Monolithic Data Availability (DA), as implemented by chains like Ethereum and Solana, bundles execution, consensus, settlement, and data availability into a single, vertically integrated layer. This excels at security and simplicity because the entire state is verified by a unified validator set, creating a strong trust boundary. For example, Ethereum's mainnet leverages its massive ~$50B staked ETH to secure its data, making it the gold standard for high-value, security-first applications like Lido or Uniswap.
LABS
Comparisons
Monolithic DA vs Modular DA
A technical comparison of integrated and specialized Data Availability layers, analyzing trade-offs in performance, cost, security, and developer experience for blockchain architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Divide
A foundational look at the two competing paradigms for scaling blockchain data availability.
Modular DA takes a different approach by decoupling data availability from execution. Projects like Celestia, EigenDA, and Avail operate as specialized layers that provide cheap, high-throughput data blobs for rollups like Arbitrum and Base. This results in a trade-off of sovereignty for scalability: rollups gain immense throughput (e.g., Celestia's target of >100 MB/s block space) and lower costs, but must rely on the security of a separate, often newer, DA layer's consensus.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, deep liquidity (TVL), and a proven ecosystem, a monolithic chain like Ethereum is the incumbent choice. If you prioritize ultra-low transaction fees, rapid iteration, and scalable throughput for a high-volume application, a modular stack leveraging a dedicated DA layer is the forward-looking path.
tldr-summary
Monolithic vs. Modular Data Availability
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of the core architectural trade-offs between integrated and specialized DA layers.
01
Monolithic DA: Integrated Simplicity
Single-stack sovereignty: Data availability is bundled with execution and consensus (e.g., Ethereum L1, Solana). This provides atomic composability and a unified security model. Ideal for general-purpose L1s prioritizing developer simplicity and maximal security.
02
Monolithic DA: The Scalability Ceiling
Throughput is inherently limited by the base layer's block size and speed. Ethereum's ~80 KB/s DA throughput creates a bottleneck for high-volume rollups. This forces trade-offs between decentralization, security, and scale, often leading to high L1 gas fees for data posting.
03
Modular DA: Specialized Scalability
Decoupled data layer (e.g., Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) designed solely for high-throughput data ordering and availability proofs. Enables 10,000+ TPS for rollups by separating concerns. Use case: High-throughput app-chains and rollups needing low, predictable data costs.
04
Modular DA: Composability & Security Fragmentation
Introduces bridging complexity between execution and DA layers, breaking atomic composability. Security is sourced separately (e.g., via restaking with EigenLayer or a dedicated validator set), which differs from Ethereum's battle-tested consensus. Adds operational overhead for cross-domain applications.
MONOLITHIC DA VS MODULAR DA
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of data availability architectures for blockchain scaling.
| Metric | Monolithic DA | Modular DA |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost per MB | $0.50 - $5.00 | < $0.01 |
Throughput (Data Bandwidth) | ~80 MB per block | Unlimited (Horizontally Scalable) |
Settlement & Execution Coupling | ||
EVM Compatibility | ||
Time to Data Finality | ~12-15 min | < 1 sec |
Primary Use Case | General-Purpose L1s (e.g., Ethereum) | High-Throughput Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) |
Key Protocols / Standards | Ethereum, Solana | Celestia, EigenDA, Avail |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
Monolithic vs Modular Data Availability
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and architectural trade-offs for blockchain data availability layers.
| Metric | Monolithic DA (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet) | Modular DA (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) |
|---|---|---|
Data Throughput (MB/s) | ~0.06 MB/s |
|
Cost per 100 KB Blob (Approx.) | $1.00 - $10.00 | < $0.01 |
Time to Data Availability | ~12 min (Ethereum slot) | < 1 sec |
Scalability Model | Vertical (Layer 1 upgrade) | Horizontal (Add more nodes) |
Native Consensus & Execution | ||
Direct Settlement Guarantees | ||
Supports Light Nodes for Verification |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL TRADE-OFFS
Monolithic DA: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and weaknesses of Monolithic vs. Modular Data Availability at a glance. Use this to match your protocol's requirements to the right infrastructure.
01
Monolithic DA: Cohesive Performance
Unified execution and data layer: Tight integration (e.g., Ethereum's L1, Solana) provides deterministic finality and low latency between consensus and data posting. This matters for high-frequency DeFi where settlement and data availability must be atomic to prevent front-running.
02
Monolithic DA: Strong Security Inheritance
Security is the base layer's security: Data availability is secured by the same validators and economic stake securing consensus (e.g., Ethereum's ~$40B+ staked ETH). This matters for high-value, trust-minimized bridges and sovereign chains that cannot compromise on liveness guarantees.
03
Modular DA: Scalability & Cost Efficiency
Specialized, high-throughput data layers: Dedicated networks like Celestia (100 MB/s blockspace) and EigenDA (10-100 MB/s) decouple data from execution, offering ~$0.001 per MB data posting costs. This matters for high-throughput L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism) and modular app-chains needing predictable, low-cost data.
04
Modular DA: Flexibility & Sovereignty
Choice of security models: Developers can choose between economic security (Celestia), restaked security (EigenDA via EigenLayer), or validium proofs (zkPorter). This matters for niche app-chains and gaming rollups that need to optimize for specific throughput, cost, and trust assumptions.
05
Monolithic DA: Complexity & Cost
Limited, expensive blockspace: On Ethereum, DA competes with execution for ~15-20 MB/minute, leading to high and volatile calldata costs (>$1,000 per MB during peaks). This matters for scaling startups and high-volume dApps where cost predictability is critical for unit economics.
06
Modular DA: Security & Ecosystem Fragmentation
New security and trust assumptions: Modular DA layers have smaller, independent validator sets (e.g., Celestia's ~$2B market cap vs. Ethereum's ~$400B). This matters for institutional DeFi and cross-chain protocols where the strongest possible liveness guarantees are non-negotiable.
pros-cons-b
Monolithic vs. Modular Data Availability
Modular DA: Pros and Cons
A direct comparison of integrated and specialized data availability layers, highlighting key trade-offs for protocol architects.
01
Monolithic DA: Pros
Integrated Security & Simplicity: Data availability is secured by the same validators as execution (e.g., Ethereum L1, Solana). This eliminates cross-layer trust assumptions, simplifying security modeling and reducing integration complexity for developers.
02
Monolithic DA: Cons
Cost & Throughput Bottleneck: DA capacity is limited by the base layer's consensus. On Ethereum, this leads to high blob costs (~$0.01-$0.10 per blob) and constrained TPS for rollups, directly impacting user transaction fees.
03
Modular DA: Pros
Scalability & Cost Efficiency: Dedicated DA layers like Celestia, Avail, and EigenDA offer orders-of-magnitude higher throughput (e.g., Celestia's ~100 MB blocks) and lower costs (< $0.001 per MB), enabling high-throughput, low-fee L2s and rollups.
04
Modular DA: Cons
Added Complexity & New Trust Assumptions: Introduces a separate security layer. Rollups must trust or verify the modular DA network's consensus and data availability proofs (e.g., Data Availability Sampling), increasing protocol and client complexity.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Decision Framework
Monolithic DA for DeFi
Verdict: The default for established, high-value protocols. Strengths: Unmatched security and composability. Ethereum's monolithic data availability (via calldata) provides the strongest settlement and censorship-resistance guarantees, crucial for protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and MakerDAO. This model ensures all data is globally verifiable, minimizing trust assumptions for cross-protocol interactions and oracle integrations. Key Metric: TVL exceeding $50B on Ethereum L1 alone.
Modular DA for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for high-throughput, low-cost applications and L2 scaling. Strengths: Radically lower transaction fees (often <$0.01) enable micro-transactions and novel financial primitives. Solutions like Celestia, Avail, and EigenDA allow L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync to post data cheaply, passing savings to users. This is optimal for perps DEXs (e.g., dYdX v4 on Cosmos) and high-frequency trading. Trade-off: Slightly higher latency for full data availability proofs vs. Ethereum's immediate guarantee.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between monolithic and modular data availability is a foundational architectural decision with long-term implications for scalability, sovereignty, and cost.
Monolithic DA excels at providing a tightly integrated, high-performance environment because data availability is natively bundled with execution and consensus. For example, networks like Solana and BNB Chain achieve high throughput (e.g., 2k-50k+ TPS) with low, predictable fees by optimizing all layers in concert. This model offers a turnkey solution with a single security model, reducing integration complexity and providing a mature ecosystem of tools like Solana's solana-web3.js and BNB's comprehensive SDKs for rapid deployment.
Modular DA takes a different approach by decoupling data availability from execution, creating a specialized layer like Celestia, Avail, or EigenDA. This results in a trade-off: it introduces integration overhead but unlocks unprecedented scalability and sovereignty. Rollups using Celestia, for instance, can post data for under $0.01 per MB, drastically reducing L2 operating costs compared to monolithic L1s. This modularity allows projects to mix-and-match components, choosing their own execution environment (e.g., Arbitrum Nitro, OP Stack) while leveraging a shared, cost-optimized DA layer.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum performance, simplicity, and leveraging an existing ecosystem for a traditional dApp, choose a Monolithic chain. If you prioritize long-term scalability, minimal data costs, and the sovereignty to define your own chain's rules, a Modular stack with a dedicated DA layer is the strategic choice. The decision ultimately hinges on whether you value integrated optimization or modular flexibility for your protocol's future.
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