Modularity centralizes security providers. Decoupling execution from consensus outsources security to specialized networks like Celestia or EigenDA. This creates a new, concentrated layer of trust.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Modular Blockchains Inevitably Centralize Security Providers
The modular blockchain thesis promises scalability through specialization. This analysis argues its economic logic will consolidate security around a few dominant providers like Celestia and EigenLayer, creating new, systemic points of failure.
introduction
THE CORE CONTRADICTION
Introduction: The Centralization Paradox of Modularity
Modular design, which fragments blockchain functions, creates a new class of centralized security providers.
The validator set shrinks. A monolithic chain like Ethereum secures all activity with ~1M validators. A rollup secured by Celestia relies on a few hundred data availability committee members.
Sequencers and Provers become choke points. Networks like Arbitrum and Starknet operate with single, centralized sequencers. Proving markets for ZK-rollups consolidate around a few providers like RiscZero.
Evidence: The data availability market. Over 90% of rollup transaction data is posted to Ethereum, not alternative DA layers, because its decentralization is the security backstop.
key-trends
WHY MODULARITY BREEDS CENTRALIZATION
The Inevitable Consolidation: Three Economic Drivers
The modular thesis promises unbounded scalability, but its underlying economic incentives are driving a winner-take-most market for security providers.
01
The Liquidity Moat
Shared security is a staking pool. The provider with the largest pool of staked capital offers the highest slashing risk, attracting more rollups and creating a self-reinforcing flywheel. This is the same dynamic that created Lido's dominance in Ethereum staking.\n- EigenLayer's >$15B TVL demonstrates the demand for pooled cryptoeconomic security.\n- Rollup sequencers will naturally gravitate to the chain with the highest cost-of-attack.
>15B
TVL in EigenLayer
>60%
Market Share Target
02
The Interoperability Premium
Rollups need fast, trust-minimized bridges. A dominant security provider (e.g., a top-tier Data Availability layer) becomes the natural hub for native interoperability, reducing the need for external bridges like LayerZero or Axelar. This creates a bundled product that is cheaper and faster than the fragmented alternative.\n- Native cross-rollup messaging within a shared DA layer can achieve ~2-second finality.\n- This erodes the value proposition of standalone general messaging networks.
~2s
Native Finality
-90%
Bridge Cost
03
The Validator Scale Advantage
Operating a high-throughput Data Availability layer or a consensus layer requires massive, specialized infrastructure. Fixed costs for hardware and bandwidth create economies of scale that smaller providers cannot match. This leads to a market structure akin to AWS in cloud computing.\n- A leading DA layer like Celestia or EigenDA can amortize costs over hundreds of rollups.\n- This results in ~10x cheaper DA costs for clients, creating an insurmountable price barrier for new entrants.
~10x
Cost Advantage
100+
Client Rollups
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE TRAP
The Slippery Slope: From Specialization to Systemic Risk
Modular design creates a perverse incentive structure that funnels security responsibility to a shrinking set of professional providers.
Specialization kills decentralization. Modular chains outsource security to shared layers like Celestia or EigenLayer, which optimizes for cost. This creates a winner-take-most market where only the largest, most capital-efficient staking pools survive. The result is a systemic concentration of validation power, mirroring the centralization of Bitcoin mining or AWS in web2.
Rollups become security tenants. Chains like Arbitrum and Optimism are incentivized to use the cheapest, most reliable data availability and sequencing services. This commoditizes their security layer, making them price-sensitive clients to providers like Espresso or AltLayer. Their security is no longer sovereign; it's a rented commodity subject to market forces and provider failure.
The re-staking feedback loop. Protocols like EigenLayer amplify this by allowing the same capital to secure multiple services. This creates a dangerous interdependence where a failure in one app, like a faulty AVS, can cascade through the entire re-staking ecosystem, liquidating collateral across unrelated systems.
Evidence: Ethereum's validator set is already highly concentrated, with Lido and Coinbase controlling ~43% of staked ETH. Modular chains, by design, will replicate and exacerbate this model at the infrastructure layer, creating fewer, larger points of failure.
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
Security Provider Landscape: Market Share & Concentrated Risk
A comparison of security models for modular blockchains, highlighting the economic and technical forces that concentrate validation power into a handful of providers.
| Security Metric / Feature | Ethereum (Monolithic) | Celestia (Data Availability) | EigenLayer (Restaking) | AltLayer (Restaked Rollups) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Active Validator / Operator Count | ~1,000,000 | ~200 | ~200 (Actively Validated Services) | ~200 (Restaked Rollup Sequencers) |
Top 5 Providers' Share of Staked Value | ~30% (Lido, Coinbase, etc.) | ~60% (Figment, Chorus One, etc.) |
|
|
Minimum Viable Stake (Economic Barrier) | 32 ETH (~$100k) | 1 TIA (~$10) | Dynamic, but high for top-tier AVS | Dynamic, delegated from EigenLayer |
Slashing Enforcement Mechanism | On-chain, protocol-native | Data withholding proofs (future) | Off-chain, multi-sig governed | Off-chain, multi-sig governed |
Provider Client Diversity | High (5+ major clients) | Low (Primarily Golang implementation) | N/A (Smart contracts on Ethereum) | N/A (Relies on EigenLayer & underlying L1) |
Time-to-Withdraw Stake (Liquidity Lock) | ~5-7 days | 21 days | 7 days + AVS withdrawal period | Rollup finality + EigenLayer period |
Cross-Domain Security Correlation | Low (Confined to Ethereum) | High (All rollups using Celestia) | Extremely High (All AVSs share operator set) | Extremely High (Inherits EigenLayer centralization) |
counter-argument
THE NETWORK EFFECT TRAP
Counterpoint: Can Interoperability & Alt-L1s Prevent This?
Cross-chain bridges and alternative L1s reinforce, rather than disrupt, the centralization of security providers.
Interoperability depends on trusted hubs. Protocols like Across, LayerZero, and Wormhole rely on external validator sets or committees for attestations. These systems aggregate security into a handful of professional node operators, creating the same centralization vector as modular rollup sequencers.
Alt-L1s are not economic substitutes. A vibrant ecosystem on Sui or Avalanche does not reduce the demand for Ethereum's block space or the capital requirements for its staking pools. They compete for users, not for the role of universal security layer.
Liquidity follows security. Capital concentrates on the chain perceived as most secure and composable. This creates a winner-take-most dynamic where Ethereum L2s and their associated service providers capture disproportionate value, marginalizing smaller chains.
Evidence: Over 90% of TVL in modular ecosystems is secured by Ethereum. The top three bridge validator sets control majority voting power, mirroring the centralization in Lido and EigenLayer operator sets.
risk-analysis
THE MODULAR TRAP
The New Attack Surface: Systemic Risks of Concentrated Security
Modular blockchains delegate core functions to specialized providers, creating a new layer of systemic risk where security becomes a centralized commodity.
01
The Sequencer Cartel
Rollups outsource block production to a single sequencer (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism). This creates a single point of failure and censorship. The economic model incentivizes centralization, as running a competitive sequencer requires staking the network's native token, creating a high barrier to entry.
- Single Point of Failure: One operator controls transaction ordering and MEV.
- Censorship Vector: A malicious or coerced sequencer can blacklist addresses.
- Barrier to Entry: Staking requirements and lack of permissionless participation.
>99%
Sequencer Control
$2B+
Stake Required
02
The Data Availability Monopoly
Rollups rely on external Data Availability (DA) layers like Celestia, EigenDA, or Ethereum. A dominant provider becomes a systemic lynchpin. If it fails or censors, hundreds of rollups lose the ability to reconstruct their state and prove fraud.
- Systemic Lynchpin: A single DA failure cascades across all dependent chains.
- Cost Centralization: DA costs are a primary expense, giving the cheapest provider (e.g., Celestia) massive pricing power.
- Verification Collapse: Without available data, fraud proofs are impossible.
100s
Dependent Chains
-90%
DA Cost vs ETH
03
The Shared Prover Oligopoly
Networks like EigenLayer and Espresso enable shared security and sequencing. While distributing trust, they create a new oligopoly of node operators. A super-majority slashing event or coordinated failure within this small set could invalidate security for dozens of protocols simultaneously.
- Correlated Failure: A bug in shared middleware (e.g., a ZK prover) fails for all clients.
- Oligopoly Risk: Security condenses to a few large node operators (e.g., Figment, Chorus One).
- Cross-Chain Contagion: A slashing event on one AVS drains collateral backing others.
~10
Major Operators
$15B+
Restaked TVL
04
The Interoperability Hub Bottleneck
Cross-chain communication layers like LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole become critical infrastructure. A vulnerability in their light client or oracle network enables chain-spanning exploits. Their security models often rely on a permissioned set of validators, creating a high-value target for coercion or corruption.
- Chain-Spanning Exploit: A single bug can drain funds across all connected chains.
- Validator Cartel: Messaging security depends on ~20-50 known entities.
- Governance Capture: Tokenized governance of these hubs is a prime target.
50+
Chains Connected
$1B+
Bridge TVL at Risk
future-outlook
THE ECONOMICS
Future Outlook: The Era of Security-as-a-Service Oligopolies
Modular architectures will consolidate security provision into a small group of dominant, capital-intensive providers.
Security is a commodity that modular chains must outsource. The economic logic of shared security, like that provided by EigenLayer or Babylon, creates winner-take-most markets. Capital efficiency and network effects create insurmountable moats for early leaders.
Validators centralize, not applications. While rollup sequencers can remain permissionless, the underlying validator sets for restaking and data availability layers will consolidate. The cost to compete with established pools of staked ETH or Celestia's data availability network is prohibitive.
The oligopoly is already forming. EigenLayer has over $15B in restaked ETH, creating a de facto security standard. New chains like Monad or Berachain must choose between this established pool or an inferior, fragmented alternative, cementing the oligopoly's power.
takeaways
THE SECURITY TRAP
TL;DR: Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Modularity's promise of sovereignty is a mirage; security inevitably re-centralizes around the most capital-efficient providers.
01
The Shared Sequencer Oligopoly
Rollups outsource block production to shared sequencers like Astria or Espresso for liveness and MEV resistance. This creates a new centralization vector where ~3-5 providers could control ordering for thousands of chains. Sovereignty is traded for efficiency.
3-5
Major Providers
100ms
Finality Target
02
Data Availability as a Natural Monopoly
High fixed costs and network effects make DA layers like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail winner-take-most markets. Rollups consolidate here for the lowest $/byte. This centralizes the root of trust for $10B+ in bridged assets to a handful of committees.
$0.10/GB
Sample DA Cost
1-2s
Attestation Time
03
Interop Stacks Funnel to Hub-and-Spoke
Secure cross-rollup communication via layerzero, Axelar, or Hyperlane requires a validating network. Economic gravity pulls activity to the single interop hub with the most integrations and liquidity, creating a critical chokepoint for the modular ecosystem.
50+
Connected Chains
$1B+
Secured Value
04
Restaking Concentrates Economic Security
Projects like EigenLayer and Babylon allow ETH (or BTC) stakers to re-hypothecate stake to secure new networks. This funnels the security of hundreds of AVS back to the economic security of Ethereum's validator set, creating systemic risk and validator cartels.
$15B+
TVL in EigenLayer
100+
AVS Secured
05
The Sovereign Rollup Fallacy
A rollup controlling its own sequencer and DA is sovereign in name only. In practice, it must still bridge to Ethereum or Celestia for asset portability and security, making it a client of a larger ecosystem. True sovereignty requires its own validator set and liquidity, which is prohibitively expensive.
$200M+
Min. Security Budget
2+ Years
Bootstrapping Time
06
Investor Playbook: Bet on the Primitives
The modular thesis is a bet on infrastructure providers, not individual app-chains. Investment alpha accrues to the capital-efficient security primitives (DA, Shared Sequencing, Interop) that become critical plumbing. Avoid rollups that don't own a core primitive.
10x+
Primitive vs. App ROI
>60%
Market Share Target
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