Rollup-Centric vs Monolithic L1s

Full control over the stack: Execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement are unified. This eliminates bridging risk and sequencer centralization concerns. This matters for protocols requiring maximum security guarantees and sovereignty, like high-value DeFi (e.g., Aave, Uniswap) or foundational infrastructure.

Atomic transactions across all applications: Smart contracts on the same chain (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) can interact seamlessly in a single transaction. This matters for complex DeFi money legos and NFT ecosystems where arbitrage, liquidations, and multi-step trades (e.g., on-chain order books like Serum) require guaranteed synchronous execution.

Exponential throughput at lower cost: By batching transactions and posting compressed data to a parent chain (e.g., Ethereum), rollups like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync achieve 2,000-40,000+ TPS with fees often < $0.01. This matters for mass-market dApps, gaming, and social platforms where user experience depends on low latency and negligible cost.

Leverage Ethereum's security for settlement while experimenting with execution. Rollups inherit the cryptoeconomic security of their parent chain's validators. This matters for teams who want Ethereum-level security without its gas fees, and the flexibility to use different VMs (EVM, SVM, WASM) for optimal performance, as seen with Arbitrum Stylus or zkSync's LLVM compiler.

• Maximum Security & Simplicity: Your protocol's threat model cannot tolerate any additional trust assumptions (bridges, sequencers).
• Ultra-Fast, Atomic Composability: Your application logic requires synchronous calls across many contracts (e.g., a complex DEX aggregator).
• Examples: Foundational DeFi protocols (MakerDAO, Lido), high-frequency trading platforms.

• Scalability & Low-Cost UX: You are building a consumer dApp where onboarding millions of users depends on sub-cent fees.
• EVM+ Innovation: You need Ethereum compatibility but want to experiment with faster VMs or new primitives.
• Examples: Hyper-scalable DeFi (GMX, Aave V3 on Polygon zkEVM), Web3 games (Illuvium), and social graphs.

Vertical scaling via data availability layers: Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) post data to specialized layers like Celestia or EigenDA, reducing L1 gas costs by 10-100x. This matters for high-frequency dApps like perpetual DEXs (dYdX v4) or social apps where sub-cent fees are critical.

Full-stack flexibility: Teams can choose their own virtual machine (EVM, SVM, Move), sequencer, and prover (e.g., Risc Zero). This matters for protocols needing bespoke execution, like gaming chains using the MUD framework or privacy-focused apps with Aztec's zk-rollup.

Multi-layer coordination burden: Developers must manage bridges (Across, LayerZero), oracles (Pyth, Chainlink), and indexers across execution, settlement, and data layers. This matters for teams with limited DevOps resources, as it increases time-to-market versus monolithic platforms like Solana or Sui.

Capital silos across rollups: TVL and liquidity are split between networks, requiring constant bridging. Native yield aggregators like EigenLayer help but add complexity. This matters for DeFi protocols requiring deep, unified liquidity pools, a strength of monolithic chains like Ethereum L1 or BNB Chain.

Battle-tested base layer security: Monolithic L1s like Ethereum and Solana provide a unified security model and composability within a single state. This matters for flagship DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) and institutions where minimizing smart contract risk is paramount.

Single-state environment: All dApps interact within one synchronous environment, enabling complex, atomic transactions across protocols. This matters for high-composability DeFi lego (e.g., flash loans) and consumer apps where seamless UX is non-negotiable.

Unified execution layer: All transactions are processed and settled on a single chain (e.g., Solana, Sui, Aptos). This eliminates cross-chain communication latency, enabling sub-second finality and high throughput (e.g., Solana's 50k+ TPS theoretical peak). This matters for high-frequency DeFi, real-time gaming, and CEX-like DEXs where user experience is paramount.

Self-contained security model: The chain's validators secure the entire state and execution. There's no dependency on an external data availability (DA) layer or bridge security. This matters for protocols requiring maximum liveness guarantees and predictable, singular failure modes, avoiding risks from modular stack dependencies like Celestia or EigenDA.

Horizontal scaling via execution sharding: Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) batch transactions, leveraging Ethereum's security while operating at lower cost and higher speed. This enables exponential TPS growth (e.g., Starknet's potential for 100k+ TPS) without congesting the base layer. This matters for mass adoption, micro-transactions, and social/gaming apps where cost is the primary barrier.

Inherited security and liquidity: Rollups settle on Ethereum, tapping into its $50B+ DeFi TVL and robust tooling (MetaMask, Etherscan). Native bridges and shared DA enable seamless composability across the L2 ecosystem (e.g., using Uniswap on Arbitrum and Aave on Optimism). This matters for protocols that prioritize deep liquidity, established user bases, and interoperability over raw throughput.

Cons: Must bootstrap a new validator set, liquidity, and tooling from scratch. Facing "ghost chain" risk if adoption lags. Native VM limitations (e.g., Solana's Rust, Move on Aptos/Sui) can create a steeper learning curve versus the EVM-dominated rollup ecosystem.

Cons: Introduces trust assumptions in sequencers, provers, and data availability layers. Users face bridging delays and fees. Cross-rollup composability is still nascent, creating liquidity silos. The "multi-rollup future" can lead to a fragmented user experience compared to a single-state monolithic chain.