Data availability is the root constraint. Scaling execution is a solved problem with optimistic and zk-rollups, but their security depends on publishing transaction data for verification. Without accessible data, fraud proofs and validity proofs are impossible.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Data Availability Is the True Scalability Bottleneck
A first-principles breakdown of why execution is a solved problem and why the cost of publishing data is the ultimate constraint for rollup scalability, exploring the rise of DA layers like Celestia, Avail, and EigenDA.
introduction
THE BOTTLENECK
Introduction
Data availability, not execution, is the fundamental constraint limiting blockchain scalability and security.
The DA layer defines security. A rollup secured by Ethereum's consensus and data availability inherits its security; one using a weaker DA layer creates a new, smaller security budget, fragmenting the ecosystem.
Evidence: The cost to post 1MB of data on Ethereum is ~$400, while on Celestia it is ~$0.01. This cost disparity forces rollups like Arbitrum Nova to adopt alternative DA to remain economically viable.
thesis-statement
THE BOTTLENECK
The Core Argument: Execution is Cheap, Data is Expensive
Blockchain scalability is constrained by data availability, not transaction processing speed.
Execution is a solved problem. Modern L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism process transactions off-chain, achieving thousands of TPS. The bottleneck is publishing that transaction data to a secure, verifiable layer.
Data availability is the cost center. Over 90% of an L2's operational cost is posting compressed transaction data (calldata) to Ethereum L1. This is the fee you pay for security.
Ethereum's data capacity is finite. The current ~80 KB per block limit creates a bidding war for L2 data slots. This is the root cause of high fees during network congestion.
The solution is dedicated data layers. Protocols like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail decouple data availability from execution. They provide cheaper, scalable data bandwidth for rollups, making execution truly cheap.
market-context
THE BOTTLENECK
The Current State: A DA Layer War is Brewing
Execution scaling is a solved problem; the real constraint is the cost and security of publishing transaction data.
Data availability is the bottleneck. Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism can process millions of transactions per second off-chain, but they must post cryptographic proofs and data to a base layer like Ethereum for finality. The cost of this data posting now dominates L2 transaction fees.
The war defines security models. Using Ethereum for DA provides maximal security via economic consensus. Alternatives like Celestia, Avail, and EigenDA offer cheaper DA by creating separate, specialized networks, trading off some security for lower cost and higher throughput.
Modular design creates fragmentation. This DA layer competition creates a sovereign vs. secured rollup spectrum. A rollup using Celestia (sovereign) controls its own settlement, while one using EigenDA (secured) relies on Ethereum for verification but not full data storage.
Evidence: Ethereum's full data sharding (Danksharding) aims for ~1.3 MB/s blob capacity. Competitors like Celestia already provide 8 MB/s, with Avail targeting 20 MB/s, creating a clear throughput and cost battleground.
key-trends
THE TRUE SCALABILITY BOTTLENECK
Key Trends: The DA Landscape is Fragmenting
Execution is scaling, but blockchains are hitting a fundamental data wall. The cost and speed of publishing transaction data is now the primary constraint.
01
The Problem: Monolithic DA is a $1M+ Per Day Tax
Publishing all data to Ethereum L1 creates a hard economic ceiling. Every rollup competes for the same scarce block space, making scaling a zero-sum game.
- Cost: A single Celestia blob costs ~$0.01. The same data on Ethereum L1 costs ~$1,000+.
- Throughput: Ethereum's current DA capacity is ~0.1 MB/s. A single high-throughput chain like Solana can saturate this alone.
100,000x
Cost Premium
0.1 MB/s
DA Throughput
02
The Solution: Modular DA Layers (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA)
Specialized networks decouple data availability from execution, creating a scalable commodity market for blobspace.
- Economics: Dedicated DA layers reduce costs by >99% via purpose-built architectures and token incentives.
- Interoperability: They enable a multi-chain future where rollups like Arbitrum Orbit and OP Stack can choose their DA provider, fostering competition.
>99%
Cost Reduction
100+ MB/s
Future Capacity
03
The New Risk: DA Fragmentation & Proof Silos
Splintering DA across multiple networks breaks the unified security model of Ethereum. Light clients and bridges must now verify proofs from dozens of sources.
- Security: A rollup is only as secure as its weakest DA layer. This reintroduces bridge-like trust assumptions.
- Complexity: Projects like Succinct, Lagrange, and Herodotus are building infrastructure to aggregate and verify these fragmented proofs, adding latency and overhead.
10+
DA Networks
~2s
Added Latency
04
The Endgame: Ethereum as a DA Settlement Layer (Danksharding)
Ethereum's core roadmap response is Proto-Danksharding (EIP-4844) and full Danksharding, which transforms L1 into a high-throughput DA marketplace.
- Capacity: Targets ~1.3 MB/s initially, scaling to >100 MB/s post-full Danksharding.
- Strategy: Makes Ethereum L1 DA cheap enough to recapture market share from alt-DA, re-centralizing security while preserving modular choice.
1.3 MB/s
Initial Target
$0.01
Target Cost
PER-BYTE ECONOMICS
DA Cost Comparison: Ethereum vs. Alternatives
A first-principles cost matrix comparing data availability solutions. Costs are normalized per byte to reveal the true scalability bottleneck.
| Metric / Feature | Ethereum Calldata | EigenDA | Celestia | Avail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost per Byte (USD) | $0.00024 | $0.000003 | $0.000001 | $0.000002 |
Throughput (MB/s) | 0.06 | 10 | 15 | 7 |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||||
Direct Ethereum Settlement | ||||
Blob Time-to-Live | ~18 days | Permanent | Permanent | Permanent |
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) | Via MEV-Boost | Native | Native | Native |
Cryptoeconomic Security | ETH Staking (~$110B) | Restaked ETH (EigenLayer) | TIA Staking (~$2B) | AVAIL Staking (TBD) |
Notable Integrations | Base, Arbitrum, zkSync | Mantle, Layer N | Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack, Polygon CDK | Polygon Avail, StarkEx |
deep-dive
THE DATA BOTTLENECK
Deep Dive: The Anatomy of a Rollup's Cost
Transaction execution is cheap; the dominant cost for rollups is publishing data to a base layer like Ethereum.
Data availability costs dominate. Over 90% of an L2's transaction fee is the cost to post its state data to Ethereum L1. Execution on the rollup itself is negligible.
The bottleneck is L1 gas. Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism batch transactions, but each byte of that batch must be paid for at L1 gas prices. This creates a hard, variable cost floor.
EIP-4844 (Proto-Danksharding) is the fix. It introduces blob-carrying transactions, a dedicated data channel with cheaper, ephemeral storage. This reduces L2 fees by an order of magnitude.
Evidence: Post-EIP-4844, average transaction fees on Optimism and Base dropped from ~$0.30 to ~$0.02. The cost to post 125KB of data fell from ~0.1 ETH to ~0.001 ETH.
counter-argument
THE DATA AVAILABILITY TRADE-OFF
Counter-Argument: Is Security Being Traded for Scale?
The pursuit of scalability forces a direct compromise on the foundational security guarantees of blockchains.
Scalability requires data outsourcing. High-throughput execution layers like Arbitrum and Optimism cannot store all transaction data on-chain. They rely on external Data Availability (DA) layers like Celestia or EigenDA to post transaction data, creating a critical dependency.
Security is now probabilistic. Users must trust that the DA layer is live and honest. If data is withheld, a malicious sequencer can finalize invalid state transitions. This shifts security from Ethereum's cryptoeconomic consensus to the liveness assumptions of a separate network.
The modular stack fragments security. A monolithic chain like Solana or a high-throughput L2 like zkSync Era bundles security and DA. A modular chain using Avail or a validium splits these components, creating more potential failure points for the same transaction.
Evidence: Validium-based StarkEx applications process ~100k TPS but require users to monitor DA or risk fund loss. This is a direct trade: higher throughput for weaker safety nets compared to a rollup posting all data to Ethereum.
protocol-spotlight
THE TRUE SCALABILITY BOTTLENECK
Protocol Spotlight: The DA Contenders
Execution is commoditized. The real fight for the modular stack is over who secures the data layer.
01
Celestia: The Modular First-Mover
Celestia decouples consensus from execution, creating a pure data availability layer. Its core innovation is Data Availability Sampling (DAS), allowing light nodes to verify data availability without downloading the entire block.
- Key Benefit: Enables sovereign rollups with independent governance and fork choice.
- Key Benefit: ~$0.01 per MB cost model, undercutting monolithic L1s by orders of magnitude.
~$0.01
Per MB Cost
100+
Rollups Live
02
EigenDA: The Restaking Security Play
EigenDA leverages Ethereum's economic security via EigenLayer restaking. It's not a separate chain but a set of AVSs (Actively Validated Services) that commit data blobs directly to Ethereum.
- Key Benefit: Inherits $15B+ in restaked economic security from Ethereum.
- Key Benefit: Native integration for Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism, minimizing trust assumptions.
$15B+
Restaked Security
10 MB/s
Throughput Target
03
Avail: The Polygon-Backed Unification Layer
Avail aims to be a unifying DA layer for all rollups, built with a focus on validity proofs and light client efficiency. Its core tech, Kate Polynomial Commitments, allows for compact proofs of data availability.
- Key Benefit: Validity Proofs for DA enable trust-minimized bridging between execution layers.
- Key Benefit: Polygon's integration path offers a clear migration for $1B+ TVL from Polygon CDK chains.
2 MB
Block Size
Polygon CDK
Native Stack
04
The Problem: Ethereum's Blob-Capped Future
Ethereum's blobspace is a scarce, auction-based resource. As demand from L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism grows, blob fees will become volatile and expensive, directly taxing every rollup user.
- Key Risk: Fee volatility turns L2 scaling into a variable, unpredictable cost center.
- Key Risk: Hard-coded ~0.375 MB/s blob throughput creates an artificial ceiling for the entire L2 ecosystem.
~0.375 MB/s
Blob Throughput
Auction-Based
Pricing Model
05
The Solution: Off-Chain DA + On-Chain Settlement
The winning architecture separates high-throughput data publication (Celestia, EigenDA, Avail) from high-security settlement & dispute resolution (Ethereum). This is the modular thesis in practice.
- Key Benefit: Cost scaling is decoupled from Ethereum's gas market.
- Key Benefit: Security scaling is achieved via proof systems (Fraud/Validity Proofs) that only need to verify small proofs on-chain.
100x
Cheaper Data
Modular
Architecture
06
The Verdict: Security vs. Sovereignty Trade-Off
The DA war is a choice between shared security and sovereign flexibility. EigenDA offers maximal security for Ethereum-aligned chains. Celestia and Avail offer cheaper, more flexible DA for chains willing to manage their own consensus.
- Trade-Off: Ethereum Security vs. Independent Innovation.
- Outcome: A multi-DA future where rollups choose based on their threat model and roadmap.
Multi-DA
Future
Threat Model
Deciding Factor
takeaways
DATA AVAILABILITY
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Throughput is a software problem; censorship resistance and state verification are hardware problems defined by data availability.
01
The Problem: Full Nodes Are a Dying Breed
Requiring nodes to download all transaction data creates a centralization force, limiting network participants to entities with petabyte-scale storage. This is the root of the scalability trilemma.
- Result: Fewer than 10,000 full nodes secure Ethereum today.
- Consequence: High hardware costs push validation to centralized providers like Infura and Alchemy.
<10k
Ethereum Full Nodes
Petabytes
Storage Required
02
The Solution: Data Availability Sampling (DAS)
Clients randomly sample small chunks of block data to probabilistically guarantee its availability, enabling light nodes to secure the network. This is the core innovation of celestia, EigenDA, and Avail.
- Key Benefit: Security scales with the number of light clients, not full nodes.
- Key Benefit: Enables high-throughput modular blockchains without sacrificing decentralization.
~100KB
Sample Size
1000x
Client Scalability
03
The Trade-off: DA is Not a Commodity
Not all DA layers provide the same security guarantees. Ethereum blob storage offers maximal security via full consensus. Celestia offers opt-in security with lower cost. EigenDA offers restaked security.
- Builder Action: Match your chain's threat model to the DA layer's security budget.
- Investor Lens: The DA market will stratify; value accrual will follow security demand.
$0.01 vs $1.00
Cost Per MB (Range)
L1 vs L2
Security Spectrum
04
The Architecture: Modular vs. Monolithic
Monolithic chains (Solana) bundle execution, settlement, and DA. Modular chains (Fuel, Eclipse) separate them, using a dedicated DA layer. This is the defining architectural battle of the next cycle.
- Execution Layer: Becomes a stateless VM, requiring only state roots.
- Settlement Layer: (e.g., Ethereum) verifies proofs, disputes fraud, and acts as a liquidity hub.
10k+ TPS
Modular Target
~1-2s
Time to Finality
05
The Investment: Follow the Blob Flow
Fee revenue will shift from L1 execution to DA layers and settlement. Track blob count per block and cost per byte as key metrics.
- Bull Case: DA layers become the base commodity for hundreds of app-chains and rollups.
- Bear Case: Oversupply of DA capacity leads to a race to the bottom on price, commoditizing the layer.
$10B+
Potential Fee Market
Blob/Block
Key Metric
06
The Endgame: Verifiable Databases
DA is the foundation for verifiability. With data available, any actor can reconstruct state and verify execution via validity proofs (zk) or fraud proofs (op). This turns blockchains into globally verifiable databases.
- Builder Implication: Your chain's security is outsourced to its DA layer and proof system.
- Final Vision: A network of specialized, interoperable chains secured by cryptographic economics.
ZK Proofs
Verification Standard
Global State
End Goal
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