Monolithic L1s (e.g., Solana, BNB Chain) excel at delivering a tightly integrated, high-performance environment because all core functions—execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement—are bundled into a single, optimized layer. For example, Solana achieves 2,000-3,000 TPS with sub-$0.001 fees by leveraging this vertical integration and a single global state. This offers developers a predictable, all-in-one environment with deep liquidity and established tooling like Solana's Anchor framework.
LABS
Comparisons
Single-Stack L1s vs Modular L1s: Reconfiguration
An architectural comparison of how monolithic and modular blockchains handle upgrades, forks, and state changes. Analyzes trade-offs in speed, cost, security, and flexibility for protocol developers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Trade-off
The fundamental choice between monolithic and modular architectures defines your protocol's flexibility, performance, and long-term roadmap.
Modular L1s (e.g., Celestia, Avail) take a different approach by decoupling these core functions into specialized layers. This strategy results in a trade-off: it introduces initial complexity and composability challenges between layers but enables unparalleled reconfiguration. A rollup on Celestia can swap out its execution environment (e.g., from an EVM rollup to a CosmWasm rollup) or its settlement layer without forking the underlying data availability and consensus layer.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing performance and developer simplicity within a fixed, battle-tested paradigm, choose a monolithic L1. If you prioritize long-term sovereignty, the ability to adopt future innovations (like new VMs or prover systems), and minimizing protocol ossification, a modular stack is the decisive choice. The decision hinges on valuing optimized stability versus adaptable evolution.
tldr-summary
Single-Stack vs. Modular L1s
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of architectural trade-offs for reconfiguration and upgrades.
01
Single-Stack: Cohesive Optimization
Unified execution and consensus: Tightly integrated layers (e.g., Solana's Sealevel, Avalanche's Snowman++) enable extreme performance. This matters for high-frequency DeFi and consumer applications requiring sub-second finality and low fees (<$0.001).
~5,000 TPS
Solana Peak
< 1 sec
Avalanche Finality
02
Single-Stack: Simpler Security Model
Single validator set secures all functions: One economic bond (e.g., ETH staked on Ethereum, SOL staked on Solana) protects the entire chain. This matters for institutional adoption and high-value assets where security guarantees must be absolute and easily auditable.
$100B+
Ethereum TVL Secured
05
Single-Stack: Predictable Cost Structure
No inter-layer fee markets: Users pay one fee for a transaction. This matters for user experience and financial predictability, avoiding the variable gas costs of L2 proof submission or DA layer fees seen in modular stacks.
06
Modular: Ecosystem Composability
Shared security and liquidity: Rollups and validiums inherit Ethereum's security while enabling innovation. This matters for DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) that require deep, shared liquidity and trust-minimized cross-chain communication via bridges like Across.
50+
Active L2s on Ethereum
SINGLE-STACK L1s vs MODULAR L1s
Reconfiguration Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of reconfiguration capabilities for blockchain infrastructure decisions.
| Reconfiguration Metric | Single-Stack L1s (e.g., Solana, Ethereum) | Modular L1s (e.g., Celestia, EigenLayer) |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Layer Upgrade | ||
Consensus Layer Swap | ||
Execution Client Migration | Monolithic | Pluggable |
Settlement Layer Reconfiguration | Hard Fork Required | Permissionless Rollup Deployment |
Upgrade Governance | On-chain or Social | Modular Marketplace |
Time to Deploy New VM | Months (Protocol Upgrade) | Days (Rollup Launch) |
Validator Set Flexibility | Fixed | Dynamically Attachable |
pros-cons-a
Reconfiguration Trade-offs
Single-Stack L1s: Pros and Cons
Key architectural strengths and weaknesses for protocol upgrades and adaptation.
01
Single-Stack: Cohesive Upgrades
Unified Governance: Protocol changes (e.g., Ethereum's EIP-1559, Solana's QUIC update) are executed across the entire stack simultaneously. This ensures consistency and avoids integration hell between separate layers. Critical for applications requiring atomic feature rollouts.
02
Single-Stack: Predictable Performance
Tightly Coupled Optimization: The execution, consensus, and data availability layers are co-designed (e.g., Solana's Sealevel runtime with its Turbine propagation). This allows for deep vertical optimization, leading to high, predictable throughput (e.g., 2k-50k TPS) without cross-layer bottlenecks.
03
Single-Stack: Inflexible Foundation
Monolithic Hard Fork: Upgrading core components (e.g., changing a VM or consensus algorithm) requires a coordinated hard fork of the entire network. This is politically difficult (Ethereum's transition to PoS took years) and limits rapid experimentation with new cryptographic primitives.
04
Modular: Sovereign Rollups & Customization
Swap-Out Components: Projects can reconfigure a single layer without forking the base chain. A rollup on a DA layer like Celestia or EigenLayer can change its VM (from EVM to SVM/Cairo) or sequencer with minimal disruption. Ideal for protocols needing bespoke execution environments.
05
Modular: Specialized Innovation
Independent Layer Evolution: Execution layers (Arbitrum, zkSync), settlement (Ethereum, Canto), and DA (Celestia, Avail) can innovate at their own pace. This fosters rapid iteration (e.g., new ZK-proof systems) and allows apps to choose best-in-class components for their needs.
06
Modular: Integration Complexity
Cross-Layer Coordination Risk: Upgrades require compatibility across independent teams and codebases. A rollup upgrade may need to sync with its DA layer's hard fork schedule, creating coordination overhead and potential for delayed features or security vulnerabilities at the integration seams.
pros-cons-b
Single-Stack vs Modular Architecture
Modular L1s: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs of monolithic and modular blockchain designs for protocol architects planning multi-year infrastructure.
01
Single-Stack L1s: Peak Performance
Optimized for raw throughput: Tight integration of execution, consensus, and data availability (DA) on one chain minimizes latency. This matters for high-frequency DeFi (e.g., dYdX v3 on StarkEx) and consumer apps needing sub-second finality.
~50k TPS
Solana Peak
< 1 sec
Avalanche Finality
02
Single-Stack L1s: Simplified Security
Unified security model: A single validator set secures the entire stack, reducing cross-layer trust assumptions. This matters for protocols like Uniswap V3 that require strong settlement guarantees and want to avoid complex bridge risks.
03
Modular L1s: Sovereign Scalability
Specialized layer optimization: Decoupling execution (Rollups), consensus (Celestia, EigenLayer), and DA allows each to scale independently. This matters for app-chains (dYdX v4 on Cosmos) needing custom VMs without forking a full L1.
$0.001
Avg. Arbitrum Tx Cost
100k+ TPS
Theoretical (Rollups)
04
Modular L1s: Future-Proof Flexibility
Easier tech stack upgrades: Can swap components (e.g., move from an OP Stack to a ZK Stack rollup) without a hard fork. This matters for long-term projects like Aevo (OP Stack) that may integrate new proof systems or DA layers like Avail.
05
Single-Stack L1s: Cons - Upgrade Rigidity
Monolithic hard forks: Protocol upgrades (e.g., Ethereum's Shanghai) require full-chain coordination, creating slower innovation cycles. This is a bottleneck for teams needing rapid feature deployment.
06
Modular L1s: Cons - Complexity & Fragmentation
Increased integration surface: Managing separate layers (Rollup sequencer, DA provider, bridge) introduces operational overhead and new trust vectors (e.g., sequencer censorship). This matters for teams with limited DevOps resources.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Architecture
Single-Stack L1s for DeFi
Verdict: The default for high-value, composable applications. Strengths: Deep liquidity (e.g., Ethereum's $50B+ TVL), battle-tested smart contract standards (ERC-20, ERC-4626), and robust security from a unified validator set. Composability between protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound is seamless and secure. Trade-offs: High and volatile transaction fees during congestion, and slower innovation cycles for core protocol upgrades.
Modular L1s for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for novel, high-throughput DeFi primitives where cost is critical. Strengths: Predictable, ultra-low fees via dedicated execution layers (e.g., rollups like Arbitrum, Optimism). Enables experimentation with new VM designs (EVM, SVM, Move) for better performance. Sovereign rollups (e.g., dYdX v4) offer maximal control over the stack. Trade-offs: Fragmented liquidity across multiple execution layers, and security is dependent on the underlying data availability layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between monolithic and modular architectures is a foundational decision that dictates your protocol's long-term adaptability and operational complexity.
Monolithic L1s like Solana and BNB Chain excel at delivering a tightly integrated, high-performance environment because all core functions (execution, consensus, data availability) are optimized in a single layer. For example, Solana's single-state machine achieves ~5,000 TPS with sub-$0.01 fees, offering a seamless developer experience akin to building on a traditional cloud database. This integrated stack minimizes cross-layer friction, providing predictable performance and a unified tooling ecosystem.
Modular L1s like Celestia or Avail take a different approach by decoupling the core functions into specialized layers. This results in a trade-off: you gain unparalleled flexibility and scalability for data availability (e.g., Celestia's 100+ MB/s data throughput for rollups) but inherit the operational complexity of managing or depending on multiple, potentially unstable, components like separate execution layers (Rollups) and settlement layers. The ecosystem is more fragmented, relying on standards like the OP Stack or Arbitrum Orbit.
The key trade-off is between integrated performance and sovereign flexibility. If your priority is time-to-market, predictable costs, and a battle-tested environment for a high-throughput dApp, choose a Monolithic L1. If you prioritize long-term scalability, customizability (e.g., your own app-chain), and the ability to swap out components as technology evolves, a Modular L1 foundation is the strategic choice, despite its steeper initial integration curve.
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