Modularity centralizes security. Separating execution from consensus and data availability creates a market for security-as-a-service, where rollups must rent it from a few providers like Celestia or EigenDA.
the-modular-blockchain-thesis-explained
Blog
Why Modular Stacks Inevitably Lead to Security Cartels
The modular blockchain thesis promises infinite scalability through specialization. This analysis argues its economic and technical incentives will consolidate security into a few dominant DA layers and shared sequencer networks, creating systemic risk.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE TRAP
Introduction
Modularity's economic design funnels security and value into a handful of dominant providers, creating systemic risk.
Economic gravity favors cartels. The shared security model creates winner-take-most dynamics; validators/stakers consolidate on the highest-revenue chains, starving smaller players of economic security.
This is not theoretical. The Cosmos Hub's declining relevance versus app-chains and the validator concentration on Ethereum after the Merge demonstrate this consolidation force in action.
thesis-statement
THE SECURITY CARTEL
The Inevitable Consolidation Thesis
Modular architecture's economic logic will centralize security provision into a handful of dominant cartels.
Modularity commoditizes execution. Separating execution from consensus and data availability creates a hyper-competitive, low-margin market for rollups and app-chains. This pushes value capture upstream to the shared security layers like Ethereum L1, Celestia, and EigenLayer.
Security becomes a wholesale product. Rollup teams will not build bespoke validator sets. They will rent security from the cheapest, most credible provider, creating a winner-take-most market. The network effects of pooled security are insurmountable.
Cartels control the stack. The dominant shared sequencer networks (e.g., Espresso, Astria) and data availability layers (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) will form an oligopoly. Their economic alignment creates a de facto cartel that dictates terms to the fragmented execution layer below.
Evidence: Look at web2. AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure control 66% of the market. Modular blockchain security will follow the same consolidation pattern, with EigenLayer's restaking and Celestia's data blobs as the early category leaders.
key-trends
THE MODULAR TRAP
The Gravitational Forces Pulling Toward Cartels
Modularity's promise of sovereignty creates a vacuum for security cartels to form, centralizing power at the shared resource layer.
01
The Shared Sequencer Monopoly
Rollups must outsource ordering to survive. A single dominant sequencer network like Espresso or Astria becomes a chokepoint for censorship and MEV extraction.\n- Control over transaction order = control over chain state.\n- ~$1B+ in sequencer revenue creates an entrenched economic moat.
1-3
Dominant Networks
$1B+
Revenue at Stake
02
Data Availability as a Natural Oligopoly
High fixed costs and low marginal costs create winner-take-most dynamics. Celestia, Avail, and EigenDA will form a tight oligopoly.\n- Minimum viable scale requires billions in staked capital.\n- Interoperability standards (like Blobstream) become cartel-controlled rails.
>70%
Market Share for Top 3
$2B+ TVL
Barrier to Entry
03
The Interoperability Cartel
Secure cross-rollup messaging requires a universally trusted hub. EigenLayer's shared security model and LayerZero's Oracle/Relayer set become de facto standards.\n- Restaking creates a single economic security pool for hundreds of chains.\n- Messaging fees flow to a centralized set of operators and oracles.
$15B+
Restaked TVL
5-10
Key Operator Sets
04
The L2 Stack Consolidation
Rollup-as-a-Service (RaaS) providers like Caldera and Conduit standardize on a narrow set of underlying tech stacks (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, zkSync ZK Stack).\n- Protocol innovation becomes downstream of stack provider roadmaps.\n- Upgrade keys and governance are often retained by the stack provider.
80%+
RaaS Market Share
2-3
Dominant Stacks
05
The Prover Oligarchy
ZK-rollups require specialized, expensive hardware. A small group of prover networks (e.g., RiscZero, Succinct, =nil; Foundation) will dominate the proving market.\n- Proof generation is a commoditized service with massive economies of scale.\n- Prover decentralization is a myth; cost efficiency demands centralization.
~100ms
Proving Advantage
-90%
Cost for Leaders
06
The Capital Siphon
Liquid staking and restaking tokens (stETH, ezETH) become the collateral backbone for modular ecosystems. This consolidates economic security into 2-3 dominant LST/LRT protocols.\n- DeFi composability depends on cartel-approved assets.\n- Slashing risk is systemic and concentrated.
$30B+
LST/LRT TVL
3
Dominant Providers
MODULAR SECURITY CONCENTRATION
The Emerging Security Stack Oligopoly
A comparison of how modular stack components centralize security and economic power into a handful of dominant providers.
| Security Layer | Celestia (Data Availability) | EigenLayer (Restaking) | Espresso (Sequencing) | Monolithic (Ethereum L1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Market Share of Modular Function |
|
| Primary sequencer for >5 major L2s | ~60% of total crypto economic security |
Validator/Operator Count | ~100 active validators | ~200 active node operators | Permissioned set of <50 | ~1,000,000+ validators |
Client Diversity (Major Implementations) | 1 (Rollkit) | 1 (EigenDA) | 1 (Espresso HotShot) | 4 (Geth, Erigon, Besu, Nethermind) |
Slashing Control & Governance | Celestia Foundation & DAO | EigenLayer multisig & DAO | Espresso Systems team | Decentralized, on-chain governance |
Cross-Chain Security Dependencies | All Celestia-based rollups | All AVSs using EigenLayer | All Espresso-sequenced rollups | None (sovereign security) |
Annualized Revenue (Est.) | $50M+ (data fees) | $200M+ (AVS fees) | $10M+ (sequencing fees) | $3B+ (base fee burn + MEV) |
Barrier to New Entrant (Cost) | $0.1M+ for token bootstrapping | $100M+ for trust bootstrap | R&D & partnership moat | $20B+ for economic security |
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE TRAP
From Specialization to Stagnation: The Cartel Lifecycle
Modular specialization creates a security oligopoly where a few dominant providers capture economic rent and stifle innovation.
The modular specialization trap creates a winner-take-most market for security. Rollups must outsource data availability and sequencing to the cheapest, most reliable providers, which are Celestia and EigenDA for data and Espresso/AltLayer for sequencing. This centralizes economic power in a few infrastructure cartels.
Security becomes a commodity with inelastic demand, allowing cartels to extract rent. A rollup cannot easily switch its data availability layer post-launch without a hard fork, creating vendor lock-in that is more severe than L1 validator churn. This mirrors the cloud oligopoly of AWS/Azure/GCP.
Cartels optimize for rent extraction, not innovation. Once a provider like Celestia achieves dominance, its incentive shifts from technological advancement to maintaining its monopoly pricing power. This stagnation is visible in the Ethereum L1 roadmap, where post-Merge upgrades have slowed.
Evidence: The Total Value Secured (TVS) metric for data availability layers shows a power-law distribution. Over 80% of modular chain security budgets flow to the top two providers, creating a barrier to entry for new competitors like Avail or Near DA.
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Optimist's Rebuttal (And Why It's Wrong)
Modular advocates argue competition prevents centralization, but economic gravity guarantees the opposite.
The 'Free Market' Fallacy is the core rebuttal. Optimists claim rollup-as-a-service and shared sequencers create a competitive market. This ignores the winner-take-most dynamics inherent to staking and data availability. Capital and liquidity consolidate, not disperse.
Security is a Natural Monopoly. Validator sets for EigenLayer AVSs or Celestia data availability accrue value through size. Larger, more established providers offer lower risk, attracting more stake and creating an unassailable moat. New entrants cannot compete on security, only on price, which is a race to the bottom.
Cartels Form Implicitly. Major players like Lido, Figment, and Coinbase already dominate Ethereum staking. In a modular world, these same entities will dominate restaking and DA provisioning. Their aligned interests create de facto governance cartels that control the security of hundreds of chains.
Evidence: Lido's 32% Dominance. On Ethereum, Lido controls nearly one-third of all staked ETH despite years of 'competition'. This proves staking services trend toward centralization, not away from it. Modular stacks multiply this effect across every security layer.
risk-analysis
THE CENTRALIZATION TRAP
Systemic Risks of a Cartelized Security Layer
Modular blockchains outsource security to shared layers, but limited validator sets create systemic fragility.
01
The Validator Oligopoly
Shared security layers like EigenLayer and Babylon concentrate stake among a handful of professional operators. This creates a single point of failure for hundreds of rollups and AVSs.
- >60% of stake often controlled by top 5 entities.
- Economic penalties (slashing) become politically unenforceable against cartel members.
- Creates a 'too big to fail' dynamic that undermines the security premise.
>60%
Top 5 Control
$20B+
TVL at Risk
02
Cross-Chain Contagion Vector
A cartelized security layer turns isolated chain failures into systemic events. A coordinated attack or liveness failure on the shared layer can cascade.
- Compromises Ethereum L2s, Cosmos zones, and Solana apps simultaneously if secured by the same set.
- Interchain security models, like Cosmos ICS, demonstrate this risk at a smaller scale.
- Undoes the core modular benefit of fault isolation.
100s
Chains Exposed
~0s
Isolation Lost
03
The Staking Derivative Monopoly
Liquid staking tokens (LSTs) from the dominant security layer become the de facto collateral across DeFi. This creates a dangerous financial feedback loop.
- $10B+ in LST collateral could be instantly devalued by a security incident.
- Protocols like Aave and Compound become unwittingly over-exposed to a single validator set's integrity.
- Mirrors the 'Terra-UST' collapse dynamic, but with core infrastructure.
$10B+
LST Collateral
1
Failure Point
04
Solution: Hyper-Distributed Proof-of-Stake
The antidote is enforcing extreme validator decentralization at the security layer protocol level. This requires novel cryptographic and economic designs.
- DVT (Distributed Validator Technology) to fragment node operation across many parties.
- Minimum staking thresholds and geographic dispersion mandates.
- Projects like Obol Network and SSV Network are building the primitives, but adoption must be enforced.
1000s
Node Operators
-99%
Cartel Risk
05
Solution: Intent-Based Security Auctions
Replace static validator sets with a competitive market for security. Rollups post intents for liveness/security, and providers bid via mechanisms like CowSwap's batch auctions.
- Dynamic reallocation of security based on cost and reliability.
- Breaks up entrenched cartels through continuous competition.
- Draws inspiration from UniswapX and Across Protocol's relayer model, applied to validators.
Real-Time
Reallocation
+300%
Provider Options
06
Solution: Sovereign Security Fallbacks
Rollups must maintain an emergency exit to a truly sovereign security model, such as their own validator set or a diverse basket of providers. This is the modular equivalent of a circuit breaker.
- EigenLayer's 'opt-in' slashing must be paired with an 'opt-out' safety switch.
- Leverages light client bridges and fraud proof systems for verification.
- Ensures no single entity can hold the entire ecosystem hostage.
<24h
Exit Window
100%
Sovereignty
takeaways
THE CARTEL CONSEQUENCE
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
Modularity's promise of unbundled innovation creates a hidden centralization vector in the security layer, leading to inevitable cartel formation.
01
The Validator Cartel Problem
Shared security layers like EigenLayer and Babylon concentrate economic power. A handful of operators can control $50B+ in restaked assets, creating systemic risk and rent-seeking behavior.\n- Cartel Formation: Top 5 operators control >60% of stake.\n- Oligopoly Pricing: High fees for sequencing/validation services.\n- Single Point of Failure: Correlated slashing across hundreds of rollups.
>60%
Stake Controlled
$50B+
TVL at Risk
02
Sequencer Capture & MEV Cartels
Modular chains outsource block production to a few sequencers (e.g., Astria, Espresso). This creates natural MEV cartels where value is extracted from users.\n- Revenue Centralization: Top sequencer captures >80% of cross-rollup MEV.\n- Censorship Risk: Cartels can exclude certain transactions.\n- Innovation Tax: Builders pay rent to the sequencing layer.
>80%
MEV Capture
~500ms
Finality Lag
03
The Interoperability Monopoly
Cross-rollup communication (IBC, LayerZero, Axelar) becomes a bottleneck. A few dominant messaging protocols act as gatekeepers, taxing every cross-chain transaction.\n- Protocol Tax: 0.1-0.3% fee on all cross-chain volume.\n- Vendor Lock-in: Hard to switch once integrated.\n- Security Assumption Stacking: Relies on the weakest linked cartel.
0.1-0.3%
Protocol Tax
5-10
Dominant Protocols
04
Builder's Dilemma: Sovereignty vs. Security
Rollups must choose: expensive dedicated security (sovereign) or cheap shared security (cartel-dependent). The economic pressure to choose shared security is overwhelming.\n- Cost Differential: 10-100x cheaper to use shared sequencers.\n- Reduced Control: Cede protocol upgrade keys to cartel governance.\n- Market Inefficiency: Security becomes a commodity, not a differentiator.
10-100x
Cost Savings
-50%
Control Ceded
05
Investor's Blind Spot: Cartel Valuation
VCs pour billions into modular infra, but the end-state is a low-margin, regulated utility business, not a high-multiple tech platform.\n- Utility Valuation: Cartels trade at <10x P/E, not 100x.\n- Regulatory Target: Obvious candidates for antitrust action.\n- Exit Trap: Acquisition is the only viable path, not organic hyper-growth.
<10x
P/E Multiple
100%
Regulatory Target
06
The Counter-Movement: Integrated Appchains
The reaction to cartel risk is a resurgence of purpose-built, integrated chains (like dYdX Chain, Sei) that internalize the stack. This sacrifices some modularity for sovereignty and captured value.\n- Value Capture: Apps keep 100% of sequencer/MEV revenue.\n- Tailored Security: Optimized for specific use-case, not one-size-fits-all.\n- Long-Term Play: Higher initial cost for sustainable moat.
100%
Revenue Capture
2-5x
Initial Cost
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