Monolithic chains like Ethereum and Solana excel at providing a unified, secure, and developer-familiar environment by bundling execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement into a single layer. This integration offers strong security guarantees and atomic composability, but at the cost of inherent scalability limits. For example, Ethereum's base layer throughput is capped at ~15-45 TPS, leading to high and volatile gas fees during network congestion, a direct trade-off for its decentralization and security.
LABS
Comparisons
Modular Chains vs Monolithic Chains
A technical analysis comparing the core architectural paradigms of blockchain design. We break down the trade-offs in scalability, sovereignty, and complexity to help infrastructure leaders make a data-driven choice.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Architectural Fork in the Road
A foundational comparison of the two dominant blockchain design paradigms, focusing on their core trade-offs and ideal use cases.
Modular chains take a different approach by decoupling these core functions into specialized layers. Protocols like Celestia (data availability), Arbitrum (execution), and EigenLayer (restaking security) allow each component to scale independently. This results in dramatically higher throughput and lower costs for end-users—Arbitrum One processes ~7,000 TPS at a fraction of Ethereum's fees—but introduces complexity in cross-layer communication and can fragment liquidity and composability across rollups.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, deep liquidity, and atomic composability for a DeFi or high-value application, choose a monolithic chain like Ethereum Mainnet. If you prioritize scalability, low-cost transactions, and the flexibility to customize your stack, a modular approach leveraging rollups on Ethereum or a dedicated app-chain via Cosmos or Polygon CDK is the superior choice.
tldr-summary
MODULAR VS MONOLITHIC CHAINS
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of architectural paradigms, highlighting key trade-offs in sovereignty, performance, and complexity.
01
Monolithic: Unmatched Composability
Integrated execution, settlement, and data availability on a single layer. This enables seamless, atomic interactions between applications like DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) and NFTs (Bored Ape Yacht Club) without cross-chain bridges. This matters for building complex, interdependent dApps where security and user experience are paramount.
~$60B
Ethereum TVL
Atomic
Cross-App Execution
02
Monolithic: Battle-Tested Security
Security is consolidated into a single, highly decentralized validator set (e.g., Ethereum's ~1M validators). This creates a robust, shared security model proven over years and securing hundreds of billions in value. This matters for protocols where capital preservation is non-negotiable, such as stablecoins (USDC, DAI) or institutional custody solutions.
~1M
Ethereum Validators
03
Modular: Sovereign Scalability
Specialize and scale each layer independently. Use a high-throughput data availability layer like Celestia or EigenDA, a fast execution environment like Arbitrum Nitro or Fuel, and settle on a secure chain like Ethereum. This matters for high-frequency applications like gaming (Pixels) or decentralized order books (dYdX v4) requiring 10,000+ TPS and sub-second finality.
10,000+
Potential TPS
< 2 sec
Optimistic Finality
05
Modular: Optimized Cost Structure
Drastically reduce transaction fees by separating data publishing from execution. Post compressed transaction data to a cost-effective DA layer, minimizing L1 gas costs. This matters for mass-adoption dApps and microtransactions, enabling sub-cent fees for actions like social media posts (Farcaster on Base) or in-game item transfers.
< $0.01
Typical Rollup Tx Cost
06
Modular: Development & Operational Overhead
Introduces complexity in sequencing, cross-rollup communication (via bridges like LayerZero, Axelar), and managing multiple software components. This matters for teams with smaller engineering budgets who may struggle with the DevOps burden of running a dedicated chain versus deploying a smart contract on an existing L1/L2.
MODULAR CHAINS VS MONOLITHIC CHAINS
Head-to-Head: Architectural Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of core architectural trade-offs for blockchain infrastructure decisions.
| Architectural Metric | Monolithic Chains (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) | Modular Chains (e.g., Celestia, EigenLayer, Arbitrum) |
|---|---|---|
Execution Layer Specialization | ||
Sovereign Data Availability | ||
Consensus & Settlement Layer | Bundled | Separated |
Developer Language Flexibility | Primarily EVM/Solidity | Multi-VM (EVM, SVM, Move) |
State Bloat Management | Protocol-Level | Rollup/User-Level |
Upgrade Path | Hard Forks | Independent Rollup Deployments |
Max Theoretical TPS | ~100k (Solana) | 100k+ per Rollup |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
Modular Chains: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating infrastructure foundations.
01
Modular: Specialization & Scalability
Decoupled execution, settlement, and data availability allows each layer to be optimized independently. This enables:
- High-throughput execution: Chains like Arbitrum Nitro and Optimism Bedrock achieve 40,000+ TPS in optimistic rollup configurations.
- Independent upgrades: Data availability layers (Celestia, Avail) can scale without forking the execution environment.
- Cost efficiency: Separating data posting (to Celestia at ~$0.0015 per MB) from execution reduces L2 transaction fees. This matters for high-frequency DeFi (dYdX, Uniswap) and gaming/social apps requiring low-cost, high-speed transactions.
40k+ TPS
Rollup Throughput
$0.0015/MB
DA Cost (Celestia)
03
Monolithic: Simplicity & Security
Unified layer (Ethereum, Solana, Sui) handles execution, settlement, and data in one vertically integrated stack. This provides:
- Stronger security guarantees: Full nodes validate all transactions, creating a single, cryptographically verified state (Ethereum's ~$110B staked).
- Simpler developer experience: No cross-layer coordination, bridging, or fragmented liquidity issues.
- Proven resilience: Ethereum mainnet has >99.9% uptime since 2015, with a massive validator set (1M+). This matters for high-value DeFi (MakerDAO, Lido) and institutional applications where security and network effects are paramount.
$110B+
Ethereum Secured
>99.9%
Historic Uptime
pros-cons-b
ARCHITECTURAL TRADEOFFS
Monolithic Chains: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of integrated (Monolithic) versus specialized (Modular) blockchain designs. Choose based on your protocol's core requirements.
01
Monolithic: Development Simplicity
Single-stack integration: Build everything (execution, consensus, data availability) in one codebase like Solana or Ethereum L1. This reduces cross-layer complexity and simplifies debugging. Ideal for rapid prototyping and teams prioritizing a unified tech stack.
1 Stack
Codebase Complexity
02
Monolithic: Optimized Performance
Tightly coupled components enable deep vertical optimization for raw throughput. Solana achieves 3,000-5,000 TPS by co-designing its VM, mempool, and consensus. This matters for high-frequency DeFi (e.g., Drift Protocol) or consumer applications requiring low-latency finality.
3k-5k TPS
Peak Throughput (Solana)
03
Modular: Sovereign Scalability
Specialized layers allow independent scaling. Use Celestia for cheap data availability (~$0.01 per MB), Arbitrum Nitro for execution, and Ethereum for consensus. This decouples cost from mainnet fees, crucial for high-volume, low-margin dApps like gaming or social feeds.
$0.01/MB
Data Cost (Celestia)
04
Modular: Ecosystem Flexibility
Mix-and-match components to tailor your chain. Choose an EVM execution environment (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit) with a different settlement layer. This enables custom governance and fee tokens, critical for app-chains (dYdX, Aevo) needing specific economic policies.
40+
Rollup Frameworks
05
Monolithic Con: Scaling Ceilings
Resource contention on a single layer creates hard limits. Ethereum L1 is capped at ~15-30 TPS, leading to $50+ gas fees during congestion. Scaling requires invasive hard forks, slowing innovation. A poor fit for mass-adoption applications requiring predictable, low costs.
06
Modular Con: Integration Overhead
Multi-layer coordination introduces complexity. Developers must manage bridges (Axelar, LayerZero), sequencers, and potential liveness failures across stacks. This increases time-to-market and audit surface, challenging for small teams without dedicated infrastructure engineers.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Architecture
Monolithic Chains for DeFi
Verdict: The established choice for security and composability. Strengths: Ethereum and Solana offer deep liquidity and a battle-tested ecosystem of protocols (Uniswap, Aave, Jupiter). High TVL ($50B+ on Ethereum L1) ensures economic security. Smart contract standards (ERC-20, ERC-4626) are mature and widely adopted. Trade-offs: On Ethereum L1, high gas fees can cripple user experience for small trades. Solana's monolithic performance is excellent but requires optimizing for its unique runtime.
Modular Chains for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for novel, high-frequency, or cost-sensitive applications. Strengths: Rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) and app-chains (dYdX Chain) offer Ethereum-level security with drastically lower fees and higher throughput. You can customize the execution environment (EVM, SVM, Cairo) and sequencer for your specific needs. Trade-offs: Liquidity can be fragmented across layers. Cross-chain messaging (like LayerZero, Axelar) adds complexity. Newer execution layers may have less audited tooling.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPARISON
Technical Deep Dive: Execution, Consensus, and Data Availability
A technical breakdown of the core architectural trade-offs between modular and monolithic blockchain designs, focusing on performance, cost, and security implications for protocol builders.
Yes, modular chains can achieve significantly higher throughput for specific applications. By decoupling execution from consensus and data availability (DA), modular chains like Celestia or Avail allow execution layers (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Superchain) to scale horizontally. A monolithic chain like Solana achieves high throughput (65,000 TPS) through a single, optimized stack, but modular designs enable thousands of parallel rollups, each potentially processing thousands of TPS, leading to greater aggregate capacity.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between modular and monolithic architectures is a foundational decision that dictates your protocol's future scalability, sovereignty, and cost structure.
Monolithic chains excel at providing a unified, battle-tested security and execution environment because they bundle consensus, execution, and data availability into a single, vertically integrated layer. For example, Solana achieves over 2,000 TPS for simple transfers by optimizing this integrated stack, while Ethereum's monolithic L1 security is the bedrock for its $50B+ DeFi TVL. This integration minimizes cross-layer trust assumptions, offering developers a simple, coherent environment for applications where atomic composability and maximal security are non-negotiable.
Modular chains take a different approach by decoupling core blockchain functions into specialized layers. This results in a fundamental trade-off: you gain unparalleled scalability and sovereignty but introduce complexity in cross-layer communication. Projects like Celestia (data availability), EigenLayer (restaking for security), and Arbitrum Nitro (execution) exemplify this specialization. A rollup using Celestia for data can reduce transaction fees by over 99% compared to posting data to Ethereum L1, but must actively manage its bridge and sequencer for security and liveness.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, deep liquidity, and atomic composability for a complex DeFi or NFT application, choose a monolithic chain like Ethereum, Solana, or a tightly integrated L2. If you prioritize sovereignty, hyper-scalability for a specific use case, or extreme cost reduction, and are prepared to manage infrastructure complexity, choose a modular stack (e.g., an OP Stack rollup on Celestia). For most teams, the decision hinges on whether the product-market fit demands the network effects of a monolithic giant or the tailored performance of a modular specialist.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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