Sovereign execution guarantees finality autonomy. It removes the need for an L1 to validate or re-execute transactions, eliminating the primary bottleneck for scaling. This is the core difference from optimistic rollups like Arbitrum, which still rely on Ethereum for dispute resolution.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
Why Sovereign Execution Guarantees More Than Just Throughput
The appchain thesis is not about speed. It's about economic and legal sovereignty. We break down how sovereign execution layers in Cosmos and Polkadot enable custom fee markets, MEV capture, governance-led upgrades, and legal enforceability that shared blockspaces like Ethereum L2s cannot.
introduction
THE GUARANTEE
Introduction
Sovereign execution is the architectural shift that moves the finality of transaction outcomes from a shared L1 to the application itself.
The throughput narrative is a distraction. While higher TPS is a byproduct, the real value is unconstrained state transition logic. A sovereign chain, like a Celestia rollup, can implement arbitrary execution environments without seeking L1 consensus, enabling novel primitives impossible on shared VMs.
This creates credible neutrality for applications. Protocols become their own source of truth, akin to Bitcoin or Ethereum. This architectural purity prevents the platform risk inherent in shared sequencers or centralized upgrade councils, a flaw in many current L2 stacks.
Evidence: A dYdX v4 trade finalizes on its own chain, not on Ethereum. This sovereign model processes orders at CEX speed while maintaining self-custody, a feat impossible for any Ethereum rollup bound by L1 block times and gas costs.
key-trends
BEYOND TPS
Executive Summary
Sovereign execution is not just a scaling narrative; it's a fundamental re-architecture of blockchain state transitions, unlocking new design spaces for applications and infrastructure.
01
The Problem: The MEV-Captive State Machine
Monolithic chains like Ethereum and Solana consolidate execution, consensus, and settlement, creating a single, extractable surface for proposer-builder separation (PBS) and generalized frontrunning. This forces applications into a zero-sum latency war and cedes protocol-level optionality to a few block builders.
- ~$1B+ in MEV extracted annually
- Application logic constrained by global block space
- No enforceable pre-confirmation guarantees
~$1B+
Annual MEV
0
Enforceable Pre-confirms
02
The Solution: Sovereign Rollups & Appchains
By decoupling execution (sovereign) from consensus & settlement (shared), projects like Celestia rollups, Fuel, and Eclipse create isolated state machines. This allows for custom VMs (Move, SVM, FuelVM), specialized fee markets, and local block producers.
- Sub-second finality for local state
- ~90%+ fee reduction vs. L1 gas
- Native account abstraction and privacy primitives
~90%+
Fee Reduction
<1s
Local Finality
03
The Outcome: Intent-Centric Infrastructure
Sovereign execution enables a new stack where user intents are primary. Systems like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across can operate their own intent settlement layers, using shared data availability (DA) for proofs while executing complex order flow internally.
- Eliminate failed transaction gas
- Native cross-domain composability via shared DA
- Programmable settlement for DeFi derivatives
0
Failed TX Gas
Native
Cross-Domain Comp
04
The Risk: The Interoperability Tax
Sovereignty fragments liquidity and composability. Bridging between sovereign chains via LayerZero, Axelar, or Wormhole introduces new trust assumptions, latency, and cost. This creates an interoperability tax that can negate sovereign efficiency gains for highly connected apps.
- ~2-20 min bridge finality delays
- Additional trust assumptions in relayers/ors
- Fragmented liquidity across rollups
2-20min
Bridge Delay
High
Trust Assumptions
05
The Benchmark: Ethereum's L2s (The Incumbent)
Ethereum's optimistic and ZK rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) offer a compromise: sovereign execution with Ethereum-guaranteed settlement. They sacrifice some sovereignty (e.g., VM flexibility, forced ETH gas) for stronger security and native bridging via the L1.
- ~7 days challenge period for Optimistic
- ~$0.01-$0.10 avg. transaction cost
- Inherits Ethereum's economic security
$0.01-$0.10
Avg. TX Cost
Inherited
L1 Security
06
The Verdict: Sovereignty as a Spectrum
The choice isn't binary. Projects select a point on the sovereignty spectrum based on app needs. High-frequency DEXs need maximal sovereignty. Cross-chain money markets may prefer Ethereum L2 security. The future is a multi-rollup ecosystem connected by shared DA (Celestia, EigenDA) and secure bridges, not a single monolithic chain.
- Sovereignty trades off for security/composability
- Shared DA layers reduce fragmentation
- Modular stack enables specialized infra
Spectrum
Not Binary
Multi-Rollup
Future State
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Core Argument: Sovereignty is an Economic Primitive
Sovereign execution separates transaction ordering from execution, creating a competitive market that guarantees economic efficiency, not just speed.
Sovereignty separates ordering from execution. Shared sequencers like Espresso or Astria create a competitive marketplace for block space, forcing execution layers like Arbitrum or Optimism to compete on cost and performance, not just inherit L1 constraints.
Execution becomes a commodity. This commoditization drives down costs for users and forces rollup teams to innovate on VM design and proving efficiency, moving beyond the simple L2 scaling narrative.
The guarantee is economic, not technical. Throughput is a byproduct. The core guarantee is that no single entity can extract monopoly rents on execution, a flaw in today's monolithic rollup stacks.
Evidence: The rise of shared sequencer protocols and specialized execution layers like Fuel demonstrates market demand for this decoupled, competitive model over vertically integrated alternatives.
EXECUTION LAYER GUARANTEES
Sovereignty vs. Shared Blockspace: A Feature Matrix
Comparing the core guarantees provided by sovereign execution layers (e.g., rollups, appchains) versus shared execution environments (e.g., EVM L1, Solana).
| Feature / Metric | Sovereign Execution (Appchain/Rollup) | Shared Blockspace (Monolithic L1) | Shared Sequencer Network (e.g., Espresso, Astria) |
|---|---|---|---|
Execution Priority Control | Auction-Based | ||
Max Extractable Value (MEV) Capture | Retained by chain operator | Extracted by validators & searchers | Shared between operator & network |
State Bloat Liability | Isolated to own chain | Global, paid by all users | Isolated to own chain |
Upgrade Coordination Complexity | Single governance entity | Hard forks require ecosystem consensus | Network governance + chain governance |
Time-to-Finality for Local Apps | < 2 seconds | 12-20 seconds (Ethereum) | < 2 seconds |
Throughput Ceiling (TPS) | Defined by own validators | Capped by global consensus | Capped by shared sequencer capacity |
Base Security Source | Parent chain (e.g., Ethereum) or own validator set | Own validator set | Parent chain + decentralized sequencer set |
Cross-Domain Composability Latency | Trust-minimized bridges (~20 min challenge period) | Native, atomic within same state | Fast, but requires trust in shared sequencer |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION LAYER
The Four Pillars of Sovereign Value Capture
Sovereign execution is the foundational pillar that transforms a blockchain from a passive data layer into a self-determined economic engine.
Sovereign execution guarantees finality. A rollup that settles to Ethereum but runs its own execution client, like Arbitrum Nitro or Optimism Bedrock, controls its own state transitions. This eliminates the risk of a parent chain sequencer censoring or reordering its transactions, a critical vulnerability for high-value DeFi applications.
This creates a direct fee market. The chain's native token becomes the mandatory gas token for all execution. This is not a governance token for voting; it is a consumable resource burned with every transaction. This mechanic directly links network usage to token demand, a model proven by Ethereum's EIP-1559 burn.
Compare this to a shared sequencer network. Using a service like Espresso or Astria introduces a fee abstraction layer that divorces the chain's economic activity from its token. Users pay the shared sequencer, which then pays validators in a separate currency, creating a value leak.
Evidence: Arbitrum processes over 1 million transactions daily. Its sequencer, which exclusively uses ETH for gas, has burned over 400,000 ETH since inception, permanently removing that value from circulation and accruing it to ARB token holders via the protocol's fee switch mechanism.
counter-argument
THE SOVEREIGNTY GUARANTEE
The Shared Security Rebuttal (And Why It's Wrong)
Shared security models trade execution autonomy for a false sense of safety, creating systemic risk and stifling innovation.
Shared security is a liability. Relying on a parent chain's validators for consensus creates a single point of failure. The failure of the L1, like a Solana outage, cascades to all dependent rollups, creating systemic risk that sovereign execution avoids.
Sovereignty enables specialized security. A rollup like dYdX can implement custom fraud proofs or data availability solutions like Celestia/EigenDA without requiring L1 governance approval. This specialization is impossible under monolithic security models.
Execution guarantees are not just throughput. True sovereignty means the chain controls its upgrade path and can fork. This is a non-negotiable property for long-term protocol evolution, as demonstrated by Ethereum's own history.
Evidence: The Polygon CDK and OP Stack defaults push shared sequencing via a centralized operator. This creates reorg risk and MEV capture that a sovereign chain with its own validator set, like Canto, eliminates.
case-study
BEYOND THROUGHPUT
Protocols Betting on Sovereignty
Sovereign execution layers are not just about speed; they are a fundamental realignment of value capture, security, and innovation.
01
The Problem: Shared Sequencers Are a New Cartel
Rollups using a shared sequencer (e.g., Espresso, Astria) reintroduce centralization and MEV risks. The sequencer becomes a single point of failure and profit, extracting value from the rollup's users.
- Value Capture: The rollup's economic activity funds a third-party sequencer network.
- Censorship Risk: A malicious or compliant sequencer can reorder or censor transactions.
- Innovation Bottleneck: Rollup-specific execution optimizations are impossible without control of the sequencing layer.
0%
Value Retained
1
Failure Point
02
The Solution: Sovereign Rollups (e.g., Dymension, Celestia)
A sovereign rollup posts data to a data availability layer but retains full control over its state transitions and block production. The settlement and consensus layer is optional and permissionless.
- Full MEV Capture: The sovereign chain's validators/sequencers capture 100% of transaction ordering value.
- Unilateral Upgrades: Can fork its execution client without permission from a parent chain's governance.
- Custom Security: Can implement its own fraud or validity proofs, slashing conditions, and validator sets.
100%
Sovereignty
Unlimited
Forkability
03
The Problem: L2s Are Feature-Locked by Their L1
An Ethereum L2's feature set is constrained by Ethereum's roadmap and social consensus. Implementing a novel VM (e.g., SVM, Move), a custom gas token, or a unique fee market requires years of L1 coordination.
- Innovation Lag: Must wait for Ethereum EIPs (e.g., EIP-4844) for fundamental improvements.
- Monoculture Risk: All L2s converge on the EVM, stifling experimentation with alternative execution environments.
2+ Years
Upgrade Cycle
1
VM Option
04
The Solution: App-Specific Sovereign Chains (e.g., Saga, Eclipse)
Deploy a chain with a purpose-built VM and tokenomics, using a modular stack for security and data availability. The application defines the rules.
- Vertical Integration: A perps DEX can build a chain with a native matching engine and sub-second finality.
- Token Utility: The native token is used for gas, staking, and governance without competing with another chain's token for security.
- Instant Composability: All applications on the sovereign chain share the same execution environment and state, enabling deep, low-latency interoperability.
<1s
Finality
Native
Token Utility
05
The Problem: Interop is a Security Afterthought
Bridges and cross-chain messaging protocols (LayerZero, Axelar) are external, audited-but-unproven contracts. Over $2.5B has been stolen from bridges, making them the largest vulnerability in crypto.
- Trust Assumptions: Users must trust new validator sets or multisigs.
- Complexity Attack Surface: Each new bridge adds another vector for exploits.
$2.5B+
Bridge Hacks
High
Trust Assumption
06
The Solution: Sovereign Interop via IBC & Light Clients
Sovereign chains in the Cosmos ecosystem use the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol, which relies on light client verification, not trusted third parties.
- Trust-Minimized: Security is derived from the connected chains' validator sets, not a new entity.
- Universal Composability: IBC is a standard, enabling seamless asset and data transfer across hundreds of chains.
- Sovereign Choice: Each chain can choose which other chains to connect to, creating a customizable security perimeter.
100+
Connected Chains
Zero
New Trust
takeaways
BEYOND TPS
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Sovereign execution is not just a scaling narrative; it's a fundamental shift in how applications control their own fate.
01
The Problem: The Shared Sequencer Bottleneck
Monolithic L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism compete for blockspace in a single, congested execution lane. Your app's performance is hostage to the chain's aggregate demand.
- Unpredictable Latency: Finality spikes during network congestion.
- Economic Contention: High gas fees from popular apps price out niche use cases.
- Feature Lockstep: Cannot opt into faster pre-confirmations or custom data availability without a hard fork.
~2-12s
Finality Jitter
100%
Shared Risk
02
The Solution: App-Specific Execution Sovereignty
Frameworks like Eclipse and Sovereign SDK give each app its own dedicated rollup or SVM/Cosmos appchain, decoupling its performance from others.
- Guaranteed Resources: Your app has a dedicated mempool and block producer, eliminating contention.
- Customizability: Integrate specialized VMs, privacy layers (Aztec), or oracles (Pyth) at the chain level.
- Economic Alignment: Capture MEV and transaction fees directly, creating a sustainable business model beyond token speculation.
~500ms
Predictable Latency
100%
Fee Capture
03
The Investor Angle: Vertical Integration Moats
Sovereign execution transforms applications into infrastructure, creating deeper and more defensible moats than any dApp on a shared L2.
- Protocol-Owned Liquidity: Native chain tokens bootstrap TVL and governance without rent-seeking LPs.
- Composability on Your Terms: Define your own security and trust assumptions for cross-chain messaging (LayerZero, IBC).
- Valuation Upside: Investors bet on a captive economic ecosystem, not just a front-end, akin to early investments in Polygon or Cosmos.
10x+
Value Accrual
New Asset
Chain Token
04
The Builder Reality: It's Still Infrastructure Hell
Sovereignty trades operational complexity for performance. Bootstrapping a secure, decentralized validator set and bridge security is non-trivial.
- Validator Incentives: Designing a tokenomics model that ensures liveness is a full-time cryptoeconomic research problem.
- Bridge Security: Your chain's safety is now your problem, requiring robust fraud/zk-proof systems and watchtowers.
- Fragmented Liquidity: Interoperability with Ethereum L1 and other chains requires active management of canonical bridges and liquidity pools.
6-12mo
Lead Time
$M+
Security Budget
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