Why Execution Layers Are Becoming Commodities

Ethereum's dominance has made the EVM a universal runtime, turning raw execution into a fungible resource. The real competition is now in data availability, sequencing, and proving.

• All major L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) use the same core EVM opcodes.
• Differentiation shifts to prover markets (RiscZero, SP1) and DA layers (Celestia, EigenDA, Avail).
• Execution becomes a cost center, optimized for throughput (Solana) or provability (zkVM).

Decoupling execution from consensus and data availability creates a competitive market for block space. Rollups can swap execution clients or DA layers, forcing providers to compete on price and performance.

• Execution layers become interchangeable components in a modular stack.
• Shared sequencers (Espresso, Astria) abstract away block production.
• The value accrues to the settlement layer and sovereign app-chains.

Users no longer care where their transaction executes, only that it achieves the desired outcome at the best price. This abstracts the execution layer entirely behind solvers and aggregators.

• Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across route intents across all liquidity sources.
• SUAVE aims to be a decentralized block builder for all chains.
• The execution layer is a hidden commodity, like AWS regions for web2 apps.

With execution standardized, the cryptographic guarantee of correctness becomes the defensible layer. Zero-knowledge proofs transform trust assumptions and enable new trust-minimized bridges and interop.

• zkEVMs (Polygon zkEVM, Scroll, Linea) use execution to generate a proof, not as the final product.
• Proof aggregation (Nebra, =nil;) creates economies of scale.
• The security budget shifts from validator staking to prover markets.

The problem: Isolated rollups create fragmented liquidity and poor UX for cross-chain activity.\nThe solution: A neutral, decentralized sequencer (like Espresso, Astria) that orders transactions for multiple rollups, enabling atomic composability and capturing the inter-rollup value flow.\n- Enables native cross-rollup arbitrage & MEV\n- Becomes the liquidity nexus and fee sink

The problem: Users don't want to manage liquidity across dozens of rollups.\nThe solution: Protocols like UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across abstract execution by letting users declare a desired outcome (an 'intent'). Solvers compete to fulfill it across any chain, commoditizing the execution layer beneath them.\n- Captures order flow at the point of intent\n- Monetizes cross-chain liquidity fragmentation

The problem: Generic rollups are forced into a single, potentially congested settlement layer (e.g., Ethereum).\nThe solution: Sovereign rollups (like Celestia-based chains) and alt-data-availability layers decouple execution from a specific settlement environment. The winning settlement layer provides the cheapest, most secure data, becoming a commoditized utility.\n- Settlement becomes a bandwidth auction\n- Enables specialized execution environments (non-EVM)

The problem: Trust in a rollup depends on a small set of actors running fraud/validity proofs.\nThe solution: Decentralized verifier networks (e.g., EigenLayer AVS, Babylon) turn proof verification into a staking-based commodity service. Security is pooled and slashed, creating a trust layer more valuable than any single rollup's execution.\n- Monetizes cryptoeconomic security\n- Reduces rollup launch cost & complexity

The problem: Commoditized execution creates an N^2 connectivity problem between rollups.\nThe solution: Hubs like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole don't execute transactions; they standardize and secure message passing. They become the communication layer, extracting fees from every cross-rollup state update.\n- Value scales with number of connected chains\n- Network effects create a messaging monopoly

The problem: Commodity execution layers leak value to searchers and block builders via MEV.\nThe solution: Rollups with native MEV capture and redistribution (e.g., Flashbots SUAVE, Metamask's Tilt) internalize this value. By controlling the sequencing and block building process, they turn a cost into a revenue stream.\n- Recaptures 50-80% of extracted MEV\n- Improves UX with fair ordering

Sequencers capture value that should go to users and apps. On monolithic chains like Ethereum, >90% of L1 gas is wasted on failed arbitrage transactions. This creates a structural cost disadvantage.

• Solution: Neutral, credibly neutral block builders like Flashbots SUAVE or shared sequencing layers.
• Opportunity: Protocols that route to the best execution venue (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) will win.

Users declare what they want, not how to do it. This abstracts away the execution layer entirely.

• Key Shift: Competition moves from chain performance to solver networks (e.g., Anoma, Essential).
• Builder Impact: Your app's UX is now defined by its intent expressiveness, not its L2 choice.
• Investor Lens: Value accrues to the aggregation and fulfillment layer, not the commodity VM.

Atomic composability across rollups is the next battleground. Execution is cheap; cross-domain sync is hard.

• Entities: Espresso, Astria, and Shared Sequencer initiatives from OP Stack and Arbitrum Orbit.
• Investor Takeaway: The stack's control point is the sequencer, not the execution client. $10B+ TVL will flow to the most composable ecosystem.
• Risk: Centralization pressure on the sequencing layer itself.

All major rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync, Starknet) converge on ~2s finality and <$0.01 fees. Differentiation on raw speed/cost is over.

• Evidence: The Ethereum L2 Beat dashboard shows converging metrics.
• Builder Implication: Choose your L2 based on ecosystem grants and tooling, not tech specs.
• VC Reality: Funding an "optimized VM" L2 is now a commodity hardware play.