Monolithic architectures are obsolete. They force developers to accept a single, suboptimal execution environment, consensus mechanism, and data availability layer, creating a vendor lock-in that stifles innovation and performance.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
Why Monolithic Frameworks Are Losing to Composable Stacks
An analysis of the EVM tooling shift from all-in-one suites to best-in-class, interoperable components like Foundry, Slither, and Echidna, driven by developer demand for speed, security, and control.
introduction
THE MONOLITHIC TRAP
Introduction
The architectural dogma of tightly integrated, all-in-one blockchains is failing against the superior adaptability of modular, composable stacks.
Composability creates asymmetric advantages. A project can combine Celestia for data, Arbitrum for execution, and EigenLayer for security, optimizing each layer independently. This modular approach outperforms any single chain's trade-offs.
The market has voted with its capital. The total value locked in modular ecosystems like Cosmos and Polkadot and Layer 2 rollups now dwarfs that of most monolithic Layer 1s, proving the economic preference for specialized components over bundled solutions.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Core Argument
Monolithic frameworks are losing because they cannot match the speed, cost, and specialization of purpose-built, composable stacks.
Monolithic frameworks are obsolete. They bundle execution, settlement, consensus, and data availability into a single, rigid layer, creating a bottleneck for innovation and performance.
Composable stacks enable specialization. Projects like Celestia and EigenDA decouple data availability, while Arbitrum and Optimism focus solely on execution. This separation allows each layer to optimize for its specific function.
The market votes with its capital. The total value locked in modular ecosystems now rivals monolithic L1s. Developers choose rollup frameworks like OP Stack or Arbitrum Orbit because they offer sovereignty without the overhead of bootstrapping security.
Evidence: The dominance of the OP Stack, used by Base and Blast, demonstrates that developers prefer a modular, composable foundation over building a monolithic chain from scratch.
key-trends
WHY MONOLITHS ARE LOSING
The Data-Backed Shift
Monolithic frameworks are being out-executed by specialized, composable stacks that deliver measurable performance and economic advantages.
01
The Problem: The 'Fat Protocol' Tax
Monolithic chains like Ethereum L1 force developers to pay for security, execution, and data availability as a single, expensive bundle. This creates a ~$10M+ annual cost for a top-10 dApp and limits innovation to the core protocol's roadmap.
- Cost Inefficiency: Paying for global consensus to run simple logic.
- Innovation Bottleneck: New features (e.g., parallel execution) require hard forks.
$10M+
Annual Tax
12-18mo
Upgrade Lag
02
The Solution: Sovereign Rollup Stacks (Celestia, EigenDA)
Decouple the stack. Use a modular data availability layer (Celestia) and a shared security layer (EigenLayer) to launch a custom execution environment (rollup) for ~$100k/yr.
- Cost Arbitrage: Pay only for the resources you consume (DA, security).
- Sovereignty: Upgrade your VM and fee market without permission.
100x
Cheaper DA
-99%
Launch Cost
03
The Problem: Inflexible State Management
Monolithic VMs (EVM, Move) impose a single global state model, forcing all dApps into the same inefficient architecture. This leads to state bloat and congestion externalities where one popular NFT mint grinds the entire network to a halt.
- Contagious Congestion: One app's traffic impacts all others.
- One-Size-Fits-All: No optimal state model for DeFi vs. Gaming.
1TB+
State Growth
1000x
Fee Spikes
04
The Solution: App-Specific Rollups & Alt-VMs (Fuel, Eclipse)
Choose a virtual machine optimized for your application. Use FuelVM for high-throughput UTXO-based DeFi or SVM for parallelized gaming. Deploy it as a rollup via Eclipse or Caldera.
- Performance Isolation: Your app's traffic doesn't affect others.
- Architectural Fit: Select a VM for your state access patterns.
10k+
TPS Target
~0ms
Cross-App Latency
05
The Problem: Centralized Sequencing Rent
Even L2s often rely on a single, profit-maximizing sequencer—a de facto monopoly capturing MEV and prioritizing its own transactions. This recreates the extractive economics monolithic chains were meant to solve.
- MEV Capture: Sequencer profits instead of users.
- Censorship Risk: Single point of failure for transaction ordering.
>90%
MEV Extracted
1
Trusted Operator
06
The Solution: Shared Sequencing Networks (Espresso, Astria)
Outsource sequencing to a decentralized network like Espresso or Astria. This enables cross-rollup atomic composability and returns MEV to rollup stakeholders via a proposer-builder separation model.
- Credible Neutrality: No single entity controls the inbox.
- Cross-Rollup UX: Atomic transactions across sovereign chains.
Decentralized
Sequencing
Atomic
Cross-Rollup
MONOLITHIC VS. MODULAR
Framework Performance & Adoption Metrics
Quantitative comparison of blockchain framework architectures, highlighting why integrated stacks are ceding ground to specialized, composable layers.
| Metric / Capability | Monolithic L1 (e.g., Solana, BNB Chain) | Modular Execution Layer (e.g., Arbitrum, OP Stack) | Modular Settlement/DA Layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) |
|---|---|---|---|
Peak Theoretical TPS (Layer) | 65,000 | 4,000 - 40,000 (per chain) |
|
Time-to-Finality (Avg) | 400ms - 2.5s | 12s - 1hr (depends on L1) | 12s - 20min |
Developer Lock-in | |||
Native MEV Capture | |||
Avg Cost for 100k Simple TXs | $200 - $500 | $5 - $50 | < $1 |
Active DeFi Protocols (Top 10) | 120 | 450+ | N/A (Infra Layer) |
Upgrade Governance Complexity | High (Hard forks) | Medium (via L1 multisig) | Low (Permissionless rollups) |
Cross-Domain Composability |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
First Principles of the Composable Stack
Monolithic frameworks are losing because they sacrifice sovereignty and innovation for temporary convenience.
Monolithic frameworks enforce vendor lock-in. They bundle execution, settlement, data availability, and consensus into a single, rigid layer. This creates a single point of failure and stifles protocol-level innovation, as seen in early L1 scaling limitations.
Composability enables best-in-class specialization. Protocols like Celestia for data availability, EigenDA for restaking security, and Arbitrum for execution can be mixed. This creates a competitive market for each layer, driving efficiency down and performance up.
The modular thesis wins on sovereignty. A rollup using a shared sequencer like Espresso or Astria and a sovereign rollup framework like Rollkit retains control over its upgrade path and value capture, unlike being a subservient L2.
Evidence: The Total Value Locked in modular and rollup ecosystems now dwarfs that of new monolithic L1s. Developers choose OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, or Polygon CDK because they offer escape hatches from any single provider's roadmap.
counter-argument
THE PERFORMANCE ARGUMENT
The Steelman: The Case for the Monolith
Monolithic architectures offer superior performance and simplicity by eliminating cross-layer communication overhead.
Optimized execution is the primary advantage. A monolithic blockchain like Solana or Monad runs its execution, settlement, and data availability on a single layer. This eliminates the latency and gas costs of cross-chain messaging inherent to modular stacks using Celestia or EigenDA.
Developer experience is simplified. Building on a monolithic chain provides a single, coherent environment. Developers avoid the complexity of managing separate rollup clients, sequencers, and bridging logic required by OP Stack or Arbitrum Orbit chains.
The monolithic scaling roadmap is proven. Solana's parallel execution via Sealevel and Monad's pipelining demonstrate that vertical integration enables raw throughput that modular systems struggle to match without introducing fragmentation and liquidity silos.
takeaways
THE MODULAR IMPERATIVE
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Monolithic designs are collapsing under their own complexity, ceding ground to specialized, composable layers. Here's the playbook.
01
The Execution Layer Bottleneck
Monolithic chains force consensus, data availability, and execution onto a single node, creating a vertical scaling limit. Every validator must replay every transaction, capping throughput at ~10k TPS for even the most optimized L1s.\n- Key Benefit: Separating execution (via rollups) allows for parallel processing and 100k+ TPS potential.\n- Key Benefit: Enables specialized VMs (EVM, SVM, Move) to coexist, letting apps choose optimal runtime.
100k+
Potential TPS
-90%
Node Burden
02
Celestia & The Data Availability Revolution
Forcing consensus nodes to store all transaction data forever is a massive economic inefficiency. This creates high hardware costs and centralization pressure.\n- Key Benefit: Dedicated DA layers like Celestia or EigenDA decouple data publishing from consensus, reducing rollup costs to ~$0.01 per MB.\n- Key Benefit: Enables sovereign rollups that control their own governance and upgrade paths, escaping the "smart contract" cage.
$0.01
Per MB Cost
10x
More Blobs
03
The Interoperability Tax
Monolithic chains treat interoperability as an afterthought, leading to trusted bridges and wrapped assets that concentrate risk (see: Wormhole, Multichain hacks). This fragments liquidity and UX.\n- Key Benefit: Composable stacks natively enable shared security (EigenLayer, Babylon) and intent-based routing (Across, LayerZero) for atomic cross-chain actions.\n- Key Benefit: Universal settlement layers (e.g., shared sequencers) provide a canonical ordering source, eliminating MEV races and bridge delays.
-$2B+
Bridge Hack Risk
~2s
Finality
04
Innovation Velocity vs. Governance Paralysis
Upgrading a monolithic chain requires hard forks and contentious, politicized governance (see: Ethereum's slow rollup-centric shift). This stifles experimentation.\n- Key Benefit: Modular stacks allow permissionless innovation at each layer. New DA solution? Rollup integrates it. New prover? Swap it out.\n- Key Benefit: Creates a competitive marketplace for layer services, driving down costs and improving performance through iteration, not committees.
10x
Faster Iteration
Months→Days
Upgrade Cycle
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