Monolithic consensus mandates full replication. Every validator in a monolithic chain like Ethereum or Solana must execute every smart contract and state transition. This design ensures security through redundancy but creates a quadratic energy cost as transaction volume increases.
green-blockchain-energy-and-sustainability
Blog
Why Modular Security Models Reduce Redundant Computation
Monolithic blockchains enforce uniform security across all functions, a massive energy inefficiency. Modular architectures like Celestia and EigenDA separate security concerns, allowing each layer—execution, consensus, data availability—to be optimized independently, eliminating redundant work and paving the way for sustainable scaling.
introduction
THE REDUNDANCY PROBLEM
The Monolithic Energy Tax
Monolithic blockchains force every node to redundantly execute every transaction, imposing a massive energy tax on network growth.
Modular architectures decouple execution from consensus. Chains like Celestia or Avail provide data availability and consensus, while rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism handle execution. This separation means only the sequencer executes transactions; validators merely verify proofs, eliminating redundant computation across the network.
The energy tax scales with validator count. For N validators and T transactions, monolithic energy use is O(N*T). In a modular stack, it's O(T) for execution plus O(N) for verification. This asymptotic efficiency gain is the core economic argument for modular design.
Evidence: An Ethereum validator today processes ~1.2 million transactions daily. A comparable modular validator set for a rollup processes zero execution; it only verifies validity proofs, consuming orders of magnitude less energy for the same economic throughput.
thesis-statement
THE COMPUTE
Security Should Be a Service, Not a Mandate
Modular security models eliminate redundant verification by outsourcing consensus and fraud proofs to specialized providers.
Monolithic chains mandate redundant security. Every L1 and L2 executes and verifies all transactions, forcing each node to repeat identical cryptographic proofs. This is computational waste.
Modular chains consume security as a service. A rollup like Arbitrum uses Ethereum for consensus and Celestia for data availability, paying only for the security it needs. The rollup's execution layer does not re-run the validator's work.
Shared security layers amortize costs. Protocols like EigenLayer and Babylon allow multiple chains to rent economic security from a single validator set. This creates a security marketplace where cost scales with demand, not redundant computation.
Evidence: A zk-rollup on Celestia pays ~$0.01 per MB for data, while verifying a zk-SNARK proof on Ethereum costs ~500k gas. The execution environment never recomputes the proof; it consumes the verified result.
key-trends
ELIMINATING REDUNDANCY
The Modular Security Stack in Practice
Monolithic chains force every node to validate everything. Modular architectures let specialized layers handle security, cutting computational waste.
01
The Problem: Universal Re-execution
In monolithic L1s like Ethereum, every validator redundantly re-executes every transaction to verify state. This is the core of the scalability trilemma.
- Wasted Cycles: 100% of nodes compute the same result.
- Bottleneck: Throughput is capped by the slowest honest node's hardware.
100%
Redundant Work
~15 TPS
Base Layer Cap
02
The Solution: Separating Execution & Settlement
Rollups (Optimistic & ZK) decouple execution from consensus. The settlement layer (e.g., Ethereum) only verifies proofs or fraud challenges, not re-running code.
- Massive Efficiency Gain: L1 validators check a ~1KB proof vs. re-executing millions of opcodes.
- Parallel Scaling: Execution layers like Arbitrum, zkSync process transactions independently.
1000x
Less L1 Compute
$10B+ TVL
Proven Model
03
The Solution: Specialized Data Availability
DA layers like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail offload the cost of storing transaction data from the settlement layer. Nodes only sample small data chunks.
- Cost Reduction: ~99% cheaper data posting vs. Ethereum calldata.
- Light Client Security: Enables secure validation with ~10 MB/month of data.
-99%
DA Cost
~$0.001
Per MB Cost
04
The Solution: Shared Sequencing & Proving
Networks like Espresso (shared sequencer) and RiscZero (shared prover) amortize fixed costs of ordering transactions and generating ZK proofs across multiple rollups.
- Eliminates Duplication: One sequencer/prover serves many chains.
- Economic Moats: Creates cross-rollup composability and economies of scale.
10-100x
Cost Amortization
~500ms
Cross-Rollup Latency
05
The Problem: Isolated Bridge Security
Each app-chain or L2 traditionally deploys its own validator set for bridging, forcing users to trust new, untested entities—a major security risk.
- Security Fragmentation: $2B+ lost to bridge hacks.
- Capital Inefficiency: Locking stake in dozens of separate bridge pools.
$2B+
Bridge Losses
100+
Isolated Sets
06
The Solution: Modular Interop Layers
Protocols like LayerZero, Axelar, and Chainlink CCIP provide security as a service. They leverage the underlying chain's validators or a delegated network for attestations.
- Unified Security: Rely on established validator sets (e.g., Ethereum stakers).
- Developer Abstraction: Launch a chain without building a bridge from scratch.
1
Security Model
50+ Chains
Connected
COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY
Security & Energy Cost: Monolithic vs. Modular
Comparison of how monolithic and modular blockchain architectures handle security and the resulting energy/computational overhead.
| Feature / Metric | Monolithic (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet, Solana) | Modular (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA, Avail) | Hybrid Rollup (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) |
|---|---|---|---|
Security Model | Unified Execution & Consensus | Decoupled Data Availability & Consensus | Inherits Consensus, Outsources Execution |
Redundant Computation per Node | 100% (Full chain replay) | 0-10% (Light client verification) | ~1-5% (Fraud/Validity Proof verification) |
Node Hardware Cost (Annual Est.) | $15k - $50k+ | < $1k | $5k - $15k |
Energy Cost per Transaction (Relative) | 1x (Baseline) | 0.01x - 0.1x | 0.05x - 0.2x |
Data Availability Redundancy | All nodes store all data | Data Availability Sampling (DAS) by light clients | Relies on external DA layer or Ethereum calldata |
Trust Assumption for Security | Only cryptographic honesty | Honest majority of DA layer + light clients | Honest majority of L1 + 1 honest sequencer/prover |
Time to Finality (Avg.) | 12-15 minutes (Ethereum PoW) | ~2 seconds (Celestia) | ~12 minutes (Ethereum L2) |
deep-dive
THE COMPUTATION TAX
Deconstructing the Redundancy
Monolithic blockchains force every node to redundantly execute all transactions, creating a massive computational tax that modular architectures eliminate.
Redundant execution is the cost of monolithic consensus. Every validator in a network like Ethereum or Solana must process every transaction to verify state transitions, a design that inherently caps throughput and inflates hardware requirements.
Modular architectures disaggregate execution from consensus and data availability. This separation, pioneered by rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism, allows specialized nodes to handle computation while the base layer secures the ledger, eliminating the need for global recomputation.
The data availability layer is the linchpin. Solutions like Celestia and EigenDA provide a canonical source for transaction data, enabling any party to reconstruct state and verify execution off-chain, which is the core mechanism for removing redundancy.
Evidence: An Ethereum full node processes ~15B gas daily. A rollup sequencer processes the same workload once, posting only compressed proofs and data to L1, reducing the network's aggregate computational load by orders of magnitude.
counter-argument
THE PERFORMANCE TRADEOFF
The Monolithic Rebuttal: Security Through Unity
Modular architectures introduce redundant computation that monolithic blockchains consolidate into a single, efficient execution environment.
Monolithic execution eliminates redundancy. A modular chain's sequencer, prover, and data availability layer each perform overlapping state validation. This creates computational waste that a single-node architecture like Solana or Monad avoids.
Security is a function of liveness. A monolithic chain's unified state machine guarantees immediate finality. Modular systems like Celestia + Arbitrum introduce latency between data posting and state settlement, creating a vulnerability window.
The cost of fragmentation is real. The inter-module messaging overhead in a rollup stack consumes 20-30% of total gas. This is pure overhead that monolithic chains do not pay, as seen in the throughput of Sui's parallel execution engine.
Evidence: Ethereum's monolithic era processed ~15 TPS. Its modular L2 ecosystem now handles ~200 TPS combined, but at the cost of fragmented liquidity and the security bridge risk exemplified by the Wormhole hack.
takeaways
MODULAR SECURITY
Architectural Imperatives for Sustainable Scaling
Monolithic blockchains force every node to redundantly verify every transaction, a fundamental inefficiency that modular architectures solve by isolating security responsibilities.
01
The Monolithic Tax: Redundant State Execution
In monolithic chains like Ethereum pre-Danksharding, every full node repeats the same computation, creating a $1B+ annual security cost for the network. This is a massive waste of energy and capital for applications that don't need global consensus.
- Inefficiency: 100% of nodes compute 100% of state changes.
- Bottleneck: Throughput is capped by the slowest honest node.
100%
Redundant Work
$1B+
Annual Cost
02
Celestia: Data Availability as a Primitve
Decouples consensus and data availability from execution. Rollups post data to Celestia and only need to verify its availability, slashing the computational burden for light clients and other chains.
- Cost Scaling: Rollup costs scale with blob space, not global compute.
- Security Inheritance: Rollups inherit crypto-economic security without running a full L1 node.
~100x
Cheaper DA
KB-scale
Proof Size
03
EigenLayer & Restaking: Shared Security Pools
Allows Ethereum stakers to opt-in to secure new systems (AVSs) like rollups or oracles, eliminating the need for each to bootstrap its own $1B+ validator set. This commoditizes cryptoeconomic security.
- Capital Efficiency: Reuse staked ETH across multiple services.
- Faster Bootstrapping: New chains launch with battle-tested security from day one.
$15B+
TVL Secured
1 -> N
Security Reuse
04
Optimistic vs. ZK: The Verification Asymmetry
ZK-Rollups (like Starknet, zkSync) shift the computational burden to provers, allowing verifiers to check validity in ~10ms. This creates a 10,000x asymmetry in work, making fraud proofs (Optimism, Arbitrum) seem computationally wasteful by comparison.
- Instant Finality: State updates are verified, not disputed.
- No Challenge Periods: Removes the capital lock-up and latency of fraud games.
10,000x
Work Asymmetry
~10ms
Verify Time
05
Fuel: Parallelized Execution via UTXO Model
A modular execution layer that uses a strict UTXO model to enable parallel transaction processing. It demonstrates that execution itself can be modularized and scaled horizontally, independent of consensus.
- Parallel Speedup: Theoretical linear scaling with more cores.
- Deterministic Finality: No nonce conflicts enable true parallelization.
Linear
Core Scaling
Zero
Nonce Conflicts
06
The Endgame: Specialized Security Markets
Modularity creates markets for security. Projects can rent security from EigenLayer, buy data availability from Celestia or Ethereum, and choose execution from Fuel or an OP Stack chain. Redundant computation is arbitraged away.
- Composability: Mix-and-match security and execution providers.
- Efficiency Frontier: Each component competes on cost and performance.
N Markets
For N Layers
>90%
Waste Eliminated
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