Sovereign rollups invert the L2 model. Unlike Arbitrum or Optimism, which outsource settlement and consensus to Ethereum, sovereigns like Celestia and Fuel publish data to a data availability layer and manage their own consensus. This grants them unmatched sovereignty over upgrades and governance without L1 approval.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Sovereign Rollups Will Challenge Monolithic L1 Dominance
Sovereign rollups are not just another scaling solution. By decoupling execution, settlement, and data availability, they enable specialized, self-governing chains that directly compete with the bundled value of monolithic Layer 1s like Solana and Avalanche.
introduction
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Introduction
Sovereign rollups are emerging as the definitive challenger to monolithic L1s by decoupling execution from consensus and settlement.
Monolithic L1s face a trilemma of centralization. Chains like Solana and Avalanche bundle execution, settlement, and consensus, creating a single point of failure for state growth and validator requirements. Sovereign architectures disaggregate these functions, enabling specialized scaling where each layer optimizes for a single task.
The competitive moat shifts to interoperability. The winner isn't the chain with the highest TPS, but the ecosystem with the best native cross-chain UX. Sovereign rollups built on shared DA like Celestia or EigenDA will leverage bridges like Hyperlane and IBC for atomic composability, rendering monolithic silos obsolete.
key-trends
WHY MONOLITHS WILL CRACK
Executive Summary: The Fragmentation Thesis
Monolithic L1s like Ethereum and Solana are hitting fundamental scaling limits, creating a vacuum for a new architectural paradigm.
01
The Monolithic Bottleneck: Congested Shared State
Every dApp on a monolithic chain competes for the same global state and block space. A single NFT mint can congest DeFi for everyone.\n- Throughput Ceiling: EVM L1s are capped at ~50 TPS; Solana's ~5k TPS is still a shared, contested resource.\n- Cost Spikes: Gas fees are a tax on composability, making micro-transactions and complex DeFi strategies economically unviable.
~50 TPS
EVM Ceiling
$100+
Gas Spikes
02
Sovereign Rollups: The Specialized City-State
A sovereign rollup owns its execution and data availability layer, settling to a parent chain only for finality. It's a sovereign blockchain that uses another chain as a bulletin board.\n- Uncontested Throughput: Dedicated block space enables 10k+ TPS per rollup (e.g., dYmension, Celestia ecosystem).\n- Custom VMs: Deploy any VM (EVM, SVM, Move) optimized for gaming, DeFi, or social, without L1 consensus overhead.
10k+ TPS
Per Rollup
Any VM
Flexibility
03
The Modular Stack: Data Availability is the New Battleground
Sovereign rollups decouple execution from consensus and data availability (DA). This creates a competitive market for DA layers like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail.\n- Cost Structure: DA is ~99% cheaper than Ethereum calldata, reducing rollup operating costs to near-zero.\n- Security Choice: Rollups can choose security models, from Ethereum-level to opt-in light-client bridges for hyper-scalability.
-99%
DA Cost
Multi-Chain
Security
04
The Interop Challenge: Fragmentation Without Isolation
Fragmented liquidity is the killer objection. Sovereign rollups require a new interoperability primitive beyond locked-asset bridges.\n- Intent-Based Solutions: Protocols like Across and UniswapX abstract cross-chain complexity for users.\n- Universal Settlement Layers: Chains like Cosmos and Polkadot provide native IBC/XCM messaging, making sovereign chains feel like a single system.
~2s
IBC Finality
Intent-Based
UX Shift
05
Economic Flywheel: Capturing Value at the Execution Layer
On monolithic L1s, value accrues to the base token (ETH, SOL). Sovereign rollups flip this: value accrues to the rollup's native token and its applications.\n- Fee Capture: Rollup sequencers capture 100% of transaction fees, creating sustainable revenue models.\n- App-Specific Tokens: Gaming rollups can use their token for gas, creating a closed-loop economy that rewards players and developers directly.
100%
Fee Capture
App-Chain
Tokenomics
06
The Endgame: A Network of Specialized Superchains
The future is not one chain to rule them all, but a constellation of purpose-built sovereign chains connected via secure messaging.\n- Polygon 2.0 and Optimism's Superchain are early blueprints for this coordinated, multi-chain future.\n- Developer Mindshare: The ease of launching a sovereign chain with stacks like Rollkit will attract the next wave of 10,000+ chains, not just dApps.
10k+
Chains Forecast
Superchain
Blueprint
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Core Argument: Unbundling the Monolith
Sovereign rollups will dominate by decoupling execution, settlement, and data availability, creating a competitive market for each layer.
Monolithic L1s are vertically integrated. They bundle execution, settlement, consensus, and data availability into a single, rigid stack. This creates a single point of failure for fees, upgrades, and governance, as seen with Ethereum's high gas costs or Solana's network halts.
Sovereign rollups unbundle the stack. Projects like Celestia and Avail provide specialized data availability layers, while rollups like Eclipse and Dymension handle execution. This modularity lets each layer innovate independently, creating a competitive market for block space and security.
The result is a fee arbitrage. A rollup can choose the cheapest, fastest DA layer (Celestia, EigenDA, Avail) and the most secure settlement layer (Ethereum, Bitcoin, Celestia). This competition drives down costs and prevents the rent-seeking inherent in monolithic models.
Evidence: The cost to post 1 MB of data to Celestia is ~$0.01, versus ~$1,000 on Ethereum mainnet. This 100,000x differential is the economic force driving the unbundling of the monolithic L1.
L1 BATTLEGROUND
Architectural Showdown: Monolithic vs. Sovereign
A data-driven comparison of execution, data availability, and governance models between traditional monolithic L1s and emerging sovereign rollups.
| Core Dimension | Monolithic L1 (e.g., Solana, Ethereum Pre-Danksharding) | Sovereign Rollup (e.g., Celestia Rollup, Fuel) | Modular Stack (e.g., Ethereum L2, Arbitrum) |
|---|---|---|---|
Execution & Settlement Coupling | Tightly coupled | Decoupled (sovereign chain settles) | Decoupled (parent chain settles) |
Data Availability (DA) Source | Native chain | External (e.g., Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) | Usually parent chain (e.g., Ethereum) |
Upgrade Control / Forkability | Requires social consensus | Sovereign (can fork DA layer) | Requires parent L1 governance or multisig |
Time to Finality (approx.) | < 1 sec - 12 sec | ~2 sec (execution) + DA finality | ~1 sec (L2) + ~12 min (L1 challenge period) |
Max Theoretical TPS (est.) | 1k - 50k+ | 100k+ (limited by DA throughput) | 10k - 100k (limited by DA & settlement) |
Sequencer Censorship Resistance | Native validator set | Depends on DA layer & proof system | Weak (centralized sequencer common) |
Developer Experience | Single VM/Environment | Flexible VM choice (e.g., SVM, FuelVM) | Constrained by parent L2 tech (e.g., EVM) |
Security Budget (Cost of Attack) | Full validator stake (e.g., $70B for ETH) | Cost to attack DA layer + rollup validator set | Cost to attack parent L1 (e.g., $70B for ETH) |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL WEAKNESS
The Attack Vectors: How Sovereignty Erodes Monolithic Moats
Sovereign rollups exploit the inherent rigidity of monolithic L1s by decoupling execution, settlement, and data availability, creating targeted competitive pressure.
Monolithic chains bundle everything. They force a single, rigid tech stack for execution, consensus, and data availability, creating a single point of optimization failure. This design cannot simultaneously optimize for high-frequency trading and cheap NFT minting.
Sovereign rollups are modular predators. They isolate execution, enabling specialized chains for gaming (e.g., Immutable zkEVM) or DeFi (e.g., dYdX v4) that outperform general-purpose L1s. This fragments the monolithic value proposition.
Settlement and DA become commodities. Sovereigns can use Celestia or EigenDA for cheap data and any L1 for settlement, bypassing the monolithic chain's expensive native security tax. This erodes the core revenue moat of chains like Ethereum and Solana.
Evidence: The migration of dYdX from an Ethereum L2 to a Cosmos appchain cut fees by 90% and increased throughput 100x, demonstrating the performance arbitrage sovereignty enables.
protocol-spotlight
WHY SOVEREIGN ROLLUPS WILL CHALLENGE MONOLITHIC L1 DOMINANCE
Case Study: The Sovereign Stack in Action
Monolithic L1s like Solana and Ethereum are hitting scaling and governance walls. Sovereign rollups, built on stacks like Celestia, Eclipse, and OP Stack, offer a superior escape velocity.
01
The Problem: Monolithic L1s Are Political Monopolies
Ethereum's core developers and Solana's foundation control the protocol roadmap, creating a bottleneck for innovation. Upgrades are slow, contentious, and often prioritize the base layer over application needs.\n- Governance Capture: L1 politics dictate app-layer economics (e.g., MEV, fee markets).\n- Innovation Lag: Protocol upgrades take years, while app-specific needs evolve in months.
12-24
Months for L1 Fork
1
Bottleneck
02
The Solution: Fork-Without-Exit Sovereignty
A sovereign rollup publishes data to a data availability layer like Celestia or EigenDA and runs its own execution and settlement. The chain is defined by its social consensus, not a parent L1.\n- Instant Upgrades: Teams can fork and modify the chain's rules without permission.\n- Custom Economics: Full control over sequencer fees, MEV capture, and gas token.
0
Hard Forks Needed
100%
Fee Control
03
The Stack: Celestia & The Modular Ecosystem
Celestia provides cheap, scalable data availability, the foundational resource for rollup security. This enables a stack where each layer is optimized and competitive.\n- Execution: Rollups use EVMOS, Arbitrum Nitro, or custom VMs.\n- Settlement: Can be Celestia, Ethereum, or a shared hub like dYmension.\n- Interop: Bridges via IBC or LayerZero connect sovereign chains.
$0.01
Per MB DA Cost
Modular
Best-in-Class Per Layer
04
The Precedent: dYdX's Migration from StarkEx
dYdX moved its perpetuals DEX from a StarkEx L2 to a Cosmos SDK-based sovereign chain. This wasn't just a scaling move—it was a sovereignty grab.\n- Own the Stack: dYdX now controls its entire tech stack and fee revenue.\n- Proven Demand: Migrated $400M+ in TVL and its core user base, demonstrating that apps will move for sovereignty.
$400M+
TVL Migrated
Cosmos SDK
Sovereign Stack
05
The Economic Flywheel: Value Accrual to the App
On monolithic L1s, value (fees, MEV) accrues to the base layer token (ETH, SOL). A sovereign rollup captures all value for its own token and community.\n- Sequencer Revenue: All transaction fees and MEV profits are retained.\n- Token Utility: The native token is used for gas and governance, creating a sustainable economic loop.
100%
Fee Capture
Native Token
Gas & Governance
06
The Endgame: Vertical Integration Beats Horizontal
The future belongs to vertically integrated app-chains, not horizontally shared L1s. Uniswap, Aave, and Friend.tech as sovereign chains will outperform their smart contract versions.\n- Tailored Performance: Optimize the VM and data structures for one application.\n- Regulatory Moat: Sovereign jurisdiction and legal encapsulation become possible.
10x
Tailored TPS
App-Chain
The New Standard
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Rebuttal: Liquidity, Composability, and the Monolithic Defense
Sovereign rollups solve the core problems of fragmented liquidity and composability, directly challenging the network effects of monolithic L1s.
Sovereign rollups unify liquidity by settling to a shared data availability layer like Celestia or EigenDA. This creates a single liquidity pool for all sovereign chains, unlike the isolated silos of separate L1s. The shared settlement base enables atomic composability across applications built on different sovereign rollups.
Monolithic L1s are not composable. Ethereum and Solana applications are only composable within their own chain. Cross-chain activity requires slow, insecure bridges like Wormhole or LayerZero. Sovereign rollups, by sharing a DA layer, enable native cross-rollup composability without these external trust assumptions.
The monolithic moat is software, not hardware. L1 dominance relies on developer tools and network effects. Frameworks like Rollkit and the OP Stack allow sovereign chains to fork Ethereum's entire toolchain. They inherit the EVM developer ecosystem without its execution constraints, eroding the primary advantage of chains like Avalanche or Polygon.
Evidence: The rise of intent-based architectures like UniswapX and Across Protocol proves demand for unified liquidity. These systems abstract away the execution layer, which is the exact model sovereign rollups institutionalize at the protocol level.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Sovereign Rollups Demystified
Common questions about why sovereign rollups will challenge monolithic L1 dominance.
A sovereign rollup is a blockchain that posts its transaction data to a base layer like Celestia or Ethereum but settles and validates it independently. Unlike smart contract rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism), it doesn't rely on the base layer's smart contracts for validity, giving its community full control over its state and upgrades.
takeaways
ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
TL;DR: Implications for Builders and Investors
Sovereign rollups decouple execution from settlement, creating new competitive dynamics that erode the moats of monolithic L1s like Ethereum and Solana.
01
The End of the 'One Chain to Rule Them All' Thesis
Monolithic L1s bundle execution, settlement, and consensus, creating a vendor lock-in for value and liquidity. Sovereign rollups like Celestia and EigenLayer-secured chains enable specialized execution layers to exist independently, fracturing the network effect.\n- Key Benefit: Investors can back application-specific chains (dYdX, Aevo) without betting on a single L1's success.\n- Key Benefit: Builders escape congestion tax and governance capture of host chains.
100+
Specialized Chains
-90%
State Bloat Risk
02
Capital Efficiency as the New Battleground
Staking billions to secure a monolithic L1 is capital-inefficient. Sovereign rollups leverage shared security providers (EigenLayer, Babylon) and data availability layers (Celestia, Avail), reducing the cost of security by orders of magnitude.\n- Key Benefit: Investors achieve higher yield by securing multiple chains with the same capital stake.\n- Key Benefit: Builders launch with enterprise-grade security for a fraction of the cost, enabling ~$0.001 average transaction fees.
10-100x
Sec. Leverage
$0.001
Avg. TX Fee
03
Vertical Integration: From dApp to Appchain
High-throughput applications (DeFi, Gaming) are bottlenecked by shared L1 resources. Sovereign rollups allow teams like dYdX and Aevo to become vertical integrators, controlling their entire stack from mempool to block space.\n- Key Benefit: Builders can implement custom fee markets, privacy features, and governance forks impossible on a shared L1.\n- Key Benefit: Investors gain pure-play exposure to a application's economic activity, not diluted by L1 ecosystem noise.
10,000+
TPS per Chain
100%
Fee Capture
04
The Modular Stack Fragments Venture Risk
Investing in a monolithic L1 is a binary bet on its entire tech stack and community. The modular stack (Execution: Arbitrum, Optimism / DA: Celestia / Settlement: Ethereum / Shared Sec: EigenLayer) allows VCs to hedge and pick winners in each layer.\n- Key Benefit: Capital deploys into infrastructure primitives with multi-chain demand, not single-chain narratives.\n- Key Benefit: Builder failure in one layer (e.g., execution client) does not cascade, reducing systemic risk.
5-10
Stack Layers
-70%
Portfolio Beta
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