Data Availability Committees (DACs) are a centralized trade-off for speed. They allow L2s like Arbitrum Nova to scale by having a small, trusted group attest to data availability, bypassing the cost of posting all data to Ethereum.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Data Availability Committees Are a Temporary Scaffold
DACs offer a fast path to cheap data, but they reintroduce centralization. This analysis argues they are a transitional tool, with the modular endgame being scalable, trust-minimized DA layers like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail.
introduction
THE TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD
Introduction
Data Availability Committees are a pragmatic but temporary scaling solution, bridging the gap until decentralized alternatives mature.
The trust model regresses from cryptographic security to legal agreements. This creates a regulatory attack surface and a single point of failure that contradicts crypto's core ethos, making DACs a temporary scaffold, not a foundation.
Evidence: The market validates this. Celestia and EigenDA are building decentralized DA layers, while Ethereum's EIP-4844 (blobs) directly reduces L1 posting costs, eroding the DAC's primary value proposition.
thesis-statement
THE TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD
The Central Contradiction
Data Availability Committees are a pragmatic but fundamentally insecure stepping stone to full decentralization.
Committees are centralized bottlenecks. A DAC is a multi-signature of trusted entities that signs off on data availability, creating a single point of failure and censorship. This directly contradicts the core value proposition of a permissionless, trust-minimized blockchain.
The trade-off is security for speed. Projects like Arbitrum Nova and Polygon Avail use DACs to achieve high throughput and low cost today, bypassing the computational overhead of full data availability proofs. This is a temporary scaling hack, not a final architecture.
The endgame is cryptographic proofs. The industry is converging on validity proofs and data availability sampling, as seen with Celestia, EigenDA, and Ethereum's EIP-4844. These systems mathematically guarantee data is available without trusted signers.
Evidence: Arbitrum Nova's DAC, managed by entities like Google Cloud and QuickNode, processes transactions where data availability is secured by 7-of-12 signatures. This is a stark contrast to the 1-of-N trust model of Ethereum's consensus.
key-trends
A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD
The Rise of the DAC: Why Now?
Data Availability Committees (DACs) are a pragmatic, transitional solution bridging the gap between monolithic chains and fully decentralized data layers.
01
The Celestia Bottleneck: Scaling the DA Layer
Modular rollups need cheap, abundant data availability (DA). While Celestia pioneered the market, its capacity is finite. During peak demand, its ~100 KB/s throughput can become a bottleneck, creating a market for alternative DA providers.
- Market Gap: Creates a window for interim solutions before full DAS (Data Availability Sampling) is production-ready.
- Cost Arbitrage: DACs offer ~90% cheaper data posting than Ethereum calldata, a primary rollup cost.
~100 KB/s
Celestia TPS
-90%
Cost vs ETH
02
The Pragmatic Bridge to EigenDA & Avail
Projects like EigenDA and Avail promise hyperscale DA but require extensive node network bootstrapping and time to achieve robust cryptoeconomic security. DACs provide a production-ready security model today.
- Time-to-Market: Allows rollups like Manta, Aevo, and Lyra to launch immediately.
- Security Model: Relies on a small, known set of reputable entities (e.g., Figment, Nethermind) with slashable stakes, a familiar trade-off for early adopters.
Weeks vs Months
Launch Speed
8-12
Committee Size
03
The Modular Stack's Inevitable Commoditization
The end-state is a multi-provider DA market where rollups dynamically shop for the cheapest, fastest blob space. DACs are the first competitive entrants in this market, proving demand and defining the service SLA.
- Proof of Concept: Validates the economic model for decentralized DA networks.
- Pressure Valve: Prevents any single DA layer (Celestia, Ethereum) from becoming a monopolistic fee extractor.
Multi-Provider
End State
$0.xx per MB
Target Cost
04
The Security-Efficiency Tradeoff (It's Intentional)
DACs explicitly trade maximal decentralization for operational efficiency and lower cost. This is a calculated risk for high-throughput appchains that prioritize user experience and capital efficiency over Byzantine fault tolerance.
- Clear SLAs: Offer ~2s finality versus variable times on base layers.
- Acceptable Risk: For many DeFi and gaming apps, the risk of a coordinated committee failure is outweighed by 10-100x cheaper transaction costs.
~2s
Finality
10-100x
Cheaper TX
WHY DACS ARE A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD
DA Landscape: A Comparative Snapshot
A feature and cost comparison of Data Availability solutions, highlighting the trade-offs between Data Availability Committees (DACs) and fully decentralized alternatives like Ethereum and Celestia.
| Feature / Metric | Data Availability Committee (e.g., Arbitrum Nova) | Ethereum Mainnet (Calldata) | Modular DA Layer (e.g., Celestia, Avail) |
|---|---|---|---|
Decentralization Model | Permissioned Multi-Sig (7-20 entities) | Fully Decentralized (1000s of validators) | Sovereign Proof-of-Stake Network |
Data Availability Guarantee | Cryptoeconomic + Legal Slashing | Cryptoeconomic Slashing (Ethereum Consensus) | Cryptoeconomic Slashing (DA Layer Consensus) |
Cost per MB (approx.) | $0.01 - $0.10 | $1,000 - $5,000 | $0.50 - $2.00 |
Time to Finality | < 1 minute | ~12 minutes (Ethereum block time) | ~15 seconds (DA Layer block time) |
Data Redundancy | Controlled Replication (10-20 nodes) | Global Replication (~1M+ full nodes) | Global Replication (100s of light nodes) |
Censorship Resistance | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
Sovereignty / Forkability | ❌ (Requires committee coordination) | ✅ (via social consensus) | ✅ (via DA layer fork) |
Primary Use Case | Scaling high-throughput, low-cost apps (gaming, social) | Maximum security for high-value DeFi, bridges | Modular rollup settlement and general-purpose scaling |
deep-dive
THE COMPROMISE
Why Data Availability Committees Are a Temporary Scaffold
DACs offer a pragmatic, centralized shortcut to scaling today, but their security model is a deliberate regression that will be obsoleted by verifiable systems.
DACs are a security regression. They replace cryptographic guarantees with a multisig of known entities, trading Nakamoto consensus for a trusted committee. This is the explicit trade-off projects like Arbitrum Nova and Polygon Avail's DAC layer make to achieve low-cost transactions before full data availability layers mature.
Their utility is purely transitional. DACs exist to bootstrap ecosystems until EigenDA, Celestia, or Ethereum's EIP-4844 blobs provide scalable, trust-minimized data availability. They are a scaffolding mechanism, not a permanent architectural component.
The exit strategy is clear. The migration path for a DAC-based rollup is a hard fork to a verifiable DA layer. Failure to execute this transition leaves the chain permanently centralized, as seen in the critique of early Optimism and Arbitrum Nitro's temporary use of a Data Availability Committee.
protocol-spotlight
WHY DACS ARE A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD
The Decentralized DA Contenders
Data Availability Committees offer a fast on-ramp for scaling, but their inherent trust assumptions create a centralization bottleneck. The real battle is for a credibly neutral, permissionless base layer.
01
The Problem: The Security-Performance Trade-Off
DACs like those used by Arbitrum Nova or Polygon Avail's early stage optimize for low cost and high throughput by trusting a small, known set of signers. This creates a single point of failure and regulatory capture risk, undermining the core value proposition of decentralized blockchains.
- Security Model: Relies on honest majority of ~10-20 known entities, not cryptographic guarantees.
- Exit Risk: Users must trust the committee's liveness; a coordinated failure halts chain progress.
~10-20
Trusted Signers
High
Regulatory Surface
02
The Solution: Celestia's Data Availability Sampling
Replaces trusted committees with a cryptographically verifiable, permissionless network. Light nodes can probabilistically verify data availability by sampling small, random chunks, enabling secure scaling to MBs per block.
- Architecture: Decouples execution from consensus and DA, creating a modular stack.
- Key Metric: Security scales with the number of light samplers, not a fixed committee size.
MBs/block
Scalable Capacity
1000s
Permissionless Nodes
03
The Solution: EigenDA's Restaking Security
Leverages Ethereum's economic security via restaked ETH from EigenLayer. Operators run DA nodes backed by slashed collateral, creating a cryptoeconomically secured network without a new trust layer.
- Security Source: Taps into $10B+ of pooled Ethereum security.
- Integration: Native compatibility with the Ethereum L2 ecosystem (e.g., upcoming Arbitrum, Optimism integrations).
Ethereum
Security Root
$10B+
Pooled Capital
04
The Solution: Avail's Validity Proof-Driven DA
Polygon Avail uses ZK-proofs (KZG commitments) and erasure coding to guarantee data is available. This allows for single-node verification, making it highly efficient for light clients and bridging.
- Core Tech: KZG Polynomial Commitments provide constant-sized proofs for data availability.
- Use Case: Optimized for sovereign rollups and cross-chain unification projects.
ZK-Proofs
Verification
Constant-Size
Proof Overhead
05
The Problem: Liquidity Fragmentation & Interop Hell
Each DAC-operated L2 becomes a siloed liquidity pool. Moving assets between them requires centralized bridges or slow, expensive L1 withdrawals, crippling composability.
- Bridge Risk: ~$2.8B has been stolen from cross-chain bridges, many relying on multisig/DAC models.
- Developer Friction: Apps must deploy and maintain separate codebases for each DAC environment.
$2.8B
Bridge Exploits
High
Integration Cost
06
The Future: Universal DA as a Commodity
The end-state is a competitive market of permissionless DA layers (Celestia, EigenDA, Avail, Ethereum Danksharding) where rollups choose based on cost, throughput, and security profile. DACs are the training wheels.
- Market Effect: Drives DA costs toward marginal cost of bandwidth and storage.
- Winner: The ecosystem with the strongest credible neutrality and lowest friction for developers.
~2025
Danksharding ETA
Commodity
End-State
counter-argument
THE NECESSARY SCREWDRIVER
The Steelman Case for DACs
Data Availability Committees are a pragmatic, temporary scaling tool that trades decentralization for speed while the tech for trustless alternatives matures.
DACs are a pragmatic trade-off for rollups needing cheap, high-throughput data availability today. They replace a global network of nodes with a small, known committee, drastically reducing overhead and latency for state attestations.
The security model shifts from cryptographic proof-of-work to legal and economic slashing. This is acceptable for enterprise or gaming applications where finality speed outweighs the risk of a malicious committee colluding.
This is a temporary scaffold, not a foundation. Projects like Celestia and EigenDA are building generalized, trust-minimized DA layers that will make the committee model obsolete for most use cases.
Evidence: Arbitrum AnyTrust, which uses a DAC, processes transactions for a fraction of a cent, a cost structure impossible with full on-chain data posting to Ethereum L1.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about why Data Availability Committees are considered a temporary scaling solution for blockchains.
A Data Availability Committee (DAC) is a permissioned group of trusted entities that cryptographically attest to data availability for a rollup. This allows Layer 2s like Arbitrum Nova and Polygon Avail (in its initial phase) to scale cheaply by not posting all transaction data directly to Ethereum, relying instead on the committee's signatures.
takeaways
DACs AS A TRANSITIONAL ARCHITECTURE
Key Takeaways for Builders
Data Availability Committees (DACs) are a pragmatic, off-chain scaling solution, but they introduce a new trust model that contradicts core blockchain principles.
01
The Trust Trilemma: Security vs. Scalability
DACs optimize for cost and speed by trading away decentralized security. This creates a temporary scaling bridge but is not a credible long-term settlement layer.
- Key Benefit: Enables ~$10B+ TVL rollups like Arbitrum Nova and Polygon CDK to scale today.
- Key Risk: Relies on a multi-sig of known entities, creating a liveness assumption and a centralization vector.
-99%
Cost vs. L1
~2-7
Committee Size
02
Celestia & EigenDA: The Modular DA Endgame
Pure DACs are being outcompeted by modular data availability layers that provide cryptographic guarantees without trusted committees.
- Key Shift: Move from social consensus (signatures) to data availability sampling and fraud/validity proofs.
- Builder Action: Architect for EigenDA or Celestia integration; treat pure DACs as a devnet or temporary staging environment.
10x+
More Nodes
Cryptographic
Guarantee
03
The Interim Appchain Playbook
For specific high-throughput verticals (gaming, DePIN), a DAC-backed chain is a viable MVP to bootstrap network effects before migrating.
- Key Benefit: Achieve ~500ms block times and <$0.001 tx costs to compete with web2.
- Migration Path: Design with a modular DA switch in mind; your state transition logic should be agnostic to the underlying DA layer.
<$0.001
Per Tx Cost
Modular
Exit Strategy
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