Modularity fragments execution and settlement. This creates new inter-domain arbitrage opportunities between rollups and L1s that did not exist in monolithic chains like Solana.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Modular Blockchains Amplify Miner Extractable Value (MEV)
The modular blockchain thesis promises scalability through specialization. But by fragmenting execution and sequencing, it creates a fertile new hunting ground for MEV, increasing extraction and centralization pressure across the stack.
introduction
THE FRAGMENTATION PREMIUM
Introduction: The Modular MEV Paradox
Modular blockchains do not eliminate MEV; they fragment and amplify it across new attack surfaces.
Sequencers become centralized MEV hubs. Rollup sequencers like those on Arbitrum and Optimism control transaction ordering, creating a single point of capture for value extraction.
Cross-domain MEV is the new frontier. Bridging assets via protocols like Across or Stargate introduces latency, which sophisticated searchers exploit for arbitrage.
Evidence: Over 60% of Ethereum's PBS block space is filled with cross-domain arbitrage bundles, per Flashbots data. This MEV migrates to rollup sequencers.
key-trends
MODULAR AMPLIFICATION
The New MEV Landscape: Three Amplifying Forces
Modular blockchains don't just scale execution; they create new, fragmented arenas for value extraction, fundamentally altering the MEV game.
01
The Fragmented Liquidity Problem
Splitting execution across rollups and app-chains fragments liquidity and consensus, creating arbitrage opportunities between dozens of venues. This isn't just more MEV—it's a new class of cross-domain MEV.
- Opportunity Scale: $10B+ in fragmented TVL across L2s creates persistent price discrepancies.
- New Attack Vector: Fast, centralized sequencers on one chain can front-run slower, decentralized ones on another.
- Amplification Effect: Each new rollup or L3 adds N^2 potential arbitrage pairs to the network.
N^2
Arb Pairs
$10B+
Fragmented TVL
02
The Sequencer Monopoly Solution (That Creates a Problem)
Centralized sequencers (e.g., Optimism, Arbitrum) batch transactions off-chain, giving them a perfect, zero-latency view of order flow. This centralizes MEV capture and creates a trusted intermediary.
- MEV Capture: Sequencers can run proprietary order flow auctions (OFAs) or extract value directly before publishing batches.
- User Cost: Potential for censorship and maximal extractable value (MEV) replaced by sequencer extractable value (SEV).
- Market Response: Drives demand for shared sequencers like Astria and Espresso to decentralize this critical layer.
~0ms
Front-Run Latency
1-of-N
Trust Assumption
03
The Interoperability Bridge as a New MEV Vector
Bridging assets between modular chains is slow and trust-minimized, creating a rich environment for time-bandit attacks and cross-chain arbitrage. Fast, centralized bridges become MEV hotspots.
- Time-Bandit Attacks: Adversaries can revert destination chain transactions after assets are released on the source chain.
- Cross-Chain Arb: Protocols like Across and LayerZero must design sophisticated economic security to mitigate this.
- Amplified Risk: The security of a $100M bridge now depends on the weakest consensus mechanism in the connected chain stack.
$100M+
Bridge TVL at Risk
~5-20min
Vulnerability Window
deep-dive
THE VECTORS
Anatomy of Amplification: Cross-Domain & Fragmented Sequencing
Modularity creates new MEV surfaces by splitting transaction ordering across multiple, loosely coupled domains.
Cross-domain MEV is the primary amplifier. Modular chains separate execution from settlement and data availability. This creates arbitrage opportunities between asset prices on a rollup and its parent chain like Ethereum. Bridges like Across and Stargate become critical attack surfaces for latency arbitrage and sandwich attacks on cross-chain swaps.
Fragmented sequencing introduces coordination overhead. Each rollup operates its own sequencer, creating a multi-player game for MEV extraction. Searchers must now compete across Celestia-based rollups, Arbitrum, and Optimism simultaneously. This fragmentation increases the capital and operational complexity required to capture value, centralizing MEV power in sophisticated players.
Delayed finality creates new attack windows. In a monolithic chain, a transaction's inclusion and finality are tightly coupled. In modular stacks, a rollup block's data is posted to a DA layer like EigenDA or Celestia, but finality on the settlement layer lags. This delay allows for time-bandit attacks where sequencers can reorg blocks before they are finalized on Ethereum.
Evidence: The rise of cross-chain MEV bots targeting UniswapX's fillers and intent-based flows demonstrates the economic reality. Over 60% of cross-chain arbitrage volume now occurs between the top five L2s, a direct consequence of fragmented liquidity and sequencing.
ARCHITECTURAL RISK ANALYSIS
Monolithic vs. Modular: The MEV Attack Surface
Comparison of how blockchain architecture influences the scale, complexity, and control of Miner Extractable Value (MEV) opportunities and risks.
| Attack Vector / Metric | Monolithic (e.g., Solana, BNB Chain) | Modular Execution Layer (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Modular Settlement Layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) |
|---|---|---|---|
Sequencer Centralization Risk | Low (Validator Set) | High (Single Sequencer by default) | Not Applicable |
Cross-Domain MEV Complexity | Low (Single state) | High (L1->L2, L2->L2 arbitrage) | Not Applicable |
Time-to-Finality for MEV Capture | < 1 sec | ~1 min (Challenge Period) to ~1 week (Withdrawal) | ~12-20 sec (Data Availability) |
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) Feasibility | Native (e.g., Ethereum post-merge) | Dependent on L1 PBS | Not Applicable |
MEV Revenue Capture by Validators | 100% | ~10-20% (Rest to L1) | 0% (Data layer only) |
Private Order Flow Market | Mature (Jito, bloXroute) | Emerging (Across, SUAVE) | Not Applicable |
Out-of-protocol Enforcement (e.g., OFAs) | Required | Critical (Mitigates sequencer risk) | Not Applicable |
counter-argument
THE HOPIUM
The Rebuttal: "Shared Sequencers & SUAVE Will Fix This"
Proposed solutions for cross-domain MEV create new centralization vectors and fail to address the core economic conflict.
Shared sequencers centralize power. Networks like Espresso and Astria propose a single sequencer set for multiple rollups. This consolidates ordering rights, creating a new, powerful cartel that controls the flow of transactions across the modular stack.
SUAVE is a meta-chain, not a panacea. Flashbots' SUAVE aims to be a decentralized block builder and mempool for all chains. It shifts the MEV auction upstream but does not eliminate the fundamental profit motive for sequencers to extract value through ordering.
Economic incentives remain misaligned. A shared sequencer's profit from cross-domain arbitrage between Uniswap on Arbitrum and Optimism directly conflicts with user execution quality. No protocol design has solved this principal-agent problem at scale.
Evidence: The leading shared sequencer proposals are pre-launch or in testnet. In contrast, today's dominant cross-domain MEV flows, like those captured by Across and LayerZero, are already extracted by sophisticated searchers operating between centralized sequencer endpoints.
risk-analysis
MODULAR MEV AMPLIFICATION
Systemic Risks: Beyond Extraction
Modular architectures don't just redistribute MEV; they create new systemic attack vectors by fragmenting security and liquidity.
01
The Cross-Domain Arbitrage Nexus
Settlement/Execution splits create latency arbitrage between layers. A validator on a high-throughput execution layer can front-run a slower settlement chain's state updates, extracting value across the entire stack.\n- Attack Surface: Multiplied by the number of connected rollups and L2s.\n- Liquidity Impact: Forces protocols to fragment capital across domains to defend.
100ms-2s
Arb Window
N Domains
Attack Surface
02
Sequencer Centralization as a Cartel
In optimistic & zk-rollups, the sequencer role is a natural monopoly. This centralized point of transaction ordering becomes the ultimate MEV extraction engine, with no inherent obligation to fairness.\n- Risk: Cartel formation among few sequencer operators to maximize extracted value.\n- Consequence: User transactions are consistently deprioritized for profitable arbitrage bundles.
1-5
Active Sequencers
>90%
Order Flow Control
03
Data Availability (DA) Censorship Vector
Modular chains rely on external DA layers (Celestia, EigenDA, Ethereum). A malicious block producer can withhold transaction data for a profitable interval, creating exclusive MEV opportunities for those with direct access.\n- Systemic Failure: Breaks the light client bridge to settlement, freezing assets.\n- Solution Gap: Fraud/validity proofs require data to be available to be challenged.
~30 min
Proof Window
Unbounded
Extraction Potential
04
Shared Security ≠Shared Ordering
Networks like EigenLayer and Babylon offer shared security, but not shared, fair ordering. A restaked validator can simultaneously secure multiple modular chains and exploit cross-chain MEV, creating a conflict of interest at the protocol level.\n- Dilemma: The same entity securing the chain is incentivized to attack its economic fairness.\n- Mitigation: Requires encrypted mempools or enforced ordering rules (e.g., based on timestamps).
$15B+
Restaked TVL
High
Conflict Risk
05
Liquidity Fragmentation Enables Sandwiching
Modularity fragments liquidity across execution environments. This reduces pool depth on any single venue, making large trades more prone to MEV attacks like sandwiching.\n- Amplifier: Cross-domain DEX aggregators (LI.FI, Socket) create predictable multi-hop routes for maximal extraction.\n- Result: Effective swap costs increase despite lower nominal gas fees.
5-10x
Slippage Increase
Fragmented
Pool Depth
06
The Intents-Based Mitigation Trap
Solutions like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across use intents and solvers to combat MEV. In modular systems, this shifts centralization to the solver network. The winning solver is often the one with the best access to cross-domain liquidity and ordering—recreating the sequencer cartel problem at a higher layer.\n- Irony: Anti-MEV infrastructure becomes the new extractive bottleneck.\n- Dependency: Requires a decentralized solver set, which is economically difficult to bootstrap.
Few
Dominant Solvers
Shifted
Risk Layer
takeaways
MODULARITY = MEV AMPLIFICATION
TL;DR for Architects and VCs
Modular blockchains don't eliminate MEV; they unbundle and redistribute it across new, specialized layers, creating novel attack surfaces and extractive opportunities.
01
The Problem: Sequencer as a Single-Point MEV Cartel
Rollups outsource sequencing to a single operator (e.g., Optimism, Arbitrum). This creates a centralized MEV extraction point.\n- Vulnerability: The sequencer can front-run, censor, and reorder user transactions with impunity.\n- Consequence: Users pay for 'fair ordering' but get a black-box service, with value captured by the sequencer, not the rollup's security providers (L1).
1
Centralized Point
100%
Control
02
The Solution: Shared Sequencing & PBS for Rollups
Decentralized sequencer sets (like Astria, Espresso) and Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) for rollups are emerging.\n- Mechanism: Separates block building (where MEV is extracted) from block proposing (which is permissionless).\n- Outcome: Democratizes access to rollup MEV, but creates a new market for cross-rollup MEV bundles, increasing total extractable value.
N-to-1
Builder Competition
New Market
Cross-Rollup MEV
03
The Problem: Interoperability Leaks Value to Bridging MEV
Modular chains require bridges (like LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole) and liquidity networks. Every cross-chain action is an MEV opportunity.\n- Attack Vector: Searchers can exploit latency and pricing discrepancies between chains during asset transfers.\n- Amplification: A single user swap can be sandwiched on the source chain, the destination chain, and the bridging layer.
3x
Attack Surfaces
$1B+
Bridge TVL at Risk
04
The Solution: Intents & Solver Networks
Systems like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across shift from transaction-based to outcome-based (intent) execution.\n- Mechanism: Users submit desired outcomes; a competitive network of solvers finds optimal execution across venues and chains.\n- Outcome: MEV is commoditized and competed away, returning value to users, but concentrates complexity and risk in solver logic.
-90%
User Slippage
Solver Risk
New Centralization
05
The Problem: Data Availability (DA) as a Censorship Vector
Using an external DA layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) separates data publication from consensus.\n- Vulnerability: A malicious sequencer can withhold transaction data, preventing fraud proofs and freezing funds.\n- MEV Link: Censorship becomes a profitable strategy to extract concessions or eliminate competition.
Data Withholding
Censorship Attack
Unprovable
State
06
The Solution: Enshrined DA & Proof of Custody
Ethereum's Proto-Danksharding (EIP-4844) and rigorous Proof of Custody schemes make data withholding attacks economically non-viable.\n- Mechanism: Data availability is guaranteed by the base layer's consensus and crypto-economic security.\n- Outcome: Removes a critical MEV/censorship vector, but at the cost of higher base layer resource consumption.
L1 Security
Guarantee
Higher Cost
Trade-off
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