Monolithic blockchains like Solana and BNB Chain excel at providing a tightly integrated, high-performance environment. By bundling execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement into a single layer, they achieve impressive throughput—Solana's theoretical peak is 65,000 TPS—and low, predictable fees for users. This simplicity is ideal for applications like high-frequency DeFi (e.g., Jupiter DEX) or consumer-facing NFTs that demand a seamless, low-latency experience without cross-chain complexity.
LABS
Comparisons
L1 Monoliths vs Modular Chains: Pricing
A technical analysis comparing the cost structures, gas fees, and total ownership economics of monolithic Layer 1s like Ethereum and Solana versus modular stacks like Celestia, EigenDA, and Arbitrum Orbit.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The True Cost of Blockchain Architecture
Choosing between monolithic and modular blockchain architectures is a fundamental decision that dictates your application's performance, cost, and future scalability.
Modular chains, exemplified by Celestia for data availability, EigenDA, and rollup frameworks like Arbitrum Orbit or OP Stack, take a different approach by decoupling core functions. This specialization allows each layer to optimize independently, theoretically offering unbounded scalability and lower costs for developers through data availability sampling and shared security. However, this introduces the trade-off of increased system complexity, fragmented liquidity, and the operational overhead of managing multiple protocol dependencies and bridging.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer simplicity, unified liquidity, and ultra-low latency for end-users, a monolithic L1 is the pragmatic choice. If you prioritize long-term scalability, maximal cost control over data, and the ability to customize your chain's virtual machine (e.g., with Arbitrum Stylus), a modular stack is the strategic bet. The true cost isn't just in gas fees; it's in engineering resources, ecosystem flexibility, and your protocol's architectural debt for the next five years.
tldr-summary
L1 Monoliths vs. Modular Chains
TL;DR: Key Cost Differentiators
A direct comparison of the fundamental cost structures and trade-offs between integrated and modular blockchain architectures.
01
L1 Monoliths: Predictable, All-In-One Costing
Single-layer fee model: You pay one fee (e.g., gas) for execution, data availability, and consensus. This simplifies budgeting and cost forecasting.
Examples: Ethereum ($0.50-$50 per tx), Solana ($0.00025 per tx), Avalanche (~$0.10 per tx). Costs are tied directly to native token price and network congestion.
Best for: Applications needing cost certainty within a single ecosystem and teams that want to avoid the operational overhead of managing multiple chain components.
02
L1 Monoliths: High Congestion Risk
Bottlenecked resources: When demand spikes for one resource (e.g., NFT minting), fees rise for all applications on the chain. There's no way to isolate cost.
Metric: Ethereum's base fee can swing from <10 gwei to >200 gwei during major mints or airdrops, increasing costs 20x+ for unrelated DeFi swaps.
Worst for: High-frequency, low-margin applications (e.g., perp DEXs, gaming micro-transactions) that cannot tolerate unpredictable, order-of-magnitude fee volatility.
03
Modular Chains: Optimized, à la Carte Spending
Unbundled cost control: You pay separately for execution (Rollup), data availability (Celestia, EigenDA, Ethereum), and settlement. This allows you to choose the most cost-effective provider for each function.
Example: An Arbitrum Nova rollup uses Ethereum for settlement but cheaper off-chain data availability (via Data Availability Committees), reducing fees by ~90% vs. Arbitrum One.
Best for: Applications requiring ultra-low, stable transaction fees (<$0.01) and teams willing to manage multi-vendor relationships to optimize unit economics.
04
Modular Chains: Integration & Liquidity Fragmentation Cost
Hidden integration overhead: Developing and maintaining bridges, cross-chain messaging (LayerZero, Axelar), and security for a custom stack adds significant engineering cost.
Liquidity Silos: Deploying your app on a new rollup means bootstrapping liquidity from zero, requiring expensive incentive programs and marketing.
Worst for: Startups with limited dev resources or applications whose value depends on deep, shared liquidity pools (e.g., major lending protocols, centralized limit order books).
L1 MONOLITHS VS. MODULAR CHAINS
Cost Structure Breakdown: Head-to-Head
Direct comparison of key cost and performance metrics for infrastructure selection.
| Metric | L1 Monoliths (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) | Modular Chains (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Transaction (Avg.) | $0.50 - $15.00+ | $0.001 - $0.05 |
Cost Determinism | ||
Data Availability Cost (per MB) | ~$1,200 (Ethereum calldata) | < $0.10 |
Execution & Settlement Layer | Integrated | Separated & Specialized |
Primary Cost Driver | Network Congestion (Gas) | Resource Consumption (Bytes/Compute) |
Development Language Flexibility | Limited (e.g., Solidity, Move) | Unrestricted (Any VM) |
pros-cons-a
L1 Monoliths vs Modular Chains: Pricing
Monolithic L1s: Cost Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating infrastructure costs.
01
Monolithic L1s: Predictable, All-In-One Costing
Single-Layer Simplicity: All execution, settlement, and data availability are bundled. This means you pay one predictable gas fee per transaction (e.g., ~$0.05-$2 on Ethereum L1, ~$0.001 on Solana). This matters for budget forecasting and avoiding multi-layer fee surprises.
Integrated Security Premium: The high cost of transactions directly funds the chain's unified security budget (e.g., Ethereum's ~$30B+ staked ETH). This is non-negotiable for protocols like Aave or Uniswap where the value secured justifies the expense.
02
Monolithic L1s: High Baseline for Micro-Transactions
Fixed Overhead Cost: Every transaction, regardless of complexity, incurs the base cost of global consensus. This creates a high floor (e.g., Ethereum's 21,000 gas base fee). This matters for high-throughput, low-value applications like gaming or micro-payments, where fees can easily exceed transaction value.
Congestion Tax: During peak demand, fees spike exponentially (e.g., Ethereum's >$200 gas during NFT mints). This is a major con for user-facing dApps seeking consistent, low-cost UX, forcing reliance on L2s.
03
Modular Chains: Optimized, Variable Cost Structure
Cost Specialization: Decouple execution (Rollups), settlement (L1s/Celestia), and data availability (Celestia, EigenDA). This allows you to choose the cheapest component for each function (e.g., ~$0.0001 for DA on Celestia vs. Ethereum). This matters for high-data applications like social or gaming where posting data is the primary cost.
Throughput-Driven Economics: Fees are primarily for execution and data publishing, not global consensus. This enables sustained low fees (<$0.01) at scale, as seen with Arbitrum and Optimism, ideal for mass-market dApps.
04
Modular Chains: Complexity & Hidden Costs
Multi-Layer Fee Uncertainty: Users/protocols pay separate fees for execution, DA, and potentially bridging. Fee volatility can occur in any layer, complicating cost prediction. This is a con for enterprise deployments requiring strict SLA budgets.
Security/Trust Trade-offs: Lower data availability costs often come with weaker trust assumptions (e.g., validium mode) or reliance on new, less battle-tested networks like Celestia. This matters for DeFi protocols holding billions, where Ethereum's DA is still the gold standard despite higher cost.
pros-cons-b
L1 Monoliths vs Modular Chains: Pricing
Modular Chains: Cost Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. The core trade-off is between predictable, all-in-one pricing versus variable, specialized costs.
01
Monoliths: Predictable Cost Structure
Single-layer pricing: All fees (execution, data, consensus) are bundled into a single transaction fee. This simplifies budgeting and cost modeling for applications. For example, an Ethereum L1 transaction fee directly reflects the total cost of using the network, making it easy to forecast operational expenses.
02
Monoliths: High Baseline Costs
Inefficient resource pricing: Users and dApps pay for all three functions (execution, data availability, consensus) even when they don't need peak performance in each. During network congestion, fees spike across the board. For instance, a simple token transfer on Ethereum L1 during high demand incurs the same high data cost as a complex DeFi swap.
03
Modular Chains: Optimized, Variable Costs
Pay-for-what-you-use model: Costs are disaggregated. Execution layers (like Arbitrum, Optimism) can be optimized for cheap computation, while leveraging separate data availability layers (like Celestia, EigenDA) and shared consensus (like Ethereum). This allows a rollup to achieve sub-cent transaction fees by choosing a cost-effective DA layer.
04
Modular Chains: Complex Cost Management
Multi-vendor pricing complexity: Teams must model and monitor costs across execution, DA, and consensus providers. Prices can be volatile and interdependent; a surge in DA layer demand (e.g., Celestia blob space) directly impacts rollup costs. This requires sophisticated financial operations beyond simple gas estimation.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Cost Analysis by Use Case and Persona
L1 Monoliths for DeFi (e.g., Ethereum, Solana)
Verdict: The premium choice for high-value, complex applications. Strengths:
- Security & Composability: Unmatched security budget and deep liquidity pools (e.g., Uniswap, Aave) enable complex, high-value financial primitives.
- Predictable Costs: Gas fees are transparent, though volatile. For protocols like Compound or MakerDAO, security often outweighs cost. Cost Reality: Base-layer gas can be prohibitive for user onboarding, requiring careful L2 or sidechain strategy for scaling.
Modular Chains for DeFi (e.g., Arbitrum, Celestia + Rollup)
Verdict: The cost-effective scaling solution for volume-driven applications. Strengths:
- Low, Stable Fees: Execution layers like Arbitrum Nitro offer fees 10-100x lower than Ethereum L1, ideal for perpetual DEXs like GMX or high-frequency swaps.
- Specialized Data Layers: Using Celestia for data availability can reduce rollup operating costs by over 90% vs. posting to Ethereum. Trade-off: You inherit the security of the underlying settlement layer (e.g., Ethereum) but must manage a more complex, multi-component stack.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your architectural choice based on cost predictability, scalability, and control.
L1 Monoliths excel at predictable, all-in-one operational costs because their fee market is a single, transparent layer. For example, Ethereum's base fee and priority fee (EIP-1559) provide clear gas cost forecasting, while Solana's sub-$0.001 average transaction fee offers extreme cost efficiency for high-throughput applications. This monolithic pricing simplifies budgeting, as you aren't managing separate payments for execution, data availability, and consensus across different providers.
Modular Chains take a different approach by decoupling core functions, which results in variable, usage-based pricing and potential for optimization. A rollup like Arbitrum or Optimism pays for L1 data posting (its largest cost) and its own prover/sequencer operations. This creates a trade-off: you gain scalability and can potentially reduce costs by choosing a cheaper data availability layer like Celestia or EigenDA, but you introduce multi-variable cost complexity and reliance on external service providers.
The key trade-off: If your priority is cost predictability and operational simplicity for a known workload, choose an L1 Monolith. Its consolidated fee structure is easier to model. If you prioritize ultimate scalability and cost-optimization flexibility, willing to manage a more complex stack, choose a Modular Chain. You can tune components (e.g., using a validity proof system over fraud proofs, or selecting a cost-effective DA layer) to achieve better long-term marginal costs at scale.
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