Appchains already have DA. Rollups inherit security from their parent chain's data availability layer, making external DA a redundant cost for most use cases.
the-appchain-thesis-cosmos-and-polkadot
Blog
Why Data Availability Proofs Are Overhyped for Appchains
A first-principles analysis arguing that the complexity and cost of validity proofs often yield negative ROI for sovereign appchains with simple, trusted validator sets, challenging the prevailing narrative.
introduction
THE OVERHYPE
Introduction
Data availability proofs are a solution in search of a problem for most application-specific blockchains.
The cost-benefit is broken. Paying Celestia or Avail for cheaper bytes ignores the operational overhead and latency of a secondary DA attestation bridge.
Evidence: The dominant L2s, Arbitrum and Optimism, use Ethereum for DA. Their success proves that execution scaling, not cheaper data, drives adoption.
key-insights
THE REALITY CHECK
Executive Summary
Data Availability proofs are a critical primitive, but their utility for sovereign appchains is being oversold. Here's why the trade-offs don't pencil out for most teams.
01
The Problem: You're Not Building a Rollup
DA proofs are designed for rollups that inherit Ethereum's security. A sovereign appchain using Celestia or Avail is just outsourcing its liveness to another chain, creating a new trust vector.
- Key Risk: You now depend on the DA layer's liveness, not just its data availability.
- Key Reality: For true sovereignty, you need a full node, which downloads all data anyway, negating the light client benefit.
1 New
Trust Assumption
0
Sovereignty Gain
02
The Solution: Cost Savings Are a Mirage at Scale
Proponents cite ~$0.01 per MB vs. Ethereum's ~$100. This ignores the full cost structure of an appchain.
- Operational Cost: You still pay for execution, sequencing, and proving (if using a ZK-rollup framework).
- Scale Fallacy: For a chain with ~10 TPS, the DA cost is already negligible. The real bottleneck and cost is state growth, which DA doesn't solve.
<1%
Of Total Cost
$100k+
Dev Overhead
03
The Problem: Interoperability Fragmentation
Using a non-Ethereum DA layer breaks native composability with the largest DeFi ecosystem. Bridges like LayerZero and Axelar become mandatory, introducing latency and security risks.
- Key Consequence: Your users face ~3-5 minute finality delays for cross-chain assets vs. near-instant on L2s.
- Entity Example: A dApp on an Avail-based chain cannot natively interact with Uniswap or Aave without a trusted bridge.
3-5 min
Bridge Latency
High
Security Tax
04
The Solution: Validity Proofs Are the Real Bottleneck
For a ZK-rollup appchain, the proving cost and time dominate. DA is a secondary concern. EigenDA and Avail don't make your prover faster or cheaper.
- Key Metric: Generating a ZK proof can take ~10 minutes and cost ~$0.10-$1.00 in compute. Optimizing this is 100x more impactful than shaving DA costs.
- First Principle: The security guarantee comes from the validity proof, not the DA layer.
10 min
Prove Time
100x
Cost Factor
05
The Problem: Developer Tooling is Immature
Ethereum's rollup stack (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, zkSync Hyperchains) offers battle-tested dev tools and shared liquidity. The DA-centric stack (Celestia, Polygon CDK with Avail) is newer and less integrated.
- Key Drawback: You'll spend months on integration and security audits instead of building your app.
- Entity Reality: Teams using the EigenLayer ecosystem for DA also take on the complexity of restaking and slashing conditions.
6-12 mo
Lead Time
High
Integration Risk
06
The Solution: When DA Proofs *Actually* Make Sense
They are optimal for high-throughput, generic rollups (like the main Arbitrum One or Base networks) where posting calldata to Ethereum is prohibitively expensive.
- Ideal Use Case: A chain expecting >100 TPS of cheap social or gaming transactions where Ethereum DA costs would be >$1M/month.
- Final Verdict: For most appchains, choosing an L2 framework with Ethereum DA provides better security, tooling, and composability for a marginal cost.
>100 TPS
Throughput Floor
$1M/mo
Cost Threshold
thesis-statement
THE DATA
The Core Thesis: Trust Minimization Has Diminishing Returns
The marginal cost of perfect security often outweighs its utility for application-specific blockchains.
Appchains prioritize sovereignty over absolute security. The primary value of a rollup or appchain is its ability to execute custom logic and capture value without external consensus. The security budget is finite, and developers allocate it where it matters most: execution and state growth, not redundant data verification.
Data Availability (DA) proofs are insurance policies with a high premium. For most applications, the risk of a malicious sequencer withholding data is negligible compared to smart contract bugs or economic attacks. Projects like dYdX and Aevo launch on Cosmos, opting for faster finality and lower costs over Ethereum's cryptographic guarantees.
The real bottleneck is state bloat, not data withholding. An appchain's scaling limit is determined by how fast validators can sync its state. Solutions like Celestia's data availability sampling address a problem that emerges at hundreds of transactions per second, a scale irrelevant to 99% of current chains.
Evidence: The Total Value Secured (TVS) on alt-DA layers like Celestia and EigenDA is a fraction of Ethereum's. This metric reveals that developers vote with their treasury, choosing cost-effective, 'good enough' security for non-financial data to preserve resources for core protocol incentives.
DATA AVAILABILITY REALITY CHECK
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Appchain vs. Rollup Security Models
A quantitative breakdown of security trade-offs between sovereign appchains and shared rollups, focusing on the practical costs and risks of data availability.
| Security & Cost Dimension | Sovereign Appchain (e.g., Celestia, Avail) | Settlement Rollup (e.g., Arbitrum, OP Stack) | Validium (e.g., StarkEx, zkPorter) |
|---|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost per MB | $0.50 - $2.00 | $0.10 - $0.50 | $0.01 - $0.10 |
Liveness Assumption Required | |||
Censorship Resistance | Relies on DA Layer | Inherits from L1 (e.g., Ethereum) | Relies on Committee/DA Layer |
Time-to-Finality for Withdrawals | ~2-20 min (DA challenge period) | ~1-7 days (L1 dispute/ challenge period) | ~1-7 days + DA proof |
State Validity Guarantee | None (requires fraud/zk proof system) | Inherited from L1 via fraud proofs or validity proofs | Validity proofs only (ZK) |
Protocol Upgrade Sovereignty | |||
Maximum Theoretical TPS (before L1) | 10,000+ | ~100-500 (bottlenecked by L1 calldata) | 10,000+ |
Ecosystem Security Leverage | Directly inherits Ethereum's $XBN security | Hybrid (Validity proofs + external DA) |
deep-dive
THE DA OVERHEAD
The Slippery Slope of Unnecessary Complexity
Data Availability proofs are a costly abstraction layer that most application-specific blockchains do not need.
DA is a scalability tax. Appchains built on EigenDA or Celestia pay for data they don't use. The primary value is cheap blob storage, not cryptographic proofs, which are only critical for high-value, trust-minimized bridges like Across.
The security model is misapplied. For an appchain with a trusted validator set, on-chain data availability is sufficient. The fraud proof and data availability sampling overhead of a modular DA layer adds latency and complexity without a corresponding security benefit.
Evidence: The Arbitrum Nitro stack demonstrates that posting data to Ethereum calldata provides adequate security for its rollup. Most appchain activity does not justify the engineering cost of integrating a separate DA layer for marginal trust assumptions.
case-study
DATA AVAILABILITY REALITY CHECK
Case Studies: When Simplicity Wins
The DA layer is a critical but often over-engineered component; most appchains don't need the complexity or cost of advanced cryptographic proofs.
01
Celestia's Modular Promise vs. Appchain Reality
Celestia pioneered modular DA, but its core value is scaling block space, not proving it. For an appchain, the real bottleneck is execution, not data posting.\n- Key Benefit: ~$0.01 per MB blob cost vs. Ethereum's ~$100+\n- Key Benefit: Decouples consensus from execution, enabling sovereign chains
100x
Cheaper DA
~2s
Finality
02
The Arbitrum Nova Model: Off-Chain DA with Committee Security
Arbitrum Nova uses a Data Availability Committee (DAC) for cheap, fast transactions, proving that notarized off-chain data is sufficient for high-throughput apps.\n- Key Benefit: Sub-cent transaction fees for social and gaming apps\n- Key Benefit: Eliminates the cost of posting all data to L1, relying on a trusted but reputable set (e.g., Google Cloud, ConsenSys)
$0.001
Avg. TX Cost
7
DAC Members
03
EigenDA: The Throughput Play, Not the Proof Play
EigenDA's innovation is re-staking economic security for high bandwidth, not novel cryptography. For rollups, it's about cost and throughput, not proof sophistication.\n- Key Benefit: 10 MB/s+ data write capacity secured by Ethereum stakers\n- Key Benefit: ~90% cost reduction vs. calldata by avoiding full L1 gas auctions
10 MB/s
Bandwidth
-90%
vs. Calldata
04
The zk-Proof DA Fallacy for Sovereign Chains
Projects like Avail and Celestia's upcoming proof system add zk-proofs for DA. For a sovereign appchain, this is overhead. Your chain's validity proofs already guarantee state; DA proofs just add cost for marginal liveness guarantees.\n- Key Benefit: Proofs add ~20% overhead for liveness assurances most apps already hedge\n- Key Benefit: Simpler polling or light client networks often suffice for bridge security
+20%
Cost Overhead
Hrs
Dispute Window
05
Polygon Avail: Solving for Rollups, Overkill for Appchains
Avail provides a robust, proof-backed DA layer designed for a rollup-centric future. For a single appchain, this is like buying a data center to host a website.\n- Key Benefit: KZG commitments and validity proofs provide strong guarantees\n- Key Benefit: Creates a unified DA marketplace, but fragments liquidity and tooling
KZG
Commitment
Unified
DA Market
06
The Simple Alternative: Optimistic DA with Fraud Proofs
The original Optimistic Rollup model: post data on-chain, assume it's available, and challenge only if it's not. This simplicity powers Arbitrum One and Optimism—chains with $10B+ TVL.\n- Key Benefit: Maximum compatibility with Ethereum tooling and security\n- Key Benefit: No new trust assumptions beyond the underlying L1
$10B+
Collective TVL
7 Days
Challenge Period
counter-argument
THE DATA
Steelman: The Case for DA Proofs (And Why It's Weak)
Data Availability Proofs offer a theoretical scaling solution for appchains, but their practical utility is undermined by existing infrastructure and economic realities.
DA Proofs reduce costs by allowing a rollup to post only a cryptographic commitment to its data, not the full data blob. This shifts the data availability burden to a separate network like Celestia or EigenDA, promising cheaper settlement for high-throughput chains.
The economic case is flawed. The cost savings are marginal for most applications. The dominant cost for an appchain is execution and state growth, not raw data posting. Existing L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism already batch data efficiently to Ethereum.
Security is not additive. Using an external DA layer like Avail fragments security. It creates a weakest-link dependency where the appchain's safety is now tied to both the settlement layer and the DA provider's consensus.
Modularity creates integration debt. Appchain teams must now integrate and monitor multiple systems: execution, settlement, DA, and bridging. This operational complexity outweighs the benefit of slightly cheaper data, especially when compared to a monolithic chain like Solana.
Evidence: The total daily cost for data on Ethereum for all major L2s is under $200K. For a single appchain, optimizing this cost is a premature optimization compared to solving for developer UX and liquidity fragmentation.
takeaways
DATA AVAILABILITY REALITY CHECK
Key Takeaways for Builders
DA proofs are a critical primitive, but their value is often misapplied to appchain architectures where simpler solutions exist.
01
The Problem: You're Paying for a Battleship to Cross a Pond
DA proofs like Celestia or EigenDA solve for hyperscale, multi-chain environments. Your single appchain doesn't need a $1M+ security budget for data. You're optimizing for a problem you don't have.
- Real Need: You need data retrievability, not global consensus on its availability.
- Cost Trap: You're bundling execution, settlement, and DA into one monolithic cost, losing granularity.
- Simplicity Wins: A permissioned committee or a highly available cloud storage layer often suffices for ~99.9% of use cases at -90% cost.
-90%
Potential Cost
99.9%
Sufficient Uptime
02
The Solution: Sovereign Rollups & Local DA
Decouple your data layer from your security layer. A sovereign rollup (inspired by Fuel, Celestia rollups) posts data to a cheap, available location and lets the settlement layer (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum) verify state transitions, not data.
- Architectural Clarity: Settlement for security, DA for retrievability. Don't conflate them.
- Tooling Maturity: Rollkit and Sovereign SDK are building for this exact paradigm.
- Future-Proof: If you need scale, you can later upgrade your DA to a proof-based system without re-architecting your core state machine.
Modular
Architecture
Plug-in
DA Upgrade
03
The Reality: Validity Proofs > Data Availability Proofs
For an appchain, the existential threat is invalid state transitions, not missing data. Your primary investment should be in a robust zk-proof or fraud proof system (like Arbitrum Nitro or a zkVM).
- Security Priority: A validity proof guarantees correct execution. A DA proof only guarantees data was published.
- Resource Allocation: Engineering months spent integrating a complex DA layer are months not spent on your core state machine and proving stack.
- Market Signal: Successful appchains (dYdX v3, Immutable X) prioritized execution integrity first, using simpler, proven DA models.
Primary
Security Focus
Secondary
DA Concern
04
The Exception: When You Actually Need DA Proofs
There are valid, high-stakes cases. If your appchain is a high-value bridge hub, a shared sequencer for other chains, or requires censorship resistance at the data layer, then EigenDA, Avail, or Celestia are justified.
- Threshold: >$100M in bridged assets or sequencer value at risk.
- Use Case: You are infrastructure for other chains, not just an application.
- Competitive MoAT: Your DA guarantee becomes a verifiable feature you can sell to other builders (e.g., LayerZero's DVN model).
>$100M
TVL Threshold
Infra
Primary Use Case
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