates the playbook. A specialized service used its revenue to accumulate governance power, creating systemic risk. Execution layers are next.
GOVERNANCE CAPTURE RISK
Vulnerability Matrix: Execution Layer Archetypes
Comparing the susceptibility of different execution layer designs to governance capture, which can lead to censorship, value extraction, and protocol ossification.
| Governance Vector | Sovereign Rollup (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Shared Sequencer Network (e.g., Espresso, Astria) | Enshrined Rollup (e.g., Monad, Fuel) |
|---|---|---|---|
Sequencer Control | Single, centralized entity | Decentralized set, permissioned | Protocol-native, decentralized |
Upgrade Key Holder | Multi-sig (5/9 typical) | Governance token (e.g., $ESP) | On-chain governance or hard fork |
Forced Inclusion Timeout | 24 hours | < 10 minutes | 1 block (~2 seconds) |
Proposer-Builder Separation | |||
MEV Revenue Destination | Sequencer/DAO Treasury | Sequencer Set & Treasury | Validator Set & Protocol Treasury |
Cost to Attack Governance | $2-5B (token market cap) | $200-500M (lower float) |
|
Censorship Resistance Fallback | Force via L1, 24h delay | Force via L1, <10m delay | Native to consensus |
case-study
WHY INDEPENDENT EXECUTION LAYERS RISK GOVERNANCE CAPTURE
Case Studies in Concentrated Power
Decoupling execution from settlement creates new attack vectors for value extraction and censorship.
01
The MEV Cartel Problem
Independent sequencers and builders form opaque cartels, extracting billions in value from users. Without credible neutrality enforced at the settlement layer, they optimize for their own profit, not chain security.
- Result: >90% of Ethereum blocks built by a 3-entity cartel.
- Risk: Censorship becomes trivial when execution is a centralized business.
>90%
Blocks Controlled
$1B+
Annual Extractable Value
02
The Lido DAO Precedent
Lido's ~30% dominance of Ethereum staking showcases how a single governance token can threaten protocol neutrality. An independent execution layer with its own token is a governance capture honeypot.
- Mechanism: Token-voted upgrades can mandate exclusive order flow deals or censor transactions.
- Outcome: The "Lido problem" replicates, creating systemic risk for the entire rollup stack.
~30%
Staking Share
1 Token
Single Point of Failure
03
Shared Sequencer Fragility
Networks like Astria or Espresso aim to decentralize sequencing, but their security is only as strong as their validator set's economic alignment. A captured sequencer set can reorder, censor, or halt execution entirely.
- Vulnerability: $10B+ TVL depends on a small, potentially corruptible committee.
- Contrast: Ethereum-proposed PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) keeps enforcement at L1.
$10B+
TVL at Risk
~50 Nodes
Typical Committee Size
04
The Arbitrum Security Council Experiment
Arbitrum's 12-of-24 multisig "Security Council" can upgrade contracts without a full DAO vote, a necessary speed-for-trust tradeoff. This creates a high-value political target for regulatory or malicious capture.
- Reality: Emergency powers are a permanent governance vulnerability.
- Proof: Similar councils in Optimism, Polygon show the model is now standard—and standardly risky.
12/24
Multisig Threshold
7 Days
Emergency Upgrade Time
05
Interoperability as a Wedge
Cross-chain messaging protocols (LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole) are de facto execution layers for interchain intents. Their validator/guardian sets are centralized choke points for global transaction flow.
- Exposure: A single captured oracle can forge arbitrary messages, draining bridges.
- Scale: This risk multiplies across $50B+ in bridged value.
$50B+
Bridged Value
19/20
Wormhole Guardian Quorum
06
Enshrined Execution is the Hedge
The endgame is enshrined rollups where execution, data availability, and settlement are unified under L1 consensus. This eliminates the governance token attack surface and aligns economic security.
- Path: Ethereum's EIP-4844 & Dank Sharding reduce the need for independent DA.
- Verdict: Independent execution layers are a temporary scaling hack, not a sustainable architecture.
1 Consensus
Unified Security
0 Tokens
Eliminated Attack Surface
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Rebuttal: Isn't This Just DAO Governance?
Independent execution layers create a structural conflict where the sequencer's profit motive directly opposes the rollup's security and decentralization.
Sequencer profit is adversarial. A rollup's DAO governs the protocol, but an independent sequencer's revenue depends on maximizing MEV extraction and transaction ordering. This creates a principal-agent problem where the agent's optimal strategy harms the principal.
Governance is a slow veto, not control. DAOs like Arbitrum's can theoretically replace a malicious sequencer, but this is a reactive, high-latency action. The sequencer has real-time, unchecked power over transaction inclusion, censorship, and front-running.
The L2 becomes an L1 dependency. This architecture reintroduces the trusted intermediary problem that rollups were designed to solve. Users must now trust the sequencer's integrity as much as they trust Ethereum's consensus.
Evidence: The proposed Espresso Systems sequencer marketplace illustrates the risk. Competing sequencers will bid for the right to order blocks, financially incentivizing them to optimize for their own extractable value, not the rollup's health.
takeaways
GOVERNANCE RISKS
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Decoupling execution from settlement creates a new attack surface for value extraction and censorship.
01
The Sequencer Monopoly Problem
A single entity controlling transaction ordering becomes a natural monopoly. This centralizes MEV extraction and enables censorship.\n- Revenue Capture: The sequencer can front-run user trades or extract >90% of cross-domain MEV.\n- Censorship Vector: Can blacklist addresses or transactions, breaking credible neutrality.
>90%
MEV Capture
1
Chokepoint
02
The Upgrade Key Risk
Control over the execution client's upgrade mechanism is ultimate control. A malicious or coerced upgrade can steal funds or change protocol rules.\n- Single Point of Failure: Unlike Ethereum's multi-client model, many L2s have singular, centralized upgrade keys.\n- Time-Lock Theater: 7-day delays are meaningless if the governing entity can socially coordinate to bypass them.
1
Upgrade Key
7 Days
Weak Delay
03
The Data Availability (DA) Cartel
Relying on an external DA layer like Celestia or EigenDA outsources security. Their validator sets can collude to withhold data, freezing the chain.\n- Liveness Failure: If >1/3 of DA validators are malicious, the L2 halts.\n- Cost Cartelization: DA providers can raise prices exponentially once L2s are locked in.
>33%
Attack Threshold
Lock-in
Vendor Risk
04
Solution: Enshrined Validation
Bake the execution layer's verification rules directly into the settlement layer's consensus (e.g., Ethereum via EIP-4844 & danksharding).\n- Eliminates Trust: Validity proofs or fraud proofs are verified by Ethereum validators, not a separate committee.\n- Aligns Incentives: Security is inherited from the base layer's ~$50B+ staked economic security.
~$50B+
Shared Security
Native
Verification
05
Solution: Decentralized Sequencer Sets
Replace the single sequencer with a Proof-of-Stake validator set or a leader election mechanism (e.g., inspired by Cosmos, Babylon).\n- MEV Distribution: Auction sequencing rights or use MEV-sharing protocols like MEV-Share.\n- Censorship Resistance: Transactions ordered by a permissionless set replicating L1 properties.
Permissionless
Set
Redistributed
MEV
06
Solution: Credibly Neutral Governance
Adopt governance models that minimize human discretion. Use vetoable multi-sigs with strong community checks, or move towards on-chain, stake-weighted voting.\n- Escape Hatches: Ensure users have a self-custodial exit (force withdrawal) independent of governance.\n- Transparent Processes: All proposals and votes must be on-chain and time-locked, avoiding opaque foundation decisions.
On-Chain
Voting
Force Exit
User Guarantee
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