ZK-RaaS abstracts complexity by packaging proving infrastructure, but the data availability (DA) layer remains a non-negotiable cost center. Every ZK-rollup must post its transaction data somewhere for state reconstruction, a requirement that platforms like AltLayer and Gelato RaaS manage but cannot eliminate.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
The Hidden Bottleneck: Data Availability for ZK-RaaS Customers
ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service abstracts proving, but the true constraint for performance and cost is Data Availability. We analyze the trade-offs between Ethereum, Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail for builders.
introduction
THE DATA BOTTLENECK
Introduction: The ZK-RaaS Illusion
Zero-Knowledge Rollup-as-a-Service platforms promise scalability but obscure the foundational and costly dependency on external data availability layers.
The performance illusion is that ZK-RaaS throughput is gated by the chosen DA solution, not the proving speed. A chain using Celestia for cheap blob data faces different latency and finality than one posting all data to Ethereum via calldata.
Evidence: Posting 1 MB of data to Ethereum mainnet as calldata costs ~$400 (at 50 gwei), while the same data on a dedicated DA layer like Avail or EigenDA costs fractions of a cent. This cost directly defines a ZK-RaaS chain's economic viability.
key-insights
THE HIDDEN BOTTLENECK
Executive Summary: The DA Dilemma
For ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service customers, data availability is the silent killer of performance and cost, not the ZK proof itself.
01
The Problem: Ethereum is a $1M/Month Anchor
Publishing calldata to Ethereum L1 is the dominant, non-negotiable cost for ZK-rollups. This creates a hard floor on transaction fees, making micro-transactions economically impossible and capping scalability.
- Cost Driver: >80% of operational expense
- Throughput Cap: Limited to ~100-200 TPS per rollup
- Strategic Lock-in: Vendor choice dictates your most critical cost center.
>80%
of OpEx
~$1M/mo
Base Cost
02
The Solution: Modular DA Layers (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA)
Offloading data to specialized, high-throughput chains decouples security from cost. These layers use data availability sampling (DAS) and erasure coding to provide cryptographic guarantees at a fraction of L1 cost.
- Cost Reduction: ~100-1000x cheaper than Ethereum calldata
- Scalability: Enables 10,000+ TPS per rollup
- Interoperability Foundation: Serves as a neutral data layer for cross-chain states.
100-1000x
Cheaper
10k+ TPS
Scalability
03
The Trade-off: Security Assumptions vs. Economic Viability
Modular DA is not a free lunch. It introduces new trust assumptions—replacing Ethereum's monolithic security with a smaller validator set and cryptographic proofs. The choice is a trilemma:
- Ethereum L1: Maximum security, maximum cost.
- Modular DA (Celestia): Economic security, minimal cost.
- Hybrid (EigenDA): Ethereum restaking security, mid-tier cost.
Trilemma
Security vs. Cost
New Assumptions
Validator Sets
04
The Architect's Choice: DA is Your First Stack Decision
Selecting a DA layer is the most consequential infrastructure decision for a ZK-RaaS customer. It dictates your chain's economic model, security posture, and future interoperability with ecosystems like Polygon CDK, zkSync Hyperchains, and Starknet Appchains.
- Lock-in Risk: Harder to migrate than a prover.
- Ecosystem Alignment: Determines bridge and liquidity pathways.
- Future-Proofing: Must support volumes and data blobs for on-chain AI.
First Decision
Foundation
High Lock-in
Strategic Risk
thesis-statement
THE HIDDEN BOTTLENECK
Core Thesis: DA is the New Settlement Layer
For ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service (RaaS) customers, data availability is the primary cost and security constraint, not execution.
Data availability costs dominate the operational budget for a ZK-RaaS chain. Execution is cheap; posting transaction data to Ethereum is not. This inverts the traditional L2 scaling narrative.
The settlement guarantee is conditional on data being available for fraud proofs or state reconstruction. Without it, a ZK-RaaS chain is a centralized sequencer with extra steps, akin to early Optimism.
DA is the new moat. Providers like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail compete on cost-per-byte and integration ease, not just throughput. Choosing a DA layer is a foundational architectural decision.
Evidence: An Arbitrum Nova transaction, which uses Ethereum for settlement but Data Availability Committees (DACs) for data, is ~90% cheaper than a standard Arbitrum One transaction. This proves the cost delta.
ZK-ROLLUP AS A SERVICE
DA Layer Comparison: Cost, Latency, Security
Quantitative trade-offs for ZK-Rollup builders choosing a Data Availability layer, focusing on the operational constraints of a live chain.
| Feature / Metric | Ethereum (Calldata) | Celestia | EigenDA | Avail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost per Byte (USD) | $0.00024 | $0.000001 | $0.0000005 | $0.000003 |
Finality to DA (Seconds) | ~12 (L1 Block Time) | ~15 (Optimistic Time) | ~120 (Dispersal + Attestation) | ~20 |
Data Blob Capacity (MB/Block) | ~0.75 MB (3 Blobs) | ~8 MB | ~10 MB | ~2 MB |
Economic Security (Stake) | ~$110B (ETH Staked) | ~$1B (TIA Staked) | ~$20B (restaked ETH) | ~$0.2B (AVAIL Staked) |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||||
Direct Settlement to Ethereum | ||||
Proof of Storage / Fraud Proofs | Fraud Proofs (EIP-4844) | Proof of Storage | Proof of Custody | Validity Proofs + KZG |
Throughput (MB/sec) Estimate | ~0.06 | ~0.5 | ~0.08 | ~0.1 |
deep-dive
THE DATA AVAILABILITY BOTTLENECK
The Trilemma in Practice: Security vs. Cost vs. Speed
For ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service customers, the core scaling trilemma manifests as a direct trade-off in data availability layer selection.
On-chain DA is secure but expensive. Posting transaction data to Ethereum L1 (calldata) provides the gold-standard security of Ethereum's consensus, but its high and volatile gas costs dominate the operational budget for a ZK-RaaS chain.
Off-chain DA is cheap but introduces trust. Using a third-party data availability layer like Celestia or Avail slashes costs by 99% but creates a new trust assumption; the chain's liveness depends on that external network's honest majority.
The trade-off is binary and foundational. A chain's security model is defined by its DA choice at genesis. You cannot toggle between on-chain and off-chain DA without a hard fork, making this the first and most critical architectural decision.
Evidence: A ZK-Rollup using EigenDA for data availability inherits the cryptoeconomic security of Ethereum restaking, offering a middle-ground cost profile without the full trustlessness of L1 calldata.
protocol-spotlight
THE HIDDEN BOTTLENECK: DATA AVAILABILITY FOR ZK-RAAS CUSTOMERS
Builder Profiles: Who Chooses What and Why
ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service promises instant sovereignty, but the DA layer choice is a make-or-break decision for cost, security, and performance.
01
The Ethereum Purist: Celestia is a Dangerous Experiment
This builder prioritizes unconditional security over marginal cost savings. They view modular DA layers like Celestia as an untrusted, separate security domain. The only acceptable data root is Ethereum's consensus.
- Key Benefit: Inherits Ethereum's full $100B+ security budget.
- Key Benefit: Eliminates complex multi-chain trust assumptions and bridge risks.
- Trade-off: Pays ~$0.30 - $1.00 per KB for calldata, making micro-transactions prohibitive.
$100B+
Security Budget
~$0.30/KB
DA Cost
02
The Cost-Optimizer: Avail & Celestia for Hyper-Scaled Apps
This profile runs high-throughput applications (gaming, social) where cost-per-transaction is the primary constraint. They accept the security trade-off for ~1000x cheaper data posting.
- Key Benefit: DA costs reduced to ~$0.0003 per KB, enabling sub-cent fees.
- Key Benefit: Leverages data availability sampling (DAS) for scalable security.
- Trade-off: Introduces a weakest-link security model dependent on the chosen DA layer's liveness.
1000x
Cheaper DA
<$0.001
Per Tx Goal
03
The Hybrid Strategist: EigenDA for Ethereum-Aligned Security
This builder seeks a middle path, using EigenDA to get EVM-native security at reduced cost. They trust Ethereum's economic security via restaking, avoiding a completely new validator set.
- Key Benefit: ~10-100x cost savings vs. Ethereum calldata, with security backed by $20B+ in restaked ETH.
- Key Benefit: Native integration with the EigenLayer ecosystem for shared security services.
- Trade-off: New cryptoeconomic security model with its own slashing and governance complexities.
10-100x
Cost Saving
$20B+
Restaked ETH
04
The App-Chain Visionary: Near DA for Integrated Execution
This profile is building a holistic stack where DA is not a commodity but a tightly coupled component. They choose Near DA for its high throughput and the future potential of Nightshade sharding and fast finality.
- Key Benefit: Sub-second finality for DA posts, accelerating proof generation latency.
- Key Benefit: Potential for unified security and execution across the NEAR ecosystem.
- Trade-off: Vendor lock-in to a less-battle-tested, monolithic L1 stack for a critical component.
<1s
DA Finality
100k+
TPS Target
05
The Pragmatic Validator: In-House DAC for Maximum Control
This builder (often an existing L1 or large enterprise) rejects all external DA providers. They run a Data Availability Committee (DAC) with known, permissioned entities to achieve minimum latency and cost.
- Key Benefit: Ultra-low, predictable costs and custom SLAs for data retrieval.
- Key Benefit: Complete control over upgrade paths and data formatting.
- Trade-off: Sacrifices decentralization and credible neutrality, reintroducing trust assumptions.
~$0
Marginal Cost
N of M Trust
Security Model
06
The Interop Maximalist: LayerZero & Avail for Omnichain State
This builder's endgame is an omnichain application. They select a DA layer like Avail that is designed as a universal substrate, compatible with cross-chain messaging protocols like LayerZero and Hyperlane.
- Key Benefit: DA layer acts as a verifiable broadcast channel for cross-chain state proofs.
- Key Benefit: Unlocks shared liquidity and composability across hundreds of chains.
- Trade-off: Early-stage technology with unproven security at scale for this specific use case.
100+
Chain Vision
Universal
DA Schema
counter-argument
THE BOTTLENECK
The Optimist's Rebuttal: DA is a Commodity
Data availability is not a solved problem for ZK-Rollups-as-a-Service customers; it is a critical, hidden bottleneck that dictates cost, performance, and decentralization.
DA is the primary cost center for ZK-RaaS chains. The ZK-proving market is rapidly commoditizing, but posting transaction data to Ethereum L1 remains the dominant, inelastic expense, directly limiting scalability and user experience.
The DA choice dictates decentralization. Using a centralized sequencer with Ethereum for DA (e.g., Starknet, zkSync) is secure but expensive. Opting for a cheaper external DA layer like Celestia or EigenDA introduces a new trust assumption and interoperability friction.
Evidence: An Arbitrum Nova transaction, which uses Ethereum for consensus and DA via Data Availability Committees (DACs), is ~90% cheaper than a standard Arbitrum One transaction, proving the cost impact of alternative DA models.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: The ZK-RaaS Builder's Guide to DA
Common questions about relying on The Hidden Bottleneck: Data Availability for ZK-RaaS Customers.
Data Availability (DA) is the guarantee that transaction data is published and accessible for verification, which is the primary cost and security bottleneck for ZK-Rollups. While validity proofs ensure correct execution, they are useless if the underlying data is withheld, preventing state reconstruction and fraud proofs. This makes the choice of DA layer (like Ethereum calldata, Celestia, or EigenDA) a critical cost and security decision for any ZK-RaaS chain.
takeaways
DATA AVAILABILITY FOR ZK-RAAS
Takeaways: The Builder's Checklist
Choosing a DA layer is a foundational, irreversible decision for any ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service chain. Here's the practical evaluation framework.
01
The Problem: Ethereum L1 is a Luxury Good
Using Ethereum for DA provides gold-plated security but at a prohibitive cost for high-throughput chains. The economics only work for applications with extremely high-value transactions.
- Cost: ~$0.50-$2.00 per 100KB blob (post-EIP-4844).
- Constraint: Throughput capped by Ethereum's ~6 blobs/block.
- Trade-off: You're paying for security you likely don't yet need.
$0.50+
Per Blob Cost
6
Blobs/Block Cap
02
The Solution: Celestia is the Default for a Reason
Celestia pioneered modular DA, offering sovereign security separate from execution. It's the benchmark for cost-effective, scalable DA for new chains.
- Cost: ~$0.001 per MB, orders of magnitude cheaper than Ethereum.
- Throughput: Scales with the number of light nodes, not a fixed block size.
- Ecosystem: Largest modular tooling and integration network (e.g., Rollkit, Eclipse).
1000x
Cheaper vs. Eth
$0.001/MB
Representative Cost
03
The Emerging Threat: EigenDA's Economic Subsidy
EigenDA leverages Ethereum's staked ETH (~$20B+ TVL) to bootstrap security, offering near-zero cost DA as a loss leader. This is a strategic, not purely technical, competitor.
- Cost: Effectively ~$0.00 for early adopters via subsidy.
- Leverage: Taps into Ethereum's trust network via restaking.
- Risk: Long-term dependency on EigenLayer's cryptoeconomic security model.
$0.00
Subsidized Cost
$20B+
Backing TVL
04
The Trade-off: Avail vs. NearDA's Performance Play
For applications demanding ultra-low latency finality (e.g., gaming, HFT), specialized DA layers like Avail (Polygon) and NearDA offer sub-second guarantees.
- Avail: Focus on data availability sampling (DAS) and validity proofs.
- NearDA: Leverages Nightshade sharding for ~2s finality.
- Consideration: You are trading some decentralization for performance.
<2s
Finality Target
~$0.003/MB
Competitive Cost
05
The Checklist: Ask Your ZK-RaaS Provider
Don't accept "we use X for DA" as an answer. Drill down on the contractual and technical specifics.
- Escrow: Who controls the sequencer keys and upgradeability?
- Switching Cost: Can you migrate DA layers later without a hard fork?
- Fallback: What is the disaster recovery plan if the DA layer fails?
3
Critical Questions
06
The Reality: DA is a Commodity, Security is Not
Raw data storage is becoming cheap and interchangeable. The real differentiator is the security floor and the legal/economic guarantees around liveness and censorship resistance.
- Future: Multi-DA and proof aggregation (e.g., zkPorter, Espresso) will be standard.
- Verdict: Optimize for sovereignty and exit options, not just today's price per megabyte.
2025
Multi-DA ETA
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