Settlement is the bottleneck. Execution layers like Arbitrum and Optimism scale by pushing data to L1, but finality and security still anchor to Ethereum's congested base layer.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
The Future of Settlement Layers: Congestion and the Fee Market Crisis
Modular scaling shifts compute off-chain, but settlement remains a centralized point of failure. We analyze the coming congestion from fraud proofs and the unsustainable economics of being the chain of last resort.
introduction
THE BOTTLENECK
Introduction
The future of blockchain scalability is not about raw throughput, but about the economic and technical design of its final settlement layer.
The fee market is broken. High L1 gas prices during congestion create a cascading cost crisis, making even 'cheap' L2 transactions expensive for end-users.
This crisis reshapes architecture. Projects like Celestia and EigenDA propose modular data availability to decouple settlement from execution, while rollups like Arbitrum Nitro optimize for L1 calldata costs.
Evidence: Ethereum's average base fee has spiked over 200 gwei during major NFT mints and DeFi events, stalling the entire L2 ecosystem and exposing the shared-resource problem.
thesis-statement
THE FEE MARKET CRISIS
The Core Argument
Monolithic blockchains face an existential scaling limit defined by the fee market, forcing a fundamental architectural shift.
Monolithic scaling hits a wall. Increasing block space to lower fees creates a security subsidy, forcing the chain to monetize its own congestion. This is the fee market crisis that defines the scaling trilemma.
Modular architectures are the only escape. Separating execution from consensus and data availability, as pioneered by Celestia and EigenDA, externalizes the cost of data. This breaks the direct link between usage and validator revenue.
Settlement becomes a premium service. In a modular stack, the base layer's role narrows to secure consensus and trust-minimized bridging. Its fee market prices security and finality, not computation. This is the future for Ethereum and Bitcoin.
Evidence: Ethereum's blob fee market volatility post-Dencun proves demand for cheap data is infinite. Dedicated DA layers like Celestia price this separately, allowing rollups like Arbitrum to offer stable, low execution fees.
market-context
THE FEE MARKET CRISIS
The Current State of Play
Monolithic blockchains are hitting a fundamental scalability wall, where user demand directly creates unsustainable fee volatility and congestion.
Monolithic architectures are failing. Blockchains like Ethereum and Solana bundle execution, consensus, and data availability into a single layer. This creates a zero-sum fee market where every transaction—from a Uniswap swap to an NFT mint—competes for the same global block space.
Congestion is a feature, not a bug. The system's security and decentralization depend on this competition, but it makes user experience unpredictable. A single meme coin launch on Solana or a popular NFT drop on Ethereum Base Layer can render the network unusable for hours.
The data proves the bottleneck. Ethereum's average gas price has spiked over 500% during periods of high demand, while Solana has suffered multiple full-state congestion events in 2024, failing transactions even with low fees. This is the core constraint driving the modular thesis.
key-trends
THE FEE MARKET CRISIS
Three Trends Converging on the Settlement Bottleneck
Base layer congestion is no longer a scaling issue; it's a structural threat to composability, user experience, and economic security.
01
The Problem: L2s Are Recreating L1's Fee Market
Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism now face their own congestion and volatile gas fees during network spikes, defeating their core value proposition. The shared sequencing model creates a single, auction-based fee market per chain.
- Sequencer Profit Extraction: Sequencers capture MEV and priority fees, creating economic misalignment.
- Failed Promises: Users flee back to Solana or other monolithic chains when L2 fees spike above $10.
- Composability Breaks: High, unpredictable fees make atomic cross-L2 DeFi transactions economically unviable.
$50+
Peak L2 TX Cost
1000+
Pending TX Queue
02
The Solution: Shared Sequencing & Enshrined Rollups
Decoupling execution from settlement and block building from proposing is the only path to sustainable scaling. This trend moves critical infrastructure into the protocol layer.
- Shared Sequencers (Espresso, Astria): Provide neutral, decentralized ordering to eliminate per-rollup fee markets and enable atomic cross-rollup composability.
- Enshrined Rollups (EigenLayer, Danksharding): Build scaling directly into the settlement layer's consensus, inheriting Ethereum's full economic security without fragmented liquidity.
- Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS): Separates block building from validation, curbing MEV extraction and stabilizing fee markets.
~500ms
Cross-Rollup Latency
100%
Security Inheritance
03
The Catalyst: Intent-Based Architectures
Users no longer submit precise transactions; they declare desired outcomes. This shifts complexity off-chain and bypasses the public mempool, fundamentally altering settlement demand.
- Solving Fragmentation: Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap act as settlement-agnostic solvers, routing intents across any chain for best execution.
- Eliminating Gas Auctions: Users pay for results, not computation. Solvers compete in an off-chain auction, absorbing gas volatility.
- New Settlement Layer: Intents settle on the most cost-effective, secure data availability layer (e.g., EigenDA, Celestia), not necessarily Ethereum L1.
-90%
User Gas Cost
10x
Fill Rate
04
The Endgame: Settlement as a Commodity
The value accrual shifts from the base settlement layer to the execution and aggregation layers that provide the best user experience. Security becomes a cheap, fungible input.
- Modular Stack Wins: Execution layers (Rollups, Solana VM) compete on performance; data availability layers (EigenDA, Avail) compete on cost/throughput.
- L1 as a Court: Ethereum's role narrows to high-value, slow finality for disputes and bridges, not daily transactions.
- Aggregators Capture Value: The interface layer (wallets, intent solvers, Across-like bridges) that abstracts complexity becomes the primary user touchpoint and profit center.
$0.001
DA Cost/TX
1M+
TPS Aggregate
FEE MARKET CRISIS SCENARIO
Settlement Layer Stress Test: Simulated Impact
Comparative analysis of settlement layer architectures under extreme congestion, simulating a 10x surge in demand versus current baseline.
| Critical Metric | Monolithic L1 (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet) | Sovereign Rollup (e.g., Celestia DA) | Enshrined Rollup (e.g., Ethereum L2) |
|---|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | ~100 |
| ~5,000 |
Fee Volatility (Simulated) |
| <5% | ~50% |
Settlement Finality (95%ile) | 12-20 min | < 2 min | ~12 min |
MEV Resistance | |||
Sequencer Failure Risk | High (Decentralization Lag) | Low (L1 Fallback) | |
Cross-Domain Atomic Composability | |||
State Growth Burden (Annual) | ~1 TB | ~100 TB | ~10 TB |
Protocol Revenue Capture | 100% (Base Fee + Tip) | ~0% (Data Fee Only) | ~80% (Sequencer Profit) |
deep-dive
THE FEE MARKET
The Anatomy of a Congestion Crisis
Congestion is a predictable failure of the fee market mechanism, not a random network event.
Fee markets are broken. They rely on a first-price auction where users overpay to avoid failed transactions, creating a tragedy of the commons where network utility collapses under predictable demand surges from memecoins or airdrops.
EIP-1559 is a partial fix. It replaced the auction with a base fee burned by the protocol, smoothing volatility. However, the priority fee for miners/validators remains a volatile auction, which still fails during extreme demand spikes.
Solana's local fee markets offer a different model. By allowing fees to spike on specific state (e.g., a popular NFT mint) while keeping the rest of the chain cheap, it prevents total network collapse. This is a direct response to the failures of global fee models.
Evidence: During the March 2024 memecoin frenzy, Ethereum's base fee remained stable but priority fees spiked 5000%, while Solana's localized congestion caused 50%+ transaction failure rates on specific programs like Pump.fun, demonstrating both models' failure modes.
protocol-spotlight
THE FEE MARKET ESCAPE HATCHES
Protocol Responses: Building Lifeboats
As base layer congestion makes predictable execution impossible, protocols are architecting their own settlement guarantees.
01
The Problem: Unpredictable Settlement is a Protocol Killer
Volatile fees and failed transactions destroy user experience and composability. A DeFi protocol cannot guarantee a liquidation or arbitrage if its transaction is stuck in the mempool. This systemic risk forces protocols to build their own execution lanes.
- Key Consequence: Protocols become hostages to the base layer's congestion cycles.
- Key Consequence: Economic security degrades as critical keepers are priced out.
1000x
Fee Spikes
~30%
Tx Failure Rate
02
The Solution: Sovereign Execution Layers (Rollup-as-a-Service)
Protocols deploy their own application-specific rollup (e.g., using Caldera, AltLayer, Conduit). This creates a dedicated, low-latency environment for core logic, batching proofs back to a secure settlement layer like Ethereum.
- Key Benefit: Predictable, sub-cent fees and ~2-second finality for users.
- Key Benefit: Full control over transaction ordering and MEV capture, enabling novel economic models.
<$0.01
Avg. Tx Cost
App-Chain
Sovereignty
03
The Solution: Intent-Based Architectures & SUAVE
Instead of broadcasting transactions, users submit signed intents (desired outcomes). Solvers (like in UniswapX, CowSwap) compete off-chain to fulfill them, submitting only the winning bundle. This abstracts away gas for users and massively reduces on-chain footprint.
- Key Benefit: Gasless user experience and MEV protection via competition.
- Key Benefit: Drives efficiency by batching thousands of intents into a single settlement transaction.
Gasless
For Users
90%+
Efficiency Gain
04
The Solution: Shared Sequencing & Enshrined Rollups
Protocols coordinate on a neutral, decentralized sequencer set (e.g., Espresso, Astria) or leverage an enshrined rollup built into the L1 (like Ethereum's future). This provides credible neutrality and cross-rollup atomic composability without sacrificing performance.
- Key Benefit: Censorship resistance and atomic cross-protocol execution.
- Key Benefit: Mitigates the centralization risk of a single protocol running its own sequencer.
Decentralized
Sequencing
Atomic
Composability
counter-argument
THE FEE MARKET CRISIS
The Bull Case: It's All Priced In
The coming congestion on Ethereum L1 is not a bug but a feature that will define the value capture of the entire modular stack.
Ethereum's fee market is the ultimate economic moat. As demand for block space from rollups and L1 apps exceeds supply, base fees will soar. This creates a predictable, high-margin revenue stream for ETH stakers, directly linking Ethereum's security budget to its economic activity.
Rollups become the customers, not the competitors. High L1 fees force rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism to optimize for data compression and proof efficiency. Their success is measured by their ability to minimize their own cost basis on the settlement layer, creating a competitive optimization loop.
The modular thesis validates this dynamic. Celestia and EigenDA provide cheap data availability, but final settlement and consensus remain on Ethereum. This bifurcation means settlement is the premium service. The market has priced in this scarcity, making ETH the reserve asset of the modular ecosystem.
Evidence: The EIP-4844 fee market already shows this. Despite 'blob' data being cheap, base layer execution gas remains volatile and expensive during network stress, proving that execution and finality are the scarce resources rollups must compete for.
risk-analysis
SETTLEMENT LAYER CRISIS
The Bear Case: Unraveling Scenarios
The core value proposition of a settlement layer—finality and security—is being undermined by its own success, creating a fundamental crisis for the entire stack.
01
The Congestion Doom Loop
High fees from L2 settlement wars price out users, killing the ecosystem they're meant to serve. This isn't hypothetical—Ethereum's $100+ gas fees during bull markets prove the model fails at scale.\n- Fee Spiral: L2s compete for block space, driving up base layer costs for everyone.\n- Economic Exclusion: DApp utility collapses when simple swaps cost $50.\n- Centralization Pressure: Only whales and institutions can afford on-chain settlement.
$100+
Peak Gas Cost
>10 min
Finality Lag
02
The Modular Fragmentation Trap
Splitting execution from settlement creates liquidity silos and security subtleties that users cannot navigate. Celestia's data availability doesn't guarantee execution correctness.\n- Sovereign Risk: Each rollup becomes its own security island, fracturing composability.\n- Liquidity Dilution: TVL is spread across dozens of chains, increasing slippage.\n- Validator Overhead: Nodes must now track multiple state transitions and fraud proofs.
50+
Active L2s
-80%
Per-Chain Liquidity
03
The Alt-L1 Settlement Reckoning
Chains like Solana and Avalanche that tout monolithic scaling face a different crisis: the impossibility of credible neutrality under load. High throughput requires extreme hardware, recentralizing validation.\n- Hardware Arms Race: Validator requirements skyrocket, pushing out smaller players.\n- State Bloat: Unchecked growth leads to terabyte-sized chains, making syncing impossible.\n- Security Subsidy: Low fees fail to fund security budgets long-term, inviting attacks.
1 TB+
State Size
$0.001
Fee Security
04
The Intent-Based End-Run
Solving for user outcomes, not transactions, bypasses the settlement layer entirely. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap use solvers and Across-style bridges to abstract away chain-specific execution.\n- Settlement Abstraction: Users get the best price across any venue; the solver worries about settlement.\n- Liquidity Aggregation: Taps into fragmented L2/L3 liquidity pools simultaneously.\n- Fee Market Neutrality: Solvers batch and route to the cheapest settlement layer, commoditizing it.
90%
Fill Rate Improv.
-60%
User Gas Cost
05
The Validator Extractable Value (VEV) Crisis
Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) and MEV create perverse incentives where validators/proposers profit by reordering or censoring L2 settlement batches. This corrupts the base layer's neutrality.\n- Censorship Risk: L2 batches containing sanctioned addresses can be excluded.\n- Time-Bandit Attacks: Validators may reorg chains to steal high-value L2 settlements.\n- Economic Centralization: MEV cartels control the sequencing of the entire ecosystem.
$1B+
Annual MEV
>51%
Cartel Control
06
The Interop Layer Co-Option
Cross-chain messaging protocols like LayerZero and Axelar are becoming the de facto settlement layer by enabling atomic composability across fragmented rollups. The settlement layer is reduced to a data anchor.\n- Sovereignty Loss: Economic activity is governed by interop security models, not L1 consensus.\n- New Single Point of Failure: A bug in a widely adopted messaging hub could freeze billions.\n- Fee Capture Shift: Value accrues to the interop layer, not the base settlement chain.
$10B+
Secured Value
~2s
Cross-Chain Finality
future-outlook
THE FEE MARKET CRISIS
The Path Forward: Settlement as a Scarce Commodity
The future of L2 scaling depends on managing the inevitable congestion and fee volatility of the underlying settlement layer.
Settlement is the bottleneck. L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism batch transactions to Ethereum for finality, but this creates a derived demand for L1 block space. During network congestion, this demand triggers a fee war, making L2 settlement expensive and unpredictable for all.
Shared sequencing is a trap. Solutions like Espresso or Astria propose a shared sequencer network to order transactions before settlement. This improves UX but centralizes the fee market, creating a single point of failure and rent extraction that contradicts crypto's economic design.
The solution is economic abstraction. Protocols must treat L1 gas as a volatile input cost to hedge. This requires gas futures markets and settlement auctions where L2s like zkSync or Starknet bid for block space in advance, smoothing costs for end-users.
Evidence: Ethereum's base fee has spiked over 1000% in minutes during NFT mints. Without hedging, an L2 processing cheap payments can become insolvent settling them, a systemic risk ignored by current rollup economics.
takeaways
SETTLEMENT LAYER EVOLUTION
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The monolithic blockchain is dead. The future is a competitive landscape of specialized settlement layers, where your protocol's design determines its survival.
01
The Problem: Monolithic Congestion is a Tax on All Apps
When one popular app (e.g., a Pump.fun-style memecoin launch) clogs the base layer, it imposes a negative externality on every other protocol. This creates a non-competitive fee market where users pay for unrelated activity.
- Result: Predictable costs are impossible.
- Result: UX is dictated by the highest bidder, not protocol logic.
1000x
Fee Spikes
Unbounded
Latency
02
The Solution: Sovereign Appchains & Rollups
Take control of your execution environment and fee market. An app-specific chain (via OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon CDK) isolates your congestion. This is the architectural shift from shared tenancy to ownership.
- Key Benefit: Guaranteed block space for your users.
- Key Benefit: Customizable data availability (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) for ~90% cost reduction.
~90%
Cost Reduced
Controlled
Fee Market
03
The Problem: Shared Sequencing is a New Centralization Vector
Outsourcing block production to a shared sequencer (like Espresso, Astria) reintroduces a single point of failure and censorship. It's the MEV cartel problem repackaged for the rollup era.
- Result: Latency guarantees depend on a third party.
- Result: Your chain's liveness is not sovereign.
Single
Point of Failure
High
Trust Assumption
04
The Solution: Intent-Based Settlement & Shared Security
Decouple transaction construction from execution. Protocols like UniswapX and CowSwap use solvers to route intents, settling on the optimal chain. Pair this with restaking (EigenLayer) or light-client bridges for security.
- Key Benefit: Users get best execution, unaware of underlying L1/L2.
- Key Benefit: Settlement becomes a commodity; innovation shifts to the application layer.
Multi-Chain
Execution
Optimized
User Flow
05
The Problem: Liquidity Fragmentation Across Layers
Sovereign chains create isolated liquidity pools. Bridging assets via canonical bridges is slow and capital-inefficient, turning composability—crypto's killer feature—into a weakness.
- Result: TVL is trapped in silos.
- Result: Arbitrage latency increases, harming DeFi efficiency.
Siloed
Capital
High
Arb Latency
06
The Solution: Universal Settlement Layers & Native Asset Issuance
Embrace layers designed for finality, not execution. Celestia for data, Ethereum for consensus-as-a-service. Issue your native asset directly on these layers (e.g., USDC on Noble on Cosmos) and use IBC or LayerZero for canonical, secure transfers.
- Key Benefit: Atomic composability across the ecosystem.
- Key Benefit: Your asset's security is decoupled from your chain's security budget.
Atomic
Composability
Decoupled
Security
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