State growth is the enemy. The primary cost for a global asset registry is storing and proving ownership changes, not processing them. High-throughput L1s like Solana or L2s like Arbitrum Nitro already process orders of magnitude more transactions than required for global asset settlement.
blockchain-and-iot-the-machine-economy
Blog
Why Scalability Fears Are Overblown for On-Chain Asset Registries
The machine economy demands high-frequency state updates. We analyze how modern L2s and app-chains solve the throughput problem, making on-chain registries for IoT and digital twins not just viable, but inevitable.
introduction
THE REAL BOTTLENECK
Introduction
Scalability concerns for on-chain asset registries are misplaced, as the core constraint is state growth, not transaction throughput.
Registries are write-light, read-heavy. Unlike DeFi protocols, asset ownership changes infrequently but is queried constantly. This workload is optimized for verifiable data availability layers like Celestia or EigenDA, which decouple data publication from execution, collapsing marginal storage costs.
The bottleneck is interoperability, not computation. A fragmented registry across multiple chains is useless. Universal state proofs from projects like Sui's zkLogin or LayerZero's V2, combined with intent-based aggregation from Across or Socket, abstract away chain boundaries for the end-user.
Evidence: Ethereum's base layer processes ~1M transactions daily. A global registry for all securities and real estate would require less than 10% of that capacity, a trivial load for any modern L2.
thesis-statement
THE DATA
The Core Argument: Throughput is a Solved Problem
Modern L2s and data availability layers provide more than enough capacity for global asset registries, rendering scalability a non-issue.
Scalability is a solved problem. The debate shifted from monolithic chains to specialized layers. Execution occurs on high-throughput L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism, while data availability is offloaded to dedicated layers like Celestia and EigenDA.
Asset registries are data-light. Registering ownership of a trillion-dollar asset is a single, small state update. The bottleneck was never computation; it was the cost and speed of publishing that data. Rollups with blob-carrying transactions on Ethereum or alternative DA layers slash this cost to fractions of a cent.
Throughput metrics are misleading. Comparing a payments network's TPS to an asset registry's is flawed. A single ZK-proof batch on Polygon zkEVM can finalize thousands of asset transfers, representing billions in value, in one on-chain transaction.
Evidence: Arbitrum processes over 200,000 transactions daily. Celestia's data availability capacity exceeds 100 MB per block. This architecture supports throughput orders of magnitude beyond the needs of any conceivable global asset registry.
key-trends
WHY SCALABILITY FEARS ARE OVERBLOWN
The Three Architectural Shifts Enabling Scale
The perceived scaling bottleneck for on-chain registries is being solved by a new stack, not by waiting for base-layer upgrades.
01
The Modular Data Layer: Celestia & EigenDA
Decoupling data availability from execution is the foundational unlock. Dedicated data layers like Celestia and EigenDA provide high-throughput, verifiable data posting at a fraction of L1 cost.\n- Cost: ~$0.01 per MB vs. Ethereum's ~$1000\n- Throughput: 100+ MB/s of guaranteed data availability\n- Implication: Registries can store massive datasets (e.g., RWA documents, IP metadata) on-chain without paying execution gas.
100x
Cheaper DA
100+ MB/s
Throughput
02
The Sovereign Execution Stack: OP Stack & Arbitrum Orbit
App-specific rollups built with OP Stack or Arbitrum Orbit turn the registry into its own blockchain. This provides dedicated, predictable block space and customizable logic for complex asset rules.\n- Control: Custom gas tokens and fee models for users\n- Performance: ~500ms block times, isolated from mainnet congestion\n- Ecosystem: Native integration with Celestia for data and EigenLayer for shared security.
~500ms
Block Time
Custom
Gas Token
03
The Verifiable Compute Layer: Risc Zero & Espresso
Offloading intensive computation (e.g., KYC checks, portfolio rebalancing) to verifiable co-processors preserves scalability and sovereignty. RISC Zero provides general-purpose zkVM proofs, while Espresso offers decentralized sequencing with fast finality.\n- Trust: Cryptographic proofs of off-chain computation integrity\n- Scale: Compute expensive logic off-chain, post only the proof\n- Speed: Sub-second proof generation for real-time registry updates.
ZK-Proofs
Verification
Sub-Second
Proof Gen
ON-CHAIN REGISTRY PERFORMANCE
Execution Layer Throughput: Base Layer vs. Scalability Solutions
Comparing transaction processing capacity and cost for asset registry operations across different execution environments.
| Performance Metric | Ethereum L1 (Settlement) | Optimistic Rollup (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | ZK Rollup (e.g., zkSync Era, StarkNet) | App-Specific Chain (e.g., Polygon Supernets, Avalanche Subnet) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | ~15-45 | ~4,000-40,000 | ~2,000-20,000+ | 1,000 - 10,000+ |
Tx Finality (Time to Immutable) | ~12-15 minutes | ~1 week (Challenge Period) + ~12-15 min | ~10-60 minutes | ~2-3 seconds (Subnet Finality) |
Avg. Tx Cost for Registry Update | $10 - $50+ | $0.10 - $0.50 | $0.01 - $0.10 | < $0.01 (Subnet Gas) |
Data Availability On Ethereum | ||||
Sovereign Execution | ||||
Native Cross-Chain Composability | ||||
Time to Economic Finality | ~12-15 minutes | ~1-2 minutes | ~10-60 minutes | ~2-3 seconds |
deep-dive
THE SCALABILITY REALITY
Architecting the High-Frequency Registry: A Builder's Guide
Modern execution environments and data availability layers render traditional scalability concerns for on-chain registries obsolete.
Scalability is a solved problem. The constraint moved from execution to data availability. Layer 2s like Arbitrum and Optimism process thousands of transactions per second, while data availability layers like Celestia and EigenDA provide cheap, verifiable data posting.
The registry is a state machine. Its core function is ordering and attesting to events, not complex computation. This architecture aligns perfectly with high-throughput, low-cost rollup environments where finality is fast and cheap.
Costs are sub-linear to activity. A high-frequency registry's primary cost is L1 data posting, which scales with bytes, not value. Protocols like Avail and Near DA demonstrate sub-cent costs for kilobytes of data, making micro-transactions viable.
Evidence: Arbitrum processes over 200K TPS in burst capacity for simple transfers. The cost to post 1KB of calldata to Ethereum via a rollup is under $0.01 during normal congestion.
counter-argument
THE DATA
The Steelman: What About Data Availability and Fragmentation?
On-chain asset registries avoid the core scaling bottlenecks of general-purpose execution, making data availability and fragmentation manageable.
Asset registries are data-light. They store ownership states and provenance hashes, not complex transaction histories, which drastically reduces their data availability (DA) footprint compared to L1s or general-purpose rollups.
Fragmentation is a feature. A global registry for real-world assets (RWAs) does not require a single chain. Interoperability protocols like LayerZero and Wormhole enable a unified state across sovereign chains, turning fragmentation into a resilience and jurisdictional advantage.
DA layers are commoditized. Solutions like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail provide high-throughput, low-cost data availability. An asset registry posts minimal calldata, making its operational cost negligible on these dedicated DA layers.
Evidence: The Ethereum L1 processes ~15 transactions per second but stores the state for billions in value. An asset registry's throughput requirement is orders of magnitude lower, making scalability a solved problem with existing infrastructure.
takeaways
WHY SCALABILITY IS SOLVED
TL;DR for the Time-Poor CTO
The narrative that blockchains can't handle global asset registries is outdated. The infrastructure stack has evolved.
01
The Problem: Monolithic Chains Are a Bottleneck
Ethereum Mainnet is a settlement layer, not a database. Expecting it to handle millions of low-value registry entries is a category error.
- Base cost for a simple write: ~$5-50 on L1.
- Throughput ceiling: ~15-30 TPS.
- Result: Registry models were economically impossible.
~30 TPS
L1 Ceiling
$5+
Min Cost
02
The Solution: App-Specific Rollups & L2s
Sovereign execution environments like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync decouple compute from consensus. A registry can run its own high-throughput chain.
- Cost reduction: ~100-1000x cheaper than L1.
- Latency: Finality in ~1-3 seconds.
- Example: A tokenized real estate registry on a custom rollup pays pennies per entry.
1000x
Cheaper
~2s
Finality
03
The Enabler: Modular Data Availability (DA)
The real cost isn't execution; it's storing data forever. Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail provide secure, scalable data layers.
- Cost: ~$0.01 per MB vs. Ethereum's ~$1,000 per MB.
- Throughput: 100+ MB/s data bandwidth.
- Implication: Registry state bloat is now a solved economic problem.
$0.01/MB
DA Cost
100+ MB/s
Bandwidth
04
The Architecture: State Expiry & Stateless Clients
Even with cheap DA, infinite state growth kills nodes. Verkle Trees (Ethereum) and Stateless Clients prune old data while preserving proofs.
- Node requirements: Reduce from 2TB+ to ~50GB.
- User experience: Unchanged; proofs guarantee integrity.
- Result: Sustainable, permissionless verification for the long term.
50GB
Node Size
100%
Integrity
05
The Proof: Existing High-Throughput Registries
This isn't theoretical. ENS leverages L2s for cheap registrations. Arbitrum processes ~100k daily transactions for gaming/assets. Solana (a monolithic outlier) handles ~3k TPS for token accounts.
- Evidence: Billions in assets already on-chain.
- Pattern: Scalability is a deployment choice, not a limitation.
3k TPS
Live Example
100k/day
L2 Volume
06
The Verdict: Build, Don't Wait
The trilemma is dead for this use case. The stack is production-ready.
- Tooling: Rollup-as-a-Service (RaaS) from Conduit, Caldera.
- Security: Inherited from Ethereum or other robust L1s.
- Action: Your bottleneck is product design, not blockchain capacity.
RaaS
Tooling Ready
L1 Security
Foundation
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