Modularity centralizes execution. Separating execution, settlement, and data availability creates distinct competitive layers, but winner-take-all dynamics emerge at each. The most efficient sequencer network or DA layer captures the majority of value, replicating the monopolies of the integrated era.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Modular Stacks Will Create Infrastructure Monopolies
The modular blockchain thesis promises a decentralized future, but its critical infrastructure layers—RPC, indexing, and bridging—are governed by winner-take-all network effects. This analysis argues that modularity will not distribute power but consolidate it into a new class of centralized infrastructure giants.
introduction
THE CONSOLIDATION
The Modular Mirage
Modular architecture will not decentralize infrastructure; it will consolidate power into a few dominant, vertically-integrated providers.
Vertical integration is inevitable. Successful modular stacks like Celestia's data availability and EigenLayer's restaking demonstrate that control over one critical layer creates gravitational pull into adjacent services. Providers like Polygon, with its CDK and Avail, are already building full-stack monopolies.
Composability creates lock-in. Applications built on a specific modular stack (e.g., an OP Stack rollup using Celestia and Across) face prohibitive switching costs. This vendor lock-in is more subtle but as potent as the platform risk of Ethereum L1.
Evidence: The rollup SDK war between OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, and Polygon CDK is a land grab for future infrastructure monopolies. The winner dictates the standards for thousands of chains.
key-trends
WHY MODULARITY BREEDS MONOPOLIES
The Centralization Triad
Modular blockchains fragment the tech stack, but economic gravity will consolidate power in three critical layers.
01
The Sequencer Problem
Rollups outsource block production to centralized sequencers for speed and simplicity. This creates a single point of failure and rent extraction.\n- Key Benefit: ~500ms finality and predictable fees.\n- Key Risk: Censorship, MEV capture, and >90% of rollups using a single sequencer provider.
>90%
Centralized
~500ms
Finality
02
The Shared Security Trap
Projects like Celestia and EigenLayer offer security-as-a-service, reducing capital costs for new chains. This commoditizes validation but centralizes trust.\n- Key Benefit: Launch an L2 for <$1M in staked capital.\n- Key Risk: Systemic fragility; a bug in the shared layer fails $10B+ in dependent assets.
<$1M
Launch Cost
$10B+
TVL at Risk
03
The Interoperability Monopoly
Cross-chain communication layers like LayerZero and Axelar become systemically critical. Their oracles and relayers are the new too-big-to-fail infrastructure.\n- Key Benefit: Seamless composability across 100+ chains.\n- Key Risk: A single bug or governance attack can bridge-hop exploits, threatening the entire modular ecosystem.
100+
Chains
>60%
Market Share
deep-dive
THE CONCENTRATION
The Economics of Glue
Modular architecture will not democratize infrastructure but will consolidate power and profits into a few critical interoperability layers.
Interoperability layers become rent extractors. Modular stacks fragment execution and data availability, making the interoperability layer the system's central nervous system. Protocols like LayerZero and Axelar that standardize cross-chain communication capture value from every transaction that moves between domains, creating a toll booth on modularity.
The winner-takes-most dynamic intensifies. Network effects in interoperability are stronger than in execution. A bridge or messaging standard with the highest security guarantees and broadest integration (e.g., IBC, Wormhole) becomes the default. Developers choose the safest, most connected option, creating a positive feedback loop that drowns smaller competitors.
Data availability is the ultimate bottleneck. While multiple execution layers compete, the underlying data availability layer is a natural monopoly. Celestia and EigenDA compete on cost-per-byte and security, but the market will consolidate around one or two providers that achieve the optimal trust-minimized cost structure, extracting rent from every rollup.
Evidence: The Total Value Secured (TVS) metric for cross-chain bridges shows extreme concentration. As of 2024, the top three bridges (LayerZero, Wormhole, Axelar) secure over 70% of all cross-chain value, a ratio that increases as modular adoption grows.
THE MONOPOLY MECHANICS
Infrastructure Market Share & Metrics
Comparing the economic moats and market capture potential of integrated vs. modular infrastructure providers.
| Key Metric / Moat | Monolithic Chains (e.g., Solana, BNB Chain) | Modular Rollup Stack (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack) | Modular DA & Settlement (e.g., Celestia, EigenLayer, Espresso) |
|---|---|---|---|
Revenue Capture Layer | Transaction Fees & MEV | Sequencer Fees & MEV | DA Fees & Restaking Yield |
Protocol-Level Lock-in | |||
Developer Tooling Lock-in | High (Native SDK) | Very High (Proprietary Stack SDK) | Low (Standardized Interfaces) |
Time-to-Market for New Chain |
| < 3 months | N/A (Infra Component) |
Current Market Share by TVL | ~65% | ~25% | < 5% (Emerging) |
Potential for Cross-Chain Monopoly | |||
Economic Security Spend (Annualized) | $1B+ (Validator Rewards) | $100M-$500M (Prover Costs) | $10M-$100M (Operator Costs) |
Critical Integration Points | 1 (Execution) | 3 (Exec, DA, Settlement) | 1 (Specialized Layer) |
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Hopium Rebuttal: "But It's Permissionless!"
Permissionless entry does not prevent the formation of de facto infrastructure monopolies in modular stacks.
Permissionless entry is irrelevant when the economic incentives for validators and sequencers consolidate around a single provider. The cost of capital and operational scale creates a winner-take-most market, as seen in Ethereum's Lido dominance and Celestia's early data availability lead.
Technical complexity creates lock-in. A rollup's choice of shared sequencer (e.g., Espresso, Astria) or DA layer (Celestia, EigenDA) is a foundational, high-switching-cost decision. This is not a simple DEX swap; it is a core infrastructure migration.
The market selects for reliability, not plurality. Developers will standardize on the most battle-tested, liquid, and integrated stack. This path dependence mirrors AWS's dominance despite countless 'permissionless' cloud competitors.
Evidence: Over 90% of active rollups use Ethereum for settlement and consensus. The modular thesis centralizes infrastructure layers, it does not decentralize them.
risk-analysis
WHY MODULAR STACKS WILL CREATE INFRASTRUCTURE MONOPOLIES
The New Single Points of Failure
Modularity trades blockchain-level centralization for infrastructure-level concentration, creating new chokepoints with systemic risk.
01
The Shared Sequencer Problem
Rollups outsourcing block production to a single entity like Espresso Systems or Astria reintroduces MEV centralization and censorship risk at the network layer.\n- Single point of failure for hundreds of L2s\n- ~500ms latency becomes a critical bottleneck\n- $10B+ TVL dependent on one sequencer's liveness
1
Sequencer
100+
Rollups
02
Data Availability Cartels
The Celestia and EigenDA duopoly creates a market where L2s must choose between cost and security, leading to vendor lock-in and protocol capture.\n- $0.001 per MB pricing power dictates L2 economics\n- Data withholding risk concentrated in few operators\n- Interop standards set by the dominant DA provider
2
Major Players
-99%
Cost vs Ethereum
03
The Interoperability Gatekeeper
Universal cross-chain messaging layers like LayerZero and Axelar become the de facto internet for modular chains, controlling the security and liveness of $100B+ in cross-chain value.\n- Single oracle set secures thousands of bridges\n- Protocol governance can censor entire chains\n- Fee markets extract rent from all connected apps
50+
Chains
$100B+
Secured Value
04
The Prover Oligopoly
ZK-rollups rely on a handful of high-performance provers (RiscZero, Succinct). The capital and expertise required creates a natural monopoly, making L2s clients, not peers.\n- $1M+ hardware creates massive barriers to entry\n- Proving time variance creates unpredictable finality\n- ZK circuit bugs become systemic vulnerabilities
5-10
Viable Provers
~3s
Proving Time
05
Settlement Layer Re-centralization
Rollups settling to Ethereum L1 must compete for block space, but Ethereum's PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) and MEV-Boost have centralized block building, making L2 finality dependent on a few entities.\n- Top 3 builders produce ~80% of Ethereum blocks\n- L2 inclusion delays during high L1 congestion\n- Cross-rollup arbitrage controlled by builder cartels
80%
Blocks by 3 Builders
12s
Avg Finality Delay
06
The Modular Stack-as-a-Service Trap
One-click rollup launches from AltLayer, Conduit, or Caldera offer convenience but enforce a standardized, proprietary stack. This stifles innovation and creates a meta-monopoly over the entire pipeline.\n- Vendor lock-in across sequencer, DA, and bridge\n- Protocol revenue siphoned to the platform\n- Homogeneous security reduces ecosystem resilience
100+
Deployed Rollups
1
Platform
future-outlook
THE NETWORK EFFECT
The Inevitable Consolidation
Modular specialization creates winner-take-most dynamics in infrastructure layers, leading to de facto monopolies.
Specialization breeds concentration. A modular stack's efficiency demands best-in-class components, creating a power law distribution of usage. Teams will not integrate a second-tier DA layer like Celestia or a mediocre sequencer like Espresso; they will integrate the market leader.
Liquidity follows liquidity. The dominant execution layer, like Arbitrum or Optimism, attracts the most developers and users, which attracts more rollups to settle there, reinforcing its dominance. This is a superlinear network effect absent in monolithic chains.
Infrastructure becomes a commodity. Once a modular component like EigenLayer for restaking or AltLayer for rollups-as-a-service achieves critical mass, its economic moat is insurmountable. Competing on features is irrelevant when the incumbent owns the distribution.
Evidence: Look at web2 cloud (AWS) or current rollup sequencer revenue (Arbitrum generates >$90M annualized). The modular stack replicates this dynamic at every layer: data availability, sequencing, and interoperability.
takeaways
THE MONOPOLY MECHANISM
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Modularity doesn't democratize infrastructure; it creates winner-take-all markets for critical layers.
01
The Data Availability (DA) Layer is the Real Estate
Execution is commoditized, but data publishing is the non-negotiable, recurring cost. The layer with the lowest cost per byte and strongest economic security becomes the default. This is a volume game where network effects are absolute.
- Key Benefit 1: Protocols standardize on one DA layer for atomic composability.
- Key Benefit 2: High throughput (
100k TPS) and low cost ($0.001 per tx) create an insurmountable moat.
~$0.001
Per Tx Cost
100k+
TPS
02
Shared Sequencers Capture the Liquidity Funnel
The entity that orders transactions controls MEV and cross-rollup atomicity. A dominant shared sequencer network (e.g., Espresso, Astria) becomes the central liquidity router for hundreds of rollups.
- Key Benefit 1: Enables native cross-rollup arbitrage and composability without slow bridges.
- Key Benefit 2: Extracts value via MEV redistribution, creating a powerful subsidy model.
<500ms
Finality
100+
Rollups Served
03
Interop Layers Become the Protocol's Nervous System
Secure cross-chain messaging (like LayerZero, Hyperlane) is not a feature—it's the infrastructure for liquidity aggregation and unified state. The standard with the largest validator set and most integrations becomes the de facto wiring.
- Key Benefit 1: Developers build once for the dominant network, ignoring others.
- Key Benefit 2: Security scales with adoption, creating a vicious cycle for competitors.
$10B+
TVL Secured
50+
Chains Connected
04
The Sovereign Rollup Illusion
Sovereignty over execution is a trap. In practice, rollups converge on the most reliable, cost-effective proving marketplace. A dominant proof aggregator (e.g., RiscZero, Succinct) achieves economies of scale that make in-house proving irrational.
- Key Benefit 1: ~90% cost reduction on ZK-proof generation via specialized hardware.
- Key Benefit 2: Faster proof times (~2 seconds) unlock real-time settlement.
-90%
Proving Cost
~2s
Proof Time
05
Infrastructure as a Siren Song for VCs
Capital floods into modular infra startups, not dApps. Winning a core layer means capturing a tax on all economic activity above it. This creates monopolies with better unit economics than any single application.
- Key Benefit 1: Recurring, protocol-level revenue vs. volatile dApp fees.
- Key Benefit 2: Enterprise-level valuations ($10B+) with defensible, non-forkable tech.
10x
VC Multiplier
$10B+
Potential Val.
06
The Endgame: Vertical Integration
Monopolies don't stay in their lane. The winning DA layer launches its own sequencer. The winning sequencer integrates a prover. This creates vertically integrated stacks (like Celestia's Rollkit, EigenLayer's AVS) that are impossible for fragmented competitors to match on cost or UX.
- Key Benefit 1: Single-stack optimization slashes latency and cost.
- Key Benefit 2: Creates a full-service "AWS for blockchains" that dominates developer onboarding.
-70%
Stack Latency
All-in-One
Developer UX
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