All-in-One L1s vs Modular L1s: Flexibility

Monolithic L1s (e.g., Solana, BNB Chain, Sui) excel at delivering a tightly integrated, high-performance environment because they optimize all layers—execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement—into a single, cohesive stack. For example, Solana achieves ~5,000 TPS with sub-$0.001 fees by leveraging its monolithic design for low-latency communication between components, enabling rapid development of applications like the DePIN network Helium and the DEX Jupiter.

Modular L1s (e.g., Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) take a different approach by decoupling the core functions of a blockchain. They specialize in providing robust data availability and consensus as a base layer, allowing rollups like Arbitrum Orbit or OP Stack chains to handle execution. This results in a trade-off: unparalleled sovereignty and customization for developers, but increased complexity in coordinating a multi-component system and potentially higher initial setup costs.

The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity and minimizing infrastructure complexity for a high-throughput application, choose a monolithic L1. If you prioritize long-term sovereignty, customizability (e.g., your own fee token or governance), and leveraging the most secure data availability layer, choose a modular stack built on Celestia or Avail.

All-in-One L1s (e.g., Solana, BNB Chain) excel at delivering a tightly integrated, high-performance environment because they optimize all layers—execution, consensus, data availability—in a single, cohesive stack. For example, Solana's monolithic design enables a theoretical peak of 65,000 TPS with sub-second finality, offering a seamless developer experience akin to building on a single, powerful computer. This integration minimizes cross-layer latency and complexity for applications that benefit from raw speed and a unified state.

Modular L1s (e.g., Celestia, Avail) and rollup-centric chains (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism on Ethereum) take a different approach by decoupling core functions. This results in a trade-off: you sacrifice some inherent performance cohesion for unparalleled sovereignty and specialization. A rollup can choose Celestia for high-throughput, low-cost data availability (~$0.01 per MB) and a custom execution environment like Arbitrum Nitro or OP Stack, allowing it to tailor its virtual machine and fee market independently of a base layer's constraints.

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing throughput and finality for a globally synchronous application (e.g., a central limit order book DEX, high-frequency game), choose a battle-tested monolithic chain. If you prioritize sovereignty, the ability to innovate on execution (e.g., using a novel VM), or need to guarantee ultra-low, predictable data availability costs, choose a modular stack. Your decision ultimately hinges on whether you value optimized performance out-of-the-box or strategic flexibility to define your own stack.