The modular thesis is incomplete. It assumes monolithic chains like Ethereum and Solana cannot integrate ZK proofs without fracturing their architecture. This ignores their capacity for vertical integration, where execution, data availability, and settlement are optimized within a single, coherent state machine.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Why Monolithic Chains Are Catching Up on the ZK Curve
The modular thesis is being challenged as monolithic L1s like Polygon Avail and Celestia integrate ZK-proofs directly into their consensus layer, bypassing the overhead of the L2 stack and creating a new scaling paradigm.
introduction
THE ZK REALITY CHECK
Introduction
Monolithic chains are aggressively adopting ZK technology to reclaim sovereignty and performance, challenging the modular narrative.
ZK proofs are not inherently modular. Projects like Polygon zkEVM and zkSync Era demonstrate that a monolithic L2 can leverage ZK for security while maintaining a unified developer experience. The competition is now about which stack offers the lowest effective latency for finality, not just theoretical TPS.
The catalyst is proving cost collapse. With hardware acceleration from firms like Ulvetanna and proof systems like Plonky2, generating a ZK-SNARK for a monolithic block now costs under $0.01. This erodes the core economic argument for separating execution from settlement.
Evidence: Solana's zk-compression and Ethereum's EIP-4844 with proto-danksharding are monolithic chains co-opting modular innovations. They are catching up on the ZK curve by making it a feature, not a foundational constraint.
thesis-statement
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The Core Argument: The ZK Stack is the Real Innovation, Not the L2
The modular ZK Stack is the foundational breakthrough, while individual L2s are just its first, commoditized application.
The L2 is a commodity. The core value is the ZK Stack—a modular toolkit for building provable systems. This decouples the proving system from the execution environment, enabling specialized chains like zkSync's Hyperchains and Polygon CDK.
Monolithic chains are catching up. Ethereum's Pectra upgrade and Solana's zk-compression integrate ZKPs directly. This erodes the L2's primary technical moat, turning execution layers into a competitive, low-margin market.
The stack controls the future. Ownership of the proving stack, like RISC Zero's zkVM or Polygon's Plonky2, dictates the standard. The winning L2 will be the one that best commercializes its underlying ZK infrastructure.
key-trends
FROM LAGGARDS TO LEADERS
Key Trends: How Monoliths Are Adopting ZK
Monolithic chains are no longer ceding the ZK narrative to modular stacks, deploying zero-knowledge proofs to solve core scaling and security bottlenecks.
01
The Problem: State Growth Chokes Node Operators
Monolithic chains like Ethereum and Solana face exponential state bloat, pushing hardware requirements beyond consumer-grade hardware and centralizing node operation.\n- Solution: ZK-based state expiry or stateless clients compress historical data into a single proof.\n- Benefit: Nodes sync from a ~1 MB proof instead of terabytes of history, preserving decentralization.
>1 TB
Current State
~1 MB
ZK Proof
02
The Solution: ZK-Rollups as a Native Scaling Primitive
Instead of outsourcing scaling to external L2s, monoliths are baking ZK-rollup logic directly into their execution clients (e.g., Neon EVM on Solana, zkSync Era on Ethereum).\n- Benefit: Native integration enables single-state composability and shared liquidity.\n- Result: Apps inherit L1 security while achieving ~2,000+ TPS and ~$0.01 fees.
2,000+
TPS
$0.01
Avg Fee
03
The Catalyst: Privacy-Enabled Compliance
Regulatory pressure for transaction transparency (e.g., Travel Rule) forces chains to explore privacy that is auditable by design.\n- Mechanism: ZK-proofs (like zk-SNARKs) validate transaction compliance without revealing underlying data.\n- Entities: Projects like Manta Network and Aztec pioneer this, but L1s like Monad are exploring native integration.
Auditable
Privacy
0 Exposed
Raw Data
04
The Architecture: Parallel Execution + ZK Proof Batching
High-throughput monoliths (e.g., Solana, Monad, Sei) use parallel execution but face costly state validation.\n- Innovation: Generate a single ZK validity proof for a batch of parallel transactions.\n- Impact: Reduces the trust assumption for RPC providers and enables light clients to verify entire blocks in ~100ms.
~100ms
Verification
1 Proof
Per Block
05
The Economic Shift: Proving as a Core Revenue Stream
Block space is a finite resource. Monoliths are monetizing their security by becoming a proof settlement layer.\n- Model: L1 validators run provers, earning fees for verifying ZK-rollups from other chains (e.g., Ethereum settling proofs from Polygon zkEVM).\n- Future: This positions monoliths as the trusted root for a multi-chain ZK ecosystem.
New Fee
Revenue Stream
Trust Root
Market Position
06
The Endgame: ZK-Finality for Cross-Chain Security
Replacing social consensus (long reorg periods) with cryptographic finality using ZK proofs.\n- Example: Near's Nightshade sharding uses ZK proofs for instant cross-shard finality.\n- Vision: Enables monoliths to securely lease security to other chains via ZK light client bridges, competing directly with LayerZero and Axelar.
Instant
Finality
Leased Security
Product
ZK PROVING INFRASTRUCTURE
Architectural Showdown: Monolithic ZK vs. Modular L2 Stack
A first-principles comparison of integrated vs. disaggregated approaches to building a zero-knowledge rollup, analyzing the core trade-offs in performance, cost, and control.
| Core Architectural Metric | Monolithic ZK Chain (e.g., zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM) | Modular L2 Stack (e.g., Eclipse, Movement, Lumi Finance) | Pure Settlement Layer (e.g., Celestia DA + Risc Zero) |
|---|---|---|---|
Proving Latency (Time to Finality) | 2-5 minutes | 10-20 minutes | 20+ minutes |
Prover Cost per Tx (Est. Mainnet) | $0.01 - $0.05 | $0.02 - $0.10 | $0.05 - $0.20 |
Sequencer & Prover Coupling | |||
Custom VM / Execution Environment | |||
Data Availability Source | Ethereum L1 | Celestia / Avail / EigenDA | Celestia / Avail / EigenDA |
Settlement & Fraud Proofs | Ethereum L1 (ZK Validity) | Ethereum L1 or Alt-L1 | Separate Settlement Chain (e.g., Ethereum) |
Time-to-Market for New Chain | 6-12 months | 1-3 months | 1-3 months |
Protocol Revenue Capture | Full Stack (Fees + MEV) | Execution Fees Only | None (Infra Provider) |
deep-dive
THE ZK RACE
Deep Dive: The Mechanics and Motivations
Monolithic L1s are aggressively integrating ZK proofs to solve scalability and privacy, challenging the modular thesis.
Monolithic chains are integrating ZK-VMs. Ethereum and Solana are building zkEVMs and zkSolana VMs, respectively, to execute and prove transactions on-chain. This creates a native validity layer without relying on external sequencers or shared security from a modular stack like Celestia.
The motivation is sovereignty and fee capture. A monolithic chain with a ZK-rollup retains all transaction fees and MEV. This contrasts with modular designs where value accrues to separate data availability and execution layers, a model championed by EigenDA and Avail.
ZK proofs compress state growth. For chains like Solana, historical state is the primary scaling bottleneck. A zkVM proof can attest to the correctness of state transitions, allowing nodes to prune old data without sacrificing security, similar to Mina Protocol's approach.
Evidence: Ethereum's roadmap is ZK-centric. The Verge upgrade will integrate Verkle trees and a native ZK-prover for state transitions. This evolution makes Ethereum a unified settlement and execution layer, directly competing with rollup-centric visions from Arbitrum and Optimism.
counter-argument
THE SPECIALIZATION EDGE
Counter-Argument: The Modular Bull Case Isn't Dead
Monolithic chains are improving, but modular architectures retain a decisive advantage in specialization and optionality.
Monolithic chains lack specialization optionality. A single stack forces trade-offs between execution, data availability, and consensus. Modular design enables best-in-class components, letting a rollup choose Celestia for cheap DA, EigenLayer for decentralized sequencing, and a custom prover.
ZK proofs are a feature, not an architecture. The ZK curve is flattening for everyone. Sui and Monad will integrate ZK, but this only addresses verification. It doesn't solve the core data availability bottleneck that modular chains bypass with validity proofs and alternative DA layers.
The market demands sovereignty. Teams building app-chains or high-throughput games need control over their stack and revenue. Monolithic L1s are a take-it-or-leave-it product. Rollup frameworks like Arbitrum Orbit and OP Stack offer a customizable, politically neutral execution layer.
Evidence: The ecosystem votes with capital. Over $20B is locked in rollups and L2s, with new chains like Eclipse and Movement choosing modular components. This capital allocation signals a preference for architectural flexibility over monolithic rigidity.
protocol-spotlight
MONOLITHIC ZK REVIVAL
Protocol Spotlight: Who's Building What
Modularity isn't the only path to scaling. These monolithic chains are integrating ZK proofs natively to compete on performance and developer experience.
01
Mina Protocol: The Lightweight Contender
The Problem: Blockchains grow infinitely, creating a heavy data burden for nodes.\nThe Solution: A constant-sized blockchain (~22KB) using recursive ZK-SNARKs. Every participant acts as a full node.\n- Key Benefit: Truly decentralized verification with minimal hardware.\n- Key Benefit: Native privacy apps (zkApps) built directly into the base layer.
22 KB
Chain Size
~6s
Proof Time
02
Canto: The DeFi-First Realignment
The Problem: High-throughput L1s still face MEV and fragmented liquidity.\nThe Solution: Integrating a ZK-powered Layer 2 (Canto zkEVM) while maintaining its monolithic L1 for settlement. This creates a cohesive, MEV-resistant environment.\n- Key Benefit: Unified liquidity and security across L1 and L2.\n- Key Benefit: Native resistance to arbitrage MEV via its Gas Subsidy and planned ZK-sequencing.
$150M+
TVL
0 Fee
Core Contracts
03
Monad: Parallelized EVM with ZK Future-Proofing
The Problem: EVM sequential processing caps throughput, even with optimistic techniques.\nThe Solution: A parallel execution monolithic EVM L1, designed from the start to use ZK proofs for state validity. This bypasses the fraud proof window of optimistic rollups.\n- Key Benefit: Targets 10,000+ TPS with 1-second block times.\n- Key Benefit: Seamless path to ZK validity proofs for instant, trustless bridging to other chains.
10k+
Target TPS
1s
Block Time
04
Berachain: Liquidity-Locked Proof-of-Liquidity
The Problem: Traditional consensus doesn't directly align security with DeFi activity.\nThe Solution: A monolithic EVM-compatible L1 using Proof-of-Liquidity, where validators stake native LP positions. It uses ZK proofs for privacy and efficient cross-chain communication via its Layer 1.5 concept.\n- Key Benefit: Security is intrinsically tied to protocol liquidity and fees.\n- Key Benefit: ZK tech enables private transactions and efficient light client bridges to Ethereum and Cosmos.
$500M+
Ecosystem Fund
PoL
Consensus
future-outlook
THE CATCH-UP
The Monolithic ZK Renaissance
Monolithic chains are closing the ZK innovation gap by adopting specialized co-processors and leveraging their superior state access.
Monolithic chains are not obsolete. The modular thesis argued specialization would outpace them, but monolithic architectures like Solana and Sui now integrate ZK co-processors (e.g., Solana's zkLogin, Sui's zkLogin). This allows them to adopt cryptographic primitives without a full-stack redesign.
Superior state access is the monolithic advantage. A ZK co-processor on a monolithic chain accesses the entire global state atomically. This enables complex, stateful proofs that are impossible for a modular ZK rollup which must bridge state from a separate DA layer.
The performance baseline is higher. A monolithic chain's single-threaded execution provides a deterministic performance floor. This simplifies ZK proving by eliminating cross-domain synchronization overhead, a major bottleneck for modular systems like Celestia-based rollups.
Evidence: Sui's zkLogin processed over 1.5 million sessions in its first month, demonstrating demand for native ZK features without leaving the monolithic environment. This contrasts with the fragmented user experience of bridging to an app-specific ZK rollup.
takeaways
THE MONOLITHIC COMEBACK
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The modular thesis has dominated scaling discourse, but integrated L1s are leveraging their architectural unity to close the ZK performance gap and offer a compelling alternative.
01
The Problem: The Modular ZK Latency Tax
Separating execution, settlement, and data availability creates inherent latency and overhead for ZK proofs. Proving across modular components is like running a relay race with handoffs.\n- Cross-Domain Latency: Finality requires sequential proofs and messaging between layers, adding ~10-20 seconds.\n- Coordination Overhead: Builders must manage security assumptions of multiple, potentially misaligned, networks.
10-20s
Added Latency
High
Dev Complexity
02
The Solution: Monolithic Co-Design (See: Monad, Sei V2)
A unified architecture allows for deep, vertical integration of the execution environment, state access patterns, and proof generation. The entire stack is optimized as a single system.\n- Native Parallelism: State access is predictable, enabling parallel execution and proving without cross-shard coordination.\n- Tightly Coupled DA: On-chain data availability eliminates the need for separate DA layer consensus, slashing finality time.
~1s
Target Finality
10k+
TPS (Theoretical)
03
The Trade-Off: Sovereignty vs. Performance
Monolithic chains offer superior single-chain performance but sacrifice the sovereign flexibility of modular rollups. This is a fundamental architectural choice, not just an engineering challenge.\n- Performance Ceiling: Integrated design pushes the limits of a single chain's throughput and latency.\n- Ecosystem Lock-in: Applications are confined to the chain's virtual machine and governance, unlike rollups which can fork or migrate.
High
Raw Performance
Low
Sovereignty
04
The Investor Lens: Betting on Execution Moats
The investment thesis shifts from modular interoperability premiums to monolithic execution superiority. Value accrual is concentrated in the base layer's ability to host high-frequency, low-latency applications.\n- App-Specific Advantage: Monolithic chains will dominate verticals like perps DEXs (Hyperliquid, dYdX) and on-chain gaming where latency is critical.\n- Fee Market Capture: High throughput with low fees creates a powerful attractor for volume, driving sustainable revenue.
$10B+
Perps DEX Volume
<$0.001
Target Tx Cost
05
The Builder's Playbook: When to Choose Monolithic
Not every app needs a modular stack. Choose a monolithic chain when your application's core value proposition is gated by synchronous composability and ultra-low latency.\n- Priority #1: Applications requiring sub-second finality and dense, atomic transactions.\n- Priority #2: Complex state interactions that benefit from parallel execution (e.g., batch auctions, on-chain order books).
Sub-Second
Use Case Finality
Atomic
Composability
06
The Endgame: Hybrid Architectures Will Win
The dichotomy is false. The winning stacks will be monolithic cores with modular outposts. Expect chains like Solana and Aptos to integrate ZK coprocessors (e.g., zkLogin) and validiums, blending strengths.\n- Core: High-performance monolithic execution for hot state.\n- Outpost: Modular ZK proofs for trust-minimized bridging and privacy to Ethereum or other ecosystems.
Hybrid
Dominant Model
ZK Coprocessors
Key Integration
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