Monolithic Layer 1s like Solana and Sui excel at providing a tightly integrated, high-performance environment for applications requiring atomic composability and low latency. By bundling execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement into a single layer, they achieve impressive throughput—Solana often benchmarks over 2,000 TPS for simple transfers with sub-$0.001 fees. This vertical integration simplifies development but locks you into the chain's specific trade-offs and upgrade cycles.
LABS
Comparisons
Layer 1 Monoliths vs Modular Chains: Optionality
A technical comparison of monolithic and modular blockchain architectures, focusing on optionality, future flexibility, and the trade-offs for protocol architects and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Architecture Decision
Choosing between monolithic and modular blockchain architectures is a foundational choice that dictates your protocol's capabilities, costs, and future flexibility.
Modular chains, exemplified by Celestia for data availability, Arbitrum for execution, and EigenLayer for restaking security, take a different approach by decoupling core functions. This specialization allows each layer to optimize independently, fostering innovation like Celestia's data availability sampling for scalable, low-cost data. The trade-off is increased complexity in development and bridging, as applications must navigate a multi-layered ecosystem rather than a single-state environment.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing performance, simplicity, and atomic composability for a single application state, choose a monolithic L1. If you prioritize sovereignty, specialized scalability, and the ability to customize your tech stack (e.g., using a specific VM like the Arbitrum Nitro stack), a modular approach is superior. The decision hinges on whether you value integrated optimization or architectural optionality.
tldr-summary
Monoliths vs Modular: The Core Trade-off
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
The fundamental choice between a unified, battle-tested stack and a specialized, flexible one. Here's what each approach wins and loses.
01
Monoliths: Vertical Integration
Pros: Atomic composability across execution, consensus, and data availability (DA). This eliminates cross-layer trust assumptions, simplifying development for complex DeFi protocols like Uniswap or Aave. Cons: The scalability trilemma is real. High demand on one layer (e.g., NFT mints) congests the entire network, leading to volatile fees, as seen on Ethereum pre-rollups or Solana during peak load.
02
Modular Chains: Specialized Sovereignty
Pros: Uncapped scalability via dedicated execution layers (Rollups, Validiums) and external DA (Celestia, Avail). This enables predictable, low-cost transactions, critical for high-frequency gaming or social apps. Cons: Introduces fragmentation risk. Bridging assets and state between an Ethereum L2 and a Celestia-based rollup adds complexity and new trust assumptions in sequencers and DA providers.
03
Choose a Monolith If...
Your protocol's security and atomic composability are non-negotiable. Ideal for:
- Money Legos: DeFi protocols where a flash loan, swap, and leverage position must settle atomically.
- Maximal Security: Applications managing >$100M in TVL that cannot accept any new trust assumptions beyond the base layer's validators.
- Examples: Lending protocols (Compound v3), decentralized perpetual exchanges.
04
Choose Modular If...
You need sovereignty, predictable cost, or extreme throughput. Ideal for:
- Consumer Apps: Gaming, social media, or NFT platforms requiring sub-cent fees and high TPS.
- App-Specific Chains: Needing custom VM (EVM, SVM, Move) or governance, like a dYdX Chain or a Hyperliquid.
- Cost-Sensitive Scaling: Migrating users from a high-fee environment (e.g., Ethereum L1) without sacrificing security.
LAYER 1 MONOLITHS VS MODULAR CHAINS
Feature Comparison: Optionality & Flexibility
Direct comparison of architectural flexibility and developer optionality for infrastructure decisions.
| Metric / Feature | Layer 1 Monoliths (e.g., Solana, Ethereum) | Modular Chains (e.g., Celestia, EigenLayer) |
|---|---|---|
Architectural Choice | ||
Data Availability Layer | Bundled | Optional (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) |
Execution Environment | Native VM Only | Multiple (EVM, SVM, Move, Custom) |
Settlement & Consensus | Bundled | Separate & Optional |
Sequencer Control | Protocol-Governed | Rollup-Appointed |
Upgrade Flexibility | Hard Fork Required | Modular Stack Upgrade |
Time to Launch New Chain | Months/Years | Weeks (Rollup-As-A-Service) |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL TRADEOFFS
Pros & Cons: Monolithic L1s (e.g., Solana, Ethereum)
Key strengths and weaknesses of the integrated, all-in-one blockchain model at a glance.
01
Pro: Unified Security & Simplicity
Integrated security model: Execution, consensus, and data availability are secured by a single validator set and native token (e.g., SOL, ETH). This eliminates cross-layer trust assumptions, simplifying security analysis for applications like DeFi protocols (Aave, Uniswap) and high-value NFTs. Developers have one canonical environment to target.
02
Pro: Optimized for Atomic Composability
Seamless state transitions: All smart contracts and assets reside in a single global state, enabling atomic transactions across the entire ecosystem. This is critical for complex DeFi money legos and high-frequency trading on DEXs like Orca (Solana) or within a single Ethereum rollup. No bridging or asynchronous calls are required for within-chain operations.
03
Con: Inflexible Scaling & Resource Contention
Bottlenecked resource model: Throughput (TPS), storage, and computation compete for the same block space, leading to congestion and fee spikes (e.g., Ethereum gas wars, Solana network stalls). Scaling requires upgrading the entire monolithic chain, a slow process compared to modular rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism) or data availability layers (Celestia) that scale components independently.
04
Con: High Node Requirements & Centralization Pressure
Heavy hardware demands: To process all transactions and store the entire state history, node requirements grow continuously (Ethereum archive node > 12TB). This raises the barrier to entry for validators, pushing towards infrastructure centralization with services like AWS. Modular chains can offload data availability, allowing for lighter nodes.
pros-cons-b
Layer 1 Monoliths vs Modular Chains: Optionality
Pros & Cons: Modular Chains (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA, Rollups)
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for teams choosing between integrated and disaggregated blockchain architectures.
01
Monolithic L1s: Integrated Simplicity
Single-stack sovereignty: Execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement are bundled (e.g., Ethereum, Solana). This provides a unified security model and predictable, all-in-one operational costs. Ideal for general-purpose dApps needing maximal composability and a single point of failure for upgrades.
02
Monolithic L1s: Performance Ceiling
Bottlenecked by design: Throughput (TPS) and resource costs (gas) are constrained by the base layer's global consensus. Scaling requires invasive protocol upgrades (e.g., Ethereum's Dencun) rather than modular choice. This can lead to high and volatile fees during congestion, as seen with Ethereum NFTs and Solana's compute limits.
03
Modular Chains: Specialized Scalability
Unbounded throughput via rollups: Execution is moved off-chain (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync), leveraging the base L1 only for security/settlement. Data availability can be outsourced to specialized layers like Celestia ($0.001 per MB) or EigenDA. This enables 10,000+ TPS at minimal cost, perfect for high-frequency DeFi or gaming.
04
Modular Chains: Complexity & Fragmentation
Multi-stack integration overhead: Teams must manage dependencies across execution clients, sequencers, DA providers, and bridges. This introduces cross-domain risk (e.g., bridge hacks) and can fragment liquidity. New trust assumptions arise with sovereign rollups or alt-DA like EigenDA, requiring deep technical due diligence.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: Decision by Use Case
Layer 1 Monoliths for DeFi (e.g., Ethereum, Solana)\nVerdict: The established choice for high-value, security-first applications.\nStrengths: Deep liquidity and high TVL (e.g., Uniswap, Aave, MakerDAO). Battle-tested smart contract security with mature audit ecosystems. Strong network effects and composability within a single state.\nTrade-offs: High and volatile gas fees on Ethereum during congestion. Slower innovation cycles due to hard fork upgrades.\n\n### Modular Chains for DeFi (e.g., Arbitrum, Base, Celestia Rollups)\nVerdict: The optimal choice for user experience and rapid iteration.\nStrengths: Predictable, ultra-low transaction fees. Faster finality via optimistic or zk-rollups. Sovereignty allows for custom fee markets and execution environments (EVM, SVM, Move).\nTrade-offs: Security is derived from the parent chain (Ethereum) or a data availability layer, adding complexity. Liquidity can be fragmented across multiple rollups.
LAYER 1 MONOLITHS VS MODULAR CHAINS
Technical Deep Dive: The Optionality Trade-Off
Choosing a blockchain foundation is a fundamental architectural decision. This comparison breaks down the core trade-offs between integrated Layer 1s and specialized modular stacks, focusing on performance, cost, security, and developer experience to guide infrastructure strategy.
Modular architectures are designed for higher theoretical throughput. By separating execution, consensus, and data availability (DA) into specialized layers, chains like Celestia + Rollups or EigenDA + OP Stack can scale horizontally. A monolithic chain like Solana achieves high throughput (~4,000 TPS) through vertical integration and optimized hardware, but faces congestion under extreme load. Modular chains push execution to rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, zkSync) which batch transactions, while the DA layer (e.g., Celestia) provides cheap data. The trade-off is increased system complexity and potential latency from cross-layer communication.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict & Decision Framework
A final assessment of the optionality trade-offs between monolithic and modular blockchain architectures.
Monolithic L1s like Solana and Sui excel at delivering a unified, high-performance environment for applications requiring maximum composability and low-latency finality. Their vertically integrated design—execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement on a single layer—enables exceptional throughput, as seen with Solana's 2k-5k TPS for simple transfers and sub-second block times. This integrated stack minimizes cross-layer friction, making it ideal for high-frequency DeFi, gaming, and social applications where user experience is paramount.
Modular chains like Celestia-based rollups and Arbitrum Nitro take a different approach by decoupling core functions across specialized layers. This strategy results in superior optionality and scalability for developers, allowing them to choose optimal execution environments (EVM, SVM, MoveVM), data availability layers (Celestia, EigenDA, Ethereum), and settlement chains. The trade-off is increased system complexity and potential latency from inter-layer communication, but it enables unparalleled customization and cost efficiency for specific use cases.
The key trade-off: If your priority is uncompromising performance and simplicity for a mainstream application, choose a Monolithic L1. Its integrated state provides the smoothest developer and user experience. If you prioritize sovereignty, cost control, and architectural flexibility—especially for a niche protocol or if you anticipate needing to innovate at the base layer—choose a Modular stack. The ability to swap out components like the Data Availability layer can reduce costs by over 99% compared to posting data directly to Ethereum L1.
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