Monolithic chains internalize security costs through native token inflation or high fees, creating a single point of economic failure. Modular designs externalize this cost by making proof generation a competitive market, separating consensus from execution.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Modular Blockchains Export Their Security Budget to Prover Markets
Modular architecture transforms blockchain security from a fixed validator cost into a variable, market-driven expense for rollups. This analysis breaks down the capital shift, its implications for L2 economics, and the emerging prover market dynamics.
introduction
THE ECONOMIC IMPERATIVE
Introduction
Modular blockchains create a new market for security by outsourcing proof generation to specialized provers.
The security budget becomes a commodity. Validators on a settlement layer like Celestia or EigenDA only need to verify cheap, succinct proofs from rollups like Arbitrum or zkSync. This shifts capital expenditure from staking to proving hardware.
Prover markets optimize for cost, not trust. Projects like RiscZero and Succinct compete to produce validity proofs (ZKPs) or fraud proofs at the lowest price, creating a liquid security layer analogous to AWS for computation.
Evidence: Ethereum's annualized security spend (issuance) exceeds $5B. A competitive prover market for its rollups could reduce this cost by over 90%, redirecting value to application layers.
thesis-statement
THE ECONOMIC SHIFT
The Core Argument: Security as a Variable Cost
Modular blockchains transform security from a fixed, capital-intensive expense into a dynamic, auction-based service purchased from external prover markets.
Monolithic chains internalize security costs by forcing validators to stake the chain's native token, creating a massive, fixed capital overhead. This model subsidizes all transactions equally, making low-value activity economically irrational.
Modular chains externalize this cost to specialized prover markets like RiscZero and Succinct. Execution layers like Fuel or Eclipse purchase fraud/validity proofs as a service, paying only for the compute and bandwidth they consume.
Security becomes a variable operational expense, scaling directly with chain usage. This mirrors the shift from on-premise servers to AWS, where you pay for cycles, not the entire data center.
Evidence: The cost to generate a ZK proof for an Ethereum block via RiscZero is a predictable gas fee, not a multi-billion dollar token staking requirement. This enables ultra-specialized rollups for gaming or DeFi to exist profitably at small scale.
key-trends
THE SECURITY EXPORT
Key Trends Driving the Prover Market
Modular blockchains are outsourcing their most computationally intensive task—state verification—creating a multi-billion dollar market for specialized proving services.
01
The Problem: The Data Availability Tax
Rollups post compressed transaction data to a base layer like Ethereum, but verifying the state transition is computationally prohibitive for the L1. This creates a security gap between data availability and execution validity.
- Cost: L1 validators cannot feasibly re-execute rollup blocks.
- Risk: Reliance on a small set of centralized sequencers for correct state.
~1000x
L1 Compute Cost
1-of-N
Trust Assumption
02
The Solution: Specialized Prover Networks (e.g., RiscZero, Succinct)
Dedicated proving networks generate cryptographic proofs (ZK or validity proofs) that any execution was correct. The base layer only needs to verify this tiny proof.
- Security Export: The economic security of Ethereum now secures the proof verification, not the computation.
- Market Creation: Provers compete on cost and latency, creating a liquid market for trust.
~10 KB
Proof Size
$B+
Market Potential
03
The Catalyst: Interoperability Protocols (LayerZero, Hyperlane)
Cross-chain messaging and shared security models require light-client verification of state from a foreign chain. Running a full node is impossible; a succinct proof is mandatory.
- Demand Driver: Every cross-chain action (bridge, yield) needs a verifiable state proof.
- Architecture Shift: Moves from optimistic/multi-sig bridges to proof-based attestation.
~2s
Attestation Time
10x+
Security Boost
04
The Economic Flywheel: Prover-as-a-Service
Specialized hardware (GPUs, FPGAs) and optimized software (Plonky2, SP1) create economies of scale. Rollups pay for proofs, not infrastructure.
- Efficiency: Dedicated provers achieve ~50% lower cost than general-purpose chains.
- Abstraction: Developers get security without managing proving clusters, similar to AWS for compute.
-50%
Cost Reduced
PaaS
Model
05
The Endgame: Shared Prover Networks (e.g., Avail, EigenLayer)
Provers don't just serve one chain. A single proving network can attest to the state of multiple rollups and appchains, amortizing costs and creating a universal security layer.
- Liquidity Pool for Security: Staked capital secures a basket of chains.
- Composability: Enables native cross-rollup transactions with unified security.
N-for-1
Efficiency
Universal
Security Layer
06
The Risk: Prover Centralization & MEV
Proof generation is computationally intensive, risking centralization in few hardware-rich entities. This creates new MEV vectors and potential censorship.
- Oligopoly Risk: High fixed costs could lead to <10 dominant prover firms.
- MEV Extraction: Provers can order transactions within a batch to extract value, requiring PBS-like solutions.
<10
Dominant Firms
New Vector
MEV Risk
SECURITY BUDGET EXPORT
Cost Structure: Monolithic vs. Modular Security
How monolithic and modular architectures allocate the capital generated from transaction fees (the security budget) to pay for network security.
| Cost & Security Feature | Monolithic Blockchain (e.g., Ethereum L1, Solana) | Modular Sovereign Rollup (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) | Modular Shared Sequencer (e.g., Espresso, Astria) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Security Budget Source | Native token block rewards + L1 tx fees | Data availability (DA) fees to provider | Sequencing fees to provider |
Security Export Mechanism | None (security is endogenous) | Exports data security to DA layer (e.g., Celestia) | Exports ordering security to sequencer set |
Prover Market Dependency | Low (validators perform all tasks) | High (rollup depends on external DA attestations) | High (rollup depends on external sequencing consensus) |
Cost Volatility for Rollups | N/A (is the base layer) | Stable, cost-decoupled from L1 execution | Stable, cost-decoupled from L1 congestion |
Capital Efficiency for Security | Inefficient (security paid for unused capacity) | Efficient (pay-for-what-you-use DA) | Efficient (pay-for-what-you-use sequencing) |
Trust Assumption Shift | Only cryptographic trust (1-of-N honest validators) | Adds economic + governance trust in DA provider | Adds economic + governance trust in sequencer provider |
Typical Cost per Tx (Data) | $0.10 - $2.00 (Ethereum calldata) | < $0.001 (Celestia blob) | < $0.01 (EigenDA blob) |
Re-org Resistance Finality | ~12-15 minutes (Eth probabilistic) | ~2 seconds (Celestia firm) + settlement delay | Instant (pre-confirmations) + settlement delay |
deep-dive
THE SECURITY BUDGET
The Mechanics of the Export
Modular blockchains redirect their block reward emissions to specialized prover networks, creating a competitive market for state verification.
The security budget is redirected. A monolithic chain spends its entire block reward on its own validator set. A modular chain like Celestia or Avail exports this budget to a prover market, paying for independent verification of its state transitions.
This creates a verification economy. The exported budget funds specialized proving networks like RiscZero, Succinct, or Lagrange. These networks compete to provide the cheapest, fastest validity proofs, decoupling security from monolithic consensus.
Proofs are the new settlement asset. The rollup's security is no longer its own validator stake. It is the cost of forgery for the aggregated ZK-SNARK or validity proof from the prover market, verified by a minimal light client.
Evidence: EigenDA's data availability market demonstrates the model. It uses Ethereum's restaking pool (a form of exported security budget) to provide cheap, scalable data availability, separating the function from Ethereum's execution.
risk-analysis
THE PROVER MARKET DILEMMA
The Bear Case: Risks of Exported Security
Modular chains outsource proof generation to competitive markets, creating systemic risks that are often underestimated.
01
The Prover Cartel Problem
Proof generation is a natural monopoly. Economies of scale and specialized hardware (ASICs, GPUs) will lead to market consolidation, creating a few dominant prover entities like EigenDA or Espresso. This centralizes the critical security function for hundreds of rollups.
- Risk: A cartel can censor transactions or extort chains with super-linear fee hikes.
- Reality: Prover markets trend towards <5 major players, negating decentralization benefits.
<5
Dominant Players
>60%
Market Share Risk
02
Liveness vs. Safety Decoupling
Modular designs separate data availability (Celestia, EigenDA) from execution. A prover market failure (e.g., coordinated downtime) halts chain liveness, but the chain remains 'safe' because data is available. This is cold comfort for users and dApps.
- Result: A $1B+ TVL rollup can be frozen for hours by a prover outage.
- Contrast: Monolithic chains like Solana bundle liveness and safety, forcing a single entity to be accountable.
0 TPS
During Outage
Hours
Resolution Lag
03
The Re-staking Security Illusion
Projects like EigenLayer attempt to bootstrap security by re-staking ETH. This creates a meta-slashing dependency: a fault in an AVS (like a shared sequencer) can lead to slashing on Ethereum, creating contagion risk.
- Dilemma: Security is exported and re-hypothecated, not natively generated.
- Capacity: The total re-staking security budget is capped by Ethereum staking yield, creating a zero-sum competition among AVSs and rollups.
$10B+
Re-staked TVL
Zero-Sum
Budget Competition
04
Economic Misalignment in Fault Proofs
Optimistic rollups rely on a 7-day challenge window and bonded validators. In a prover market, the economic entity posting the bond may not be the one generating faulty proofs, breaking the incentive alignment.
- Attack Vector: A prover can sell faulty proofs to an attacker who posts the bond, profiting without direct slashing risk.
- Solution Gap: zk-Rollups (like Starknet, zkSync) have cryptographic safety but still depend on prover market liveness.
7 Days
Vulnerability Window
Decoupled
Risk & Bond
future-outlook
THE MARKET FOR PROOFS
Future Outlook: Hedging the Security Budget
Modular blockchains will hedge their security costs by outsourcing proof generation to a competitive, specialized market.
Security is a commodity. A modular chain's security budget is its single largest recurring cost, paid to validators for state attestation. This cost is fixed and non-competitive.
Exporting to prover markets hedges this cost. Chains like Celestia and Avail will purchase validity proofs from a competitive market of specialized provers (e.g., RISC Zero, Succinct) instead of monolithic validators.
Proof markets decouple security from consensus. This creates a supply-side marketplace where proof generation is a separate, optimizable service. Performance is measured in cost-per-proof, not token inflation.
Evidence: EigenLayer's restaking model demonstrates the demand for security-as-a-service. A prover market applies this to computational integrity, letting chains like Arbitrum Nova buy proofs cheaper than running its own prover set.
takeaways
MODULAR SECURITY ECONOMICS
TL;DR for Busy CTOs
Monolithic chains internalize security costs; modular chains externalize them, creating a new market for provers.
01
The Problem: The Monolithic Security Tax
Ethereum validators are paid to secure a single state machine. Rollups and validiums need this security but can't pay for it directly, creating a free-rider problem. The monolithic model forces security and execution costs to be bundled, inflating transaction fees for all users.
$10B+
Annual Security Budget
>50%
Fee Overhead
02
The Solution: Prover Markets (e.g., EigenLayer, Espresso)
Modular chains export their security demand to a competitive marketplace. Projects like EigenLayer restake ETH to secure new systems, while Espresso uses restaked capital to run decentralized sequencers. This creates a liquid security budget where rollups pay for attestations and proofs à la carte.
100k+
ETH Restaked
~90%
Cost Efficiency Gain
03
The Outcome: Specialization & Scale
Security becomes a commoditized resource, like AWS for compute. Execution layers (e.g., Fuel, Solana VM) compete on performance, while shared security layers (e.g., EigenDA, Avail) compete on cost and reliability. This unbundling enables vertical scaling impossible in monolithic designs.
10,000+
TPS Potential
1/10th
Cost per TX
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