Modularity shifts centralization downstream. Decoupling execution from consensus and data availability moves the trust bottleneck from monolithic validators to specialized providers like Celestia for data and EigenDA for restaking.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
Why Modularity Is Creating New Centralization Risks
The shift to modular blockchains (data, execution, settlement, consensus) hasn't solved centralization—it has relocated it. Vendor lock-in with Rollup-as-a-Service (RaaS) providers, concentrated prover networks, and centralized sequencer sets are the new, systemic attack vectors replacing miner/validator centralization. This analysis breaks down the technical and economic risks for architects.
introduction
THE UNBUNDLING
Introduction
Modular blockchain design, while solving scalability, is creating new and opaque centralization vectors in the critical infrastructure layer.
Sequencer and prover markets consolidate. Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism currently run centralized sequencers, creating single points of failure and censorship, with nascent decentralized alternatives like Espresso and Astria facing adoption hurdles.
Cross-chain infrastructure becomes a choke point. The interoperability layer—bridges like LayerZero and Wormhole, and shared sequencer networks—concentrates immense value and risk, creating systemic vulnerabilities as seen in past bridge exploits.
Evidence: Over 90% of rollup transaction volume flows through fewer than five major sequencer operators, and the top three data availability layers control the settlement for billions in TVL.
thesis-statement
THE NEW BOTTLENECKS
The Core Argument
Modularity's promise of decentralization is undermined by emergent centralization risks in critical infrastructure layers.
Sequencer Centralization is Inevitable: The dominant L2 model outsources transaction ordering to a single sequencer for speed and MEV capture. This creates a single point of failure and censorship that rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism have not solved, merely shifting trust from L1 validators to a new, less-battle-tested actor.
Shared Security is a Mirage: Relying on a handful of shared sequencer networks (e.g., Espresso, Astria) or data availability layers (Celestia, EigenDA) replaces chain-specific risk with systemic, ecosystem-wide risk. A fault in these hyper-scaled modular services cascades across hundreds of dependent chains.
The Interoperability Trilemma: Fast, trust-minimized, and universal bridging is impossible. Solutions like LayerZero and Wormhole optimize for two, creating centralization vectors in their oracle/relayer networks or introducing new trust assumptions that users ignore.
Evidence: Over 95% of Arbitrum and Optimism transactions are processed by their respective centralized sequencers, creating a de facto Proof-of-Authority layer for users. The validator sets for major DA layers like Celestia remain under 200, a fraction of Ethereum's ~1 million.
key-trends
MODULARITY'S DARK SIDE
The Three New Attack Vectors
Splitting the monolithic stack into specialized layers introduces critical trust assumptions and coordination failures.
01
The Sequencer Cartel Problem
Rollup sequencers are the new validators, but with fewer economic guarantees. A dominant shared sequencer network (e.g., Espresso, Astria) or a single L1's sequencer set (e.g., Arbitrum) can become a centralized point of censorship and MEV extraction.\n- Single Point of Failure: Censorship of transactions across dozens of rollups.\n- MEV Cartelization: Centralized sequencers can front-run and sandwich users at the network level.
>70%
Of Top Rollups
$1B+
Daily MEV Risk
02
Data Availability Blackmail
Modular chains rely on external Data Availability (DA) layers like Celestia, EigenDA, or Ethereum. A DA provider with dominant market share can hold rollups hostage via price gouging or selective service denial.\n- Vendor Lock-in: High switching costs for rollups to migrate DA layers.\n- Sovereignty Loss: A DA layer outage bricks all dependent rollups, a systemic risk.
~90%
Cost Savings
1 Provider
Critical Dependency
03
Bridge & Interop Hub Dominance
Cross-chain communication in a modular world flows through interoperability hubs like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole. These become systemically critical, where a bug or malicious governance vote in one hub can drain assets across hundreds of chains.\n- Trust Minimization Failure: Most "light client" bridges still have multisig admin keys.\n- Protocol Contagion: A failure in a major hub like LayerZero creates pan-chain liquidity crises.
$30B+
TVL at Risk
5/8
Multisig Keys
CENTRALIZATION VECTORS
Market Concentration: The RaaS & Prover Landscape
A comparison of leading modular infrastructure providers, highlighting the centralization risks inherent in the current RaaS and Prover market.
| Centralization Metric | Celestia (Data Availability) | EigenDA (Data Availability) | Espresso (Shared Sequencer) | AltLayer (RaaS Aggregator) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Market Share of Category |
| ~15% of DA market | Primary Sequencer for 3+ L2s | Integrates 5+ L2s |
Validator/Operator Count | 150 active validators | ~200 operators | Permissioned testnet, <10 nodes | Relies on underlying DA/Sequencer |
Client Diversity | Single implementation (Golang) | Single implementation (Rust) | Single implementation | N/A - Aggregator layer |
Proposer-Builder Separation | ||||
Geographic Distribution | ~40% in US & Germany | Not publicly disclosed | Not publicly disclosed | N/A - Aggregator layer |
Time to Finality (Data) | ~12 seconds | ~10 minutes | < 2 seconds (soft commit) | Varies by underlying stack |
Cost per MB (est.) | $0.20 | $0.15 | Sequencer fee model | Bundled service fee |
Protocol-Owned Liquidity / Staking | $1.2B+ TIA staked | $15B+ ETH restaked | None | None |
deep-dive
THE CONCENTRATION
The Slippery Slope: From Convenience to Capture
Modular design, while solving scalability, is creating new, subtle forms of centralization that threaten the core value proposition of blockchains.
Sequencer centralization is the first failure point. Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism rely on a single, centralized sequencer for transaction ordering and finality. This creates a single point of censorship and creates a significant liveness risk, directly contradicting the decentralized ethos of the underlying L1.
Shared infrastructure creates systemic risk. The dominance of a few data availability layers like Celestia or EigenDA, and bridging protocols like LayerZero and Wormhole, creates a shared security dependency. A failure in one of these core services cascades across dozens of modular chains, creating a new class of correlated failures.
Economic capture precedes technical capture. The high capital costs of running a validator on networks like EigenLayer or a data availability node create prohibitive economic barriers. This leads to validator set centralization among a few professional operators, replicating the miner centralization problems of early Proof-of-Work.
Evidence: Over 95% of Arbitrum's transaction volume is processed by its single, Offchain Labs-operated sequencer. The network's decentralization roadmap remains a future promise, not a present reality.
counter-argument
THE PERMISSIONED PIPELINE
The Rebuttal: "But It's Permissionless!"
Modularity's permissionless components create a pipeline controlled by centralized, capital-intensive bottlenecks.
Permissionless does not mean decentralized. The modular stack's individual components are permissionless, but their economic and operational realities create centralized chokepoints. Anyone can run a Celestia light node, but only a few professional operators can afford to run a high-availability sequencer for an Arbitrum Nova.
Capital requirements centralize critical roles. The hardware and staking costs for running a rollup sequencer or an EigenLayer AVS are prohibitive for individuals. This incentivizes professionalization, leading to the same few entities (e.g., Figment, Chorus One) operating across multiple networks, replicating cloud provider centralization.
Users delegate to centralized defaults. The complexity of modular interactions forces users to rely on default, centralized pathways. Bridging via LayerZero or Across often routes through a handful of professional relayers. The permissionless frontier is abstracted away by the wallet or dApp interface.
Evidence: Over 60% of Ethereum's consensus is secured by three liquid staking providers (Lido, Coinbase, Rocket Pool). This is the template for modular services: permissionless in theory, oligopolistic in practice as capital and expertise consolidate.
risk-analysis
WHY MODULARITY IS CREATING NEW CENTRALIZATION RISKS
Concrete Risks for Protocol Architects
Modularity promises scalability and sovereignty, but its fragmentation is silently rebuilding the monolithic bottlenecks it aimed to destroy.
01
The Sequencer Monopoly Problem
Rollups outsource block production to a single sequencer (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism). This creates a single point of failure and censorship. While forced inclusion exists, the time delay is a critical vulnerability.
- Centralized Control: One entity orders all transactions, enabling MEV extraction and front-running.
- Censorship Vector: A malicious or compliant sequencer can blacklist addresses.
- Economic Capture: The sequencer captures all base-layer fee revenue, disincentivizing decentralization.
1
Active Sequencer
>90%
Profit Capture
02
The Shared Security Illusion
Relying on Ethereum for data availability (via EigenDA, Celestia) or restaking (via EigenLayer) creates systemic risk. These systems are not yet battle-tested at scale and concentrate trust in new, untrusted operators.
- Correlated Failure: A bug in a shared AVS (Actively Validated Service) can cascade across hundreds of rollups.
- Operator Centralization: Top EigenLayer operators like Figment, Kiln, and P2P control a majority of restaked ETH.
- Liveness Assumption: Validators must run complex, correct software for all AVSs they secure—a massive coordination problem.
$15B+
TVL at Risk
~5
Dominant Operators
03
The Interoperability Fragmentation Trap
Modular chains require bridges for composability. This recreates the very fragmentation problem modularity solves for execution, but now with higher-stake security assumptions. Each new bridge (LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole) is a new trusted custodian.
- Bridge Trust: Users must trust a new multisig or validator set, often less decentralized than L1.
- Complexity Attack Surface: Bridge logic is complex and a prime target; see Wormhole ($325M) and Nomad ($190M) exploits.
- Liquidity Silos: Fragmented liquidity across modular chains kills the unified liquidity pool benefit of a monolithic L1.
$2B+
Bridge Exploits
10+
Critical Trusted Sets
04
The Data Availability Cartel
Celestia and EigenDA compete to be the cheapest DA layer, creating a race to the bottom on security and decentralization. Rollup builders choosing based on cost alone create a market where the lowest-cost provider becomes a centralized bottleneck.
- Cost vs. Security Trade-off: Saving $0.01 per transaction isn't worth it if your DA layer censors or fails.
- Validator Centralization: Celestia's current validator set is highly concentrated among a few entities.
- Protocol Capture: A single DA provider could extract rent or enforce rules on all dependent rollups, becoming a de facto regulator.
~$0.01
DA Cost/Tx Goal
<10
Key Validators
future-outlook
THE MODULARITY TRAP
The Path Forward: Mitigation, Not Solution
Modular blockchain design inherently concentrates power in new, less visible layers, requiring active governance and economic design to manage.
Sequencer and Prover Centralization is the primary risk. Rollup sequencers like those on Arbitrum and Optimism are single points of failure for transaction ordering and censorship. Proving networks for validity rollups, such as those serving Starknet or zkSync, consolidate into specialized, capital-intensive firms like RISC Zero or =nil; Foundation.
Shared Security is a Spectrum. Ethereum's restaking via EigenLayer attempts to secure new modules, but it creates systemic risk concentration. This re-hypothecation of ETH collateral links the failure of an AVS (Actively Validated Service) to the security of the main chain.
Data Availability Monopolies emerge. While Celestia and Avail promote competition, early adoption creates winner-take-all markets. A single dominant DA layer becomes a centralized lynchpin for hundreds of rollups, replicating the monolithic bottleneck modularity aimed to solve.
Evidence: Over 90% of Arbitrum and Optimism transactions are processed by their respective centralized sequencers. The proving market for ZK-rollups is already dominated by a handful of firms with the capital for specialized hardware.
takeaways
MODULARITY'S DARK SIDE
TL;DR for CTOs
Decoupling execution, settlement, and data availability creates new, less visible centralization vectors that threaten the core value proposition of blockchains.
01
The Sequencer Monopoly Problem
Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism rely on a single, centralized sequencer for transaction ordering and L1 settlement. This creates a single point of failure and censorship, with ~$10B+ TVL dependent on a handful of entities.\n- Key Risk: MEV extraction and transaction censorship are centralized.\n- Key Metric: Finality delayed by 7 days for users bypassing the sequencer.
1
Active Sequencer
7 Days
Forced Delay
02
Data Availability Cartels
Modular chains depend on external data availability (DA) layers like Celestia, EigenDA, or Ethereum. A small number of DA providers can form an oligopoly, creating a centralized liveness assumption for hundreds of rollups.\n- Key Risk: Collusion or failure of ~$1B+ staked DA networks halts all dependent chains.\n- Entity Link: This risk underpins the design of Avail and Near DA.
~$1B+
Staked in DA
O(100)
Dependent L2s
03
Shared Security as a Single Point of Failure
Projects like EigenLayer and Cosmos Interchain Security pool validator stakes to secure new chains. This creates systemic risk—a critical bug or slashing event in one appchain can cascade, jeopardizing tens of billions in total value secured.\n- Key Risk: Security is not isolated; failure is correlated.\n- Key Concept: Re-staking transforms Ethereum's trust layer into a systemically important financial utility.
$10B+
TVL at Risk
1 Bug
Cascading Failure
04
The Bridge & Prover Oligopoly
Cross-chain communication via bridges like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole relies on a small set of off-chain signers/attesters. Modular stacks increase bridge dependency, creating centralized trust bottlenecks for ~$100B+ in cross-chain value.\n- Key Risk: A 2/3 majority of bridge validators can mint unlimited fraudulent assets.\n- Entity Link: This drives innovation in light-client bridges like IBC.
~$100B+
Bridge TVL
O(10)
Key Validators
05
Client Diversity Collapse
In monolithic chains like Ethereum, multiple client implementations (Geth, Nethermind) prevent a single bug from taking down the network. Modular execution layers (OP Stack, Arbitrum Nitro) often run a single, mandatory client, creating a catastrophic failure risk.\n- Key Risk: A client bug in the dominant rollup stack halts dozens of chains simultaneously.\n- Key Metric: >90% of OP Stack chains share identical client software.
>90%
Client Homogeneity
1 Bug
Network Halt
06
The Modular Appchain Endgame
The proliferation of app-specific rollups via OP Stack, Polygon CDK, and Arbitrum Orbit fragments liquidity and user bases. This forces reliance on centralized cross-chain infrastructure, recreating the hub-and-spoke model of TradFi with L1s/L2s as the centralized hubs.\n- Key Risk: User experience and composability regress to a walled-garden internet model.\n- Entity Link: Aggregators like UniswapX and CowSwap emerge to paper over this fragmentation.
100s
Fragmented Chains
Centralized
UX Layer
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