Monolithic Security excels at providing a unified, battle-tested security guarantee because it consolidates execution, consensus, and data availability into a single, high-value chain. For example, Ethereum's security budget, derived from its ~$400B market cap and over 1 million validators, makes a 51% attack astronomically expensive, providing a proven, 'set-and-forget' foundation for protocols like Aave and Uniswap.
LABS
Comparisons
Modular Security vs Monolithic Security Stack
A technical comparison for protocol architects choosing between a composable security model leveraging EigenLayer and Celestia versus a vertically integrated, self-contained security stack. Focuses on trade-offs in cost, flexibility, and risk for building an Actively Validated Service (AVS).
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Security Model Dilemma for AVS Builders
A foundational comparison of security philosophies for Actively Validated Services, weighing the battle-tested guarantees of monolithic chains against the flexible, cost-efficient sovereignty of modular stacks.
Modular Security takes a different approach by decoupling these layers, allowing AVS builders to source security from specialized providers like EigenLayer (for cryptoeconomic security) and Celestia or Avail (for data availability). This results in a trade-off: you gain sovereignty and potentially lower costs (e.g., Celestia's data availability fees are a fraction of Ethereum's blob costs), but you must actively manage and verify the security of multiple, interdependent components.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security assurance and minimizing operational complexity for a high-value application, choose a monolithic foundation like Ethereum or Solana. If you prioritize sovereignty, scalability, and cost-efficiency and are willing to architect and monitor a multi-provider stack, a modular approach using EigenLayer and a modular DA layer is the path forward.
tldr-summary
Modular vs. Monolithic Security
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
Core architectural trade-offs that dictate security, sovereignty, and operational complexity.
01
Modular Security: Sovereign Execution
Full control over your execution environment. Rollups like Arbitrum Orbit and OP Stack chains can define their own sequencer, fee models, and upgrade keys. This matters for protocols requiring custom precompiles or specific MEV strategies that a monolithic L1 would not support.
100%
Sequencer Profit Capture
02
Modular Security: Shared Data & Consensus
Leverages battle-tested base layers like Ethereum (via Celestia or EigenDA) or Celestia for data availability and consensus. This provides cryptoeconomic security derived from the underlying validator set, often at a lower cost than bootstrapping a new monolithic chain. This matters for teams that want Ethereum-level security without its execution constraints.
$90B+
Ethereum Staked
03
Monolithic Security: Unified Simplicity
Single, vertically integrated security model. Chains like Solana and Sui handle execution, consensus, and data availability in one cohesive stack. This eliminates cross-layer trust assumptions and interoperability overhead. This matters for applications needing atomic composability across all smart contracts with minimal latency.
~400ms
Solana Slot Time
04
Monolithic Security: Proven Throughput & Finality
Optimized for raw performance within a single trust domain. Networks like Avalanche (subnets) and Near achieve high TPS and fast finality by design, without relying on external data layers. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) DeFi or consumer-scale gaming where predictable, low-latency finality is non-negotiable.
4,500+
Avalanche Subnet TPS
SECURITY MODEL HEAD-TO-HEAD
Feature Comparison: Modular vs Monolithic Security
Direct comparison of key security properties and trade-offs for blockchain architecture.
| Metric | Monolithic Security (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) | Modular Security (e.g., Celestia, EigenLayer) |
|---|---|---|
Security Source | Native Consensus & Validators | Shared Security from Base Layer |
Validator Capital Requirement | Native token staking (e.g., 32 ETH) | Rent security via restaking (e.g., 0.001 ETH) |
Time to Launch Secure Chain | 1-3 years (bootstrap validators) | < 1 month (lease security) |
Sovereignty / Forkability | ||
Max Extractable Value (MEV) Resistance | Varies by L1 design | Enshrined sequencing options |
Cross-Domain Security Unlocks | true (e.g., EigenDA, Espresso) |
pros-cons-a
Architectural Trade-offs for Modern Blockchains
Modular Security Stack: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of security models, highlighting key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs and architects.
01
Modular Stack: Sovereign Security
Unmatched sovereignty and flexibility: Each component (DA, execution, settlement) can be secured by a different network (e.g., Celestia for DA, Arbitrum for execution, Ethereum for settlement). This allows for optimized cost and performance per layer. This matters for high-throughput, app-specific chains (RollApps on Dymension, Hyperliquid) where you need to minimize base-layer fees.
<$0.001
DA Cost on Celestia
100K+
TPS Potential
03
Monolithic Stack: Unified Security
Simplified, battle-tested security model: Security is inherited from a single, high-value base layer (e.g., Ethereum, Solana). All validation and data availability are anchored to one consensus, reducing coordination complexity and trust assumptions. This matters for DeFi protocols with billions in TVL (Uniswap, Aave) where the cost of a security failure is catastrophic.
$50B+
Ethereum Staked
99.9%
Uptime SLA
05
Modular Stack: Key Risk
Increased systemic complexity and bridging risk: Security is now a multi-party responsibility. A weakness in the chosen Data Availability layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) or a faulty bridge to the settlement layer can compromise the entire stack. This matters for institutions and stablecoin issuers (like Circle evaluating CCTP) who must audit and trust multiple, moving codebases.
06
Monolithic Stack: Key Limitation
Inherent scalability ceiling and congestion pricing: Throughput is bounded by single-node hardware limits. During peak demand (e.g., NFT mints, meme coin rallies), fees spike universally, pricing out certain applications. This matters for mass-market consumer dApps or gaming requiring consistent, sub-cent transaction costs, a challenge for networks like Ethereum L1.
~15 TPS
Ethereum L1 Capacity
$100+
Peak Fee Cost
pros-cons-b
ARCHITECTURAL TRADE-OFFS
Monolithic Security Stack: Pros and Cons
A direct comparison of the unified security model of monolithic chains versus the specialized, shared security of modular stacks. Key metrics and trade-offs for CTOs evaluating infrastructure dependencies.
01
Monolithic: Cohesive Security Model
Unified validator set secures execution, consensus, and data availability as a single system. This eliminates cross-layer trust assumptions, simplifying security audits. Chains like Solana and BNB Chain leverage this for sub-second finality and high Total Value Secured (TVL), with Solana securing over $4B in DeFi. This matters for protocols requiring atomic composability across all applications.
02
Monolithic: Performance Optimization
Tightly integrated layers allow for vertical optimization, maximizing throughput and minimizing latency. Ethereum's L1, post-Merge, achieves ~99.9% uptime with a single, battle-tested validator set. This matters for high-frequency trading dApps and consumer applications where consistent, predictable performance is non-negotiable.
03
Modular: Capital Efficiency & Sovereignty
Shared security from a base layer (e.g., Ethereum via EigenLayer, Celestia) allows rollups and app-chains to bootstrap security without bootstrapping a validator set from scratch. This reduces overhead and enables sovereign execution—teams can fork and upgrade their chain without consensus-layer coordination. This matters for experimental protocols and teams with specific governance needs.
04
Modular: Specialization & Innovation
Decouples the tech stack, allowing each layer to innovate independently. A rollup can use a novel VM (e.g., FuelVM, SVM) while leveraging Ethereum for consensus and Celestia for cheap data availability (~$0.01 per MB). This matters for scaling specific use cases (e.g., gaming, DeFi) with tailored execution environments that a monolithic chain cannot easily accommodate.
05
Monolithic: Complexity & Upgrade Rigidity
System-wide upgrades require hard forks and broad consensus, slowing innovation (e.g., Ethereum's multi-year roadmap). The monolithic bottleneck means scaling one component (e.g., execution) often requires scaling the entire chain, leading to high hardware requirements for validators. This matters for teams needing rapid iteration or operating in resource-constrained environments.
06
Modular: Composability & Trust Fragmentation
Cross-domain communication between modular chains (e.g., a rollup on Celestia to a rollup on EigenDA) introduces new trust assumptions and bridging risks. This can fragment liquidity and complicate user experience. The security budget is shared and potentially diluted across hundreds of chains. This matters for DeFi protocols requiring deep, unified liquidity pools and maximal security guarantees.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Modular Security for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for sovereign, high-TVL applications. Strengths: Enables sovereignty and customizability for protocols that become their own security hub. Projects like dYdX V4 (on Cosmos) and Lyra (on Optimism) leverage modular stacks to control their upgrade paths and fee markets while inheriting strong underlying security (e.g., from Ethereum via EigenLayer or Celestia). This model is ideal for protocols with >$100M TVL that need to optimize for specific execution environments (e.g., app-specific rollups) without sacrificing credible neutrality.
Monolithic Security for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic default for rapid deployment and maximum composability. Strengths: Offers unparalleled liquidity network effects and shared security. Building DeFi on Ethereum L1, Solana, or Sui means immediate access to established oracle feeds (Chainlink), lending pools (Aave, Compound), and DEX liquidity (Uniswap, Raydium). The monolithic security model provides a unified, battle-tested environment with clear finality, reducing integration complexity. Choose this for new protocols that prioritize ecosystem integration over architectural control.
MODULAR VS MONOLITHIC
Technical Deep Dive: Security Assumptions and Slashing
The core security model of a blockchain is its most critical architectural choice. This section dissects the trade-offs between modular security, where components rely on external networks, and monolithic security, where everything is secured by a single validator set.
Not inherently, but it introduces different risk vectors. Monolithic chains like Ethereum or Solana derive security from their own large, expensive-to-attack validator set. Modular chains like Celestia or Arbitrum rely on the security of an underlying Data Availability (DA) layer and potentially a settlement layer. Their security is a composite: a rollup on Ethereum inherits Ethereum's security for settlement and DA, but its sequencer presents a centralization risk. The security is conditional on the strength and correct configuration of these external dependencies.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between a modular and monolithic security stack is a foundational architectural decision with long-term implications for your protocol's sovereignty, scalability, and operational overhead.
Modular Security excels at providing sovereign, customizable security for high-value, specialized applications. By leveraging shared networks like EigenLayer for cryptoeconomic security or Celestia for data availability, protocols can achieve robust security without the capital expenditure of bootstrapping a new validator set. For example, a rollup using EigenLayer's restaking can inherit the security of Ethereum's ~$50B+ staked ETH, while a sovereign rollup on Celestia can achieve data availability for fractions of a cent per transaction, decoupling execution from consensus costs.
Monolithic Security takes a different approach by vertically integrating consensus, execution, and data availability into a single, tightly-coupled layer. This results in a trade-off of reduced sovereignty for stronger, holistic security guarantees and simplified coordination. Chains like Solana and Sui exemplify this, where a unified validator set secures the entire state, enabling high throughput (e.g., Solana's 2k-10k TPS for simple payments) and low latency, but requiring applications to operate within the chain's governance and upgrade path.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty, customizability, and cost-efficiency for a specific application domain, choose a Modular Security stack. This is ideal for new L2s, app-chains, or protocols like dYdX or Aevo that require their own execution environment. If you prioritize maximized performance, unified security, and operational simplicity for a broad-scope dApp, choose a Monolithic Security stack. This suits high-frequency DeFi, consumer applications, or projects that do not require deep protocol-level modifications.
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