Composability is broken. The proliferation of L2s and app-chains has fragmented liquidity and state, forcing developers to build redundant infrastructure for each new chain. This creates a negative-sum game for ecosystem growth.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
The Future of Composability Relies on Neutral Interoperability Hubs
Application-specific chains fragment liquidity and user experience. True cross-chain composability requires a neutral, permissionless messaging layer—not a winner-take-all bridge controlled by a single app.
introduction
THE FRAGMENTATION PROBLEM
Introduction
The current multi-chain ecosystem is a collection of walled gardens that actively inhibit the composability it was built to enable.
Neutral interoperability hubs are the fix. Protocols like Across, Stargate, and LayerZero provide a standardized communication layer. They separate the transport of assets and data from application logic, restoring the permissionless innovation of a single chain.
The future is intent-based. Systems like Uniswap X and CowSwap abstract chain selection from users. This shifts the competitive landscape from chain-level lock-in to a market for execution quality, where neutral hubs route to the best venue.
Evidence: The TVL in canonical bridges like Arbitrum and Optimism is stagnant, while third-party bridges facilitating generalized messaging have seen consistent growth, demonstrating demand for flexible, application-layer interoperability.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
The Core Thesis: Neutrality is Non-Negotiable
Composability's future depends on interoperability hubs that are neutral, permissionless, and credibly decentralized.
Neutrality prevents platform capture. A composable system's value is its network of applications. If an interoperability hub like LayerZero or Axelar is controlled by a single entity, it becomes a point of failure and rent extraction, stifling the very innovation it aims to connect.
Permissionless access is the standard. The model of Hyperliquid's on-chain order book, where any dApp can integrate without gatekeeping, must apply to cross-chain messaging. Closed ecosystems like early CCTP implementations create fragmentation, not unification.
Credible neutrality drives adoption. Developers build on infrastructure they cannot be deplatformed from. This is why the trust-minimized security of Across Protocol's optimistic verification and IBC's light client model are foundational, not optional features for serious interoperability.
Evidence: The dominance of UniswapX and CowSwap's intents-based system demonstrates that neutral, open settlement layers capture more value than vertically integrated, captive bridges by enabling permissionless solver competition.
key-trends
THE INTEROPERABILITY IMPERATIVE
The Fragmentation Trap: 3 Trends Killing Composability
Composability is being suffocated by isolated liquidity, proprietary stacks, and intent-driven fragmentation.
01
The Liquidity Silos of Rollup-Centric Design
Every new L2 or appchain creates a new liquidity pool, fragmenting capital and increasing slippage. Bridging is a tax on every transaction, killing the seamless UX that defines DeFi.
- Problem: Moving $1M from Arbitrum to Base costs ~$50+ and takes ~10 minutes.
- Solution: Neutral liquidity hubs like Across and Stargate aggregate capital across chains, enabling ~5-second finality and reducing costs by -70%.
$10B+
Locked in Bridges
-70%
Cost Reduction
02
The Stack Wars: How Proprietary Tech Stifles Builders
Rollup-as-a-Service providers and appchain SDKs (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon CDK) create walled gardens. Builders are forced into vendor lock-in, sacrificing sovereignty for ease of deployment.
- Problem: Choosing a stack dictates your bridge, sequencer, and governance—killing optionality.
- Solution: Neutral interoperability layers like LayerZero and IBC provide protocol-agnostic messaging, letting builders choose the best tech stack without sacrificing connectivity.
50+
Proprietary Stacks
1
Neutral Standard Needed
03
Intent-Based Architectures Fragment the Settlement Layer
Solving for UX, protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract execution to off-chain solvers. This creates a new fragmentation: a network of competing solver networks, not a shared settlement state.
- Problem: Intents move liquidity and logic off-chain, creating opaque, non-composable execution markets.
- Solution: Standardized intent infrastructures and shared solver networks ensure these systems remain composable building blocks, not black boxes.
~500ms
Solver Latency
$5B+
Monthly Volume
deep-dive
THE FRAGMENTATION TRAP
Why Application-Specific Bridges Fail the Composability Test
Application-specific bridges create isolated liquidity pools and user experiences that actively undermine the core value proposition of a multi-chain ecosystem.
Application-specific bridges fragment liquidity. A bridge built solely for a single DEX or NFT platform traps assets in a siloed pool. This prevents those assets from being used in other DeFi protocols on the destination chain, defeating the purpose of interoperability.
They force redundant security audits. Each new app-chain or rollup that builds its own bridge, like many early L2s did, must independently secure its bridge stack. This creates systemic risk and capital inefficiency compared to using a neutral interoperability hub like LayerZero or Axelar.
The user experience becomes a maze. A user must navigate a different bridge interface, token list, and fee structure for every application. This is the opposite of the seamless, composable money legos that define effective DeFi.
Evidence: The rise of intent-based architectures in protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap, which abstract bridging away from the user, proves the market demand to move beyond app-specific bridges. These systems rely on solvers that can tap into any liquidity source, including neutral hubs like Across.
COMPOSABILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Hub vs. Spoke: The Interoperability Architecture Spectrum
A comparison of architectural models for cross-chain interoperability, focusing on their impact on developer experience and systemic risk.
| Architectural Feature | Neutral Hub (e.g., LayerZero, IBC) | Application-Specific Spoke (e.g., Native Bridge) | Validator-Based Bridge (e.g., Axelar, Wormhole) |
|---|---|---|---|
Trust Assumption | 1-of-N Relayer/Oracle Honesty | N-of-M Validator Set Honesty | N-of-M Validator Set Honesty |
Settlement Finality for Developers | Guaranteed | Not Guaranteed | Guaranteed |
Unified Liquidity Layer | |||
Native Gas Abstraction | |||
Protocol Revenue Capture | Relayer/Oracle Network | Application Treasury | Validator Set |
Average Message Cost | $0.10 - $0.50 | $0.05 - $0.20 | $0.25 - $1.00 |
Time to Add New Chain | < 1 week |
| 1-4 weeks |
Composability Risk (Reorgs, MEV) | Centralized at Hub | Isolated per Spoke | Centralized at Validator Set |
protocol-spotlight
ARCHITECTURAL PRIMER
The Neutral Hub Contenders: A Builder's Guide
The future of cross-chain dApps depends on neutral infrastructure that doesn't compete with its users. Here's how the leading models stack up.
01
The Shared Security Dilemma
Rollups fragment security and composability by relying on individual, often centralized, sequencers. A neutral hub can provide a shared security and ordering layer.
- Enables atomic cross-rollup transactions without fragmented liquidity.
- Reduces validator overhead from ~100s of nodes per chain to a single, battle-tested set.
- Mitigates sequencer censorship risk through decentralized, credibly neutral block production.
~100x
Security Boost
Atomic
Composability
02
Intent-Based Routing (UniswapX, Across)
Users express desired outcomes, not specific transactions. Solvers compete to fulfill them optimally across any liquidity source.
- Eliminates MEV leakage by hiding transaction intent until execution.
- Aggregates fragmented liquidity across Layer 2s, sidechains, and CEXs.
- Shifts complexity from user to network, abstracting away chain selection.
-90%
MEV Loss
$10B+
Aggregate Liquidity
03
Universal Messaging (LayerZero, Axelar)
Provide a generic message-passing primitive, enabling any contract on any chain to communicate. This is infrastructure, not an application.
- Maximizes developer optionality—builders own the user experience and fees.
- Creates network effects at the protocol layer, not the dApp layer.
- Avoids the 'hub-as-competitor' problem seen with application-specific bridges.
50+
Chains Supported
~3s
Finality
04
The Shared Sequencer Play (Espresso, Astria)
Decentralized sequencers that order transactions for multiple rollups, creating a neutral cross-rollup mempool and enabling seamless interoperability.
- Unlocks native cross-rollup arbitrage and lending with sub-second latency.
- Decouples sequencing from execution, preventing ecosystem lock-in.
- Future-proofs for enshrined rollups where execution layers are commoditized.
<1s
Cross-Rollup Latency
-80%
Sequencer Cost
05
Sovereign Interop vs. Hub-and-Spoke
IBC represents a sovereign model where chains connect peer-to-peer. Hub models (Cosmos Hub) introduce a central liquidity and security point of failure.
- Sovereign: Higher resilience, no single point of control. Lower capital efficiency for shared assets.
- Hub-and-Spoke: Higher capital efficiency for $ATOM-denominated assets. Introduces rehypothecation and slashing risks at the hub.
P2P
Sovereign Model
60+
IBC Zones
06
The Modular Data Layer (Celestia, Avail)
Neutrality through data availability. By providing only consensus and data, these layers avoid application-layer competition entirely.
- Ensures rollup sovereignty—builders control execution, settlement, and governance.
- Reduces bridging trust assumptions to data availability sampling (~1 MB/s throughput).
- The ultimate commodity: interoperability emerges from verifiable data, not proprietary bridges.
1.6 MB/s
Data Throughput
$0.001
Per MB Cost
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRADE-OFF
The Counter-Argument: Are Neutral Hubs Just Another Middleman?
Neutral interoperability hubs introduce a critical trade-off between trust-minimization and composability.
Neutrality is a spectrum. A hub like LayerZero or Axelar is not a traditional middleman extracting rent, but a trusted third party for message verification. Its neutrality stems from not controlling application logic, but its security model is a centralized dependency.
Composability requires a single point of failure. The shared security model of a hub creates systemic risk. A bug in the LayerZero Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard or a multisig compromise on Axelar breaks every connected application simultaneously.
The alternative is fragmentation. Without hubs, developers must integrate each custom IBC connection or Across/Stargate bridge individually. This fragments liquidity and user experience, making cross-chain DeFi like UniswapX impractical.
Evidence: The Wormhole token bridge hack in 2022 exploited a single verification signature, resulting in a $326M loss. This demonstrates the catastrophic failure mode of the hub model, where one vulnerability compromises the entire network.
takeaways
THE INTEROPERABILITY IMPERATIVE
TL;DR for CTOs & Architects
The future of multi-chain applications depends on neutral infrastructure that abstracts away chain-specific complexity.
01
The Problem: Application-Specific Silos
Building your own bridge or liquidity pool creates a vendor-locked silo that fragments liquidity and user experience.\n- Increases integration overhead for every new chain.\n- Forces users to hold native gas tokens on every destination.\n- Creates systemic risk from unaudited, bespoke contracts.
10-20%
Dev Time Wasted
5+
Integrations Needed
02
The Solution: Neutral Settlement Layers
Hubs like Across, LayerZero, and Chainlink CCIP act as verification-agnostic message buses.\n- Decouples security from execution (e.g., use any oracle, any prover).\n- Enables atomic composability across chains via generalized intents.\n- Future-proofs against L2 fragmentation and new VM architectures.
$10B+
TVL Secured
~3s
Finality
03
The Killer App: Intents & Solvers
Frameworks like UniswapX and CowSwap demonstrate that users should declare what they want, not how to do it.\n- Solvers compete on execution price across all liquidity sources.\n- Eliminates MEV leakage via batch auctions and private mempools.\n- Turns interoperability into a commodity routed by economic efficiency.
15-30%
Better Prices
0 Gas
For Users
04
The Metric: Total Value Secured (TVS)
Forget TVL. The real metric for a hub is TVS: the cumulative value of messages/secured.\n- Measures economic security and validator/extractor stake.\n- Correlates with liveness guarantees and censorship resistance.\n- Exposes hub centralization risks if dominated by a single app.
>TVL
Critical Metric
7-Figure $
Slashing Risk
05
The Architecture: Modular Stacks Win
Winning hubs will offer pluggable components: one consensus layer, multiple attestation methods.\n- Separate DA, execution, and settlement for optimal cost/security.\n- Support ZK proofs, optimistic verification, and TEEs in parallel.\n- Enable app-chains to outsource security without sacrificing sovereignty.
-90%
OpEx Reduction
Multi-Prover
Security
06
The Endgame: Invisible Infrastructure
Successful interoperability becomes invisible to the end-user. Transactions just work, regardless of chain.\n- Gas abstraction paid in any token via ERC-4337 and Paymasters.\n- Universal accounts that are chain-agnostic (e.g., ENS + smart wallets).\n- Liquidity appears unified, eliminating the concept of 'bridging'.
1-Click
UX
100%
Success Rate
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