Celestia excels at providing a specialized, high-throughput data availability layer for modular blockchains. By decoupling execution from consensus and data availability, it allows rollups like Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism, and Polygon CDK to post data cheaply and scale independently. Its focus on pure DA results in a highly optimized network; for example, its current mainnet capacity is designed to scale to 40 MB per block, enabling massive data throughput for a multitude of parallel chains.
LABS
Comparisons
Celestia vs Near DA: Modular DA Pioneer vs. Monolithic L1's DA Service
A technical analysis comparing the dedicated modular DA network Celestia with NEAR Protocol's integrated DA service, focusing on architecture, cost, security, and optimal use cases for rollups and AVS.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The DA Layer Battle - Dedicated vs. Integrated
A foundational comparison of Celestia's modular data availability layer versus NEAR's integrated DA service, highlighting the core architectural trade-offs.
NEAR DA takes a different approach by leveraging the existing infrastructure of a high-performance monolithic L1. It repurposes NEAR's sharded, high-TPS blockchain (capable of 100,000+ TPS) as a secure data availability service for external chains like Polygon zkEVM and Starknet. This integrated strategy results in a trade-off: it offers battle-tested security and instant finality from a $3B+ TVL ecosystem, but its roadmap and economics are tied to the broader NEAR protocol's evolution.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty, minimal trust, and a purpose-built environment for modular stacks, choose Celestia. If you prioritize leveraging an established, high-throughput L1 with proven security and a unified developer ecosystem, choose NEAR DA. The decision hinges on whether you value a dedicated, specialized tool or an integrated, multi-purpose platform for your data availability needs.
tldr-summary
Celestia vs. NEAR DA
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for the modular DA pioneer versus the monolithic L1's data availability service.
01
Celestia: Modular Architecture Pioneer
Pure-play Data Availability (DA): Celestia is purpose-built only for DA, offering a minimal, decoupled layer. This creates a neutral foundation for any execution environment (EVM, SVM, Move). It matters for teams building sovereign rollups or app-chains who need maximum flexibility and don't want to be tied to a specific L1's ecosystem.
~$0.0015
Avg. DA Cost per MB
02
Celestia: Cost Leader for High-Throughput
Blobspace pricing model: Costs scale with data size, not computation. This enables extremely low, predictable fees for data-heavy chains like gaming or social networks. It matters for protocols expecting high transaction volumes where L1 gas fees for DA would be prohibitive.
> 100x
Cheaper than Ethereum DA
03
NEAR DA: High-Performance Monolithic Integration
Tight L1 Integration: Data is posted to and secured by the high-throughput NEAR blockchain. This offers single-stack simplicity with fast finality (~2 sec) and access to NEAR's ecosystem tools (Aurora, BOS). It matters for projects already building on or willing to commit to the NEAR stack for ease of development.
~2 sec
Data Finality
04
NEAR DA: Ethereum-Centric Bridge
Ethereum as Security Root: Data blobs are provably stored on NEAR, with validity proofs relayed to Ethereum L1. This provides Ethereum-level security guarantees for rollups (like StarkNet, Polygon CDK) while leveraging NEAR's low costs. It matters for Ethereum-aligned rollups seeking cheaper DA without a major security compromise.
~$0.0033
Avg. DA Cost per MB
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Celestia vs Near DA: Modular DA Pioneer vs. Monolithic L1's DA Service
Direct comparison of data availability solutions for modular and monolithic blockchain architectures.
| Metric | Celestia | Near DA |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost (per MB) | $0.003 | $0.0001 |
Data Blob Size Limit | 8 MB | 128 KB |
Architecture | Modular DA Layer | Monolithic L1 with DA Service |
Consensus & Execution | ||
Native Integration with Rollups | ||
Mainnet Launch | 2023 | 2023 |
Data Sampling (Data Availability Proofs) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Celestia vs Near DA: Modular Pioneer vs. Monolithic L1's DA Service
Key strengths and trade-offs for Data Availability (DA) solutions at a glance. Compare the modular blockchain pioneer against the integrated service from a high-performance L1.
01
Celestia's Pro: Pure Modularity & Cost
Specialized Data Availability Layer: Celestia is purpose-built only for ordering and guaranteeing data, enabling true modular stack flexibility (e.g., Rollups using Celestia + Ethereum for settlement). This specialization drives down costs: ~$0.10 per MB of data posted, significantly cheaper than monolithic L1s for high-throughput chains.
This matters for new L2/L3 rollups (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack) and sovereign chains seeking minimal base-layer fees.
$0.10/MB
Approx. DA Cost
02
Celestia's Con: Nascent Ecosystem & Tooling
Early-Stage Integration Complexity: As the first modular DA network, its tooling (like the Optimint rollup framework) is less battle-tested than monolithic alternatives. Developers must manage a multi-component stack (DA, execution, settlement).
This matters for teams prioritizing time-to-market and proven infrastructure over architectural purity, or those who prefer the integrated developer experience of a full L1.
03
Near DA's Pro: Integrated Performance & Familiarity
High-Throughput Monolithic Base: Near Protocol offers DA as a service from its sharded, 100k+ TPS-capable L1. Developers get a single, coherent environment with mature tooling (Aurora EVM, JS SDKs). Data is secured by the full value of the $3.5B+ NEAR ecosystem.
This matters for projects already building on or familiar with Near, or those needing a high-performance, all-in-one chain with simple integration.
100k+
Theoretical TPS
04
Near DA's Con: Vendor Lock-in & Higher Relative Cost
Monolithic Coupling: Using Near DA ties your rollup's data availability and security to a single L1 ecosystem. While cheaper than posting data to Ethereum mainnet, it is generally more expensive than Celestia's specialized model. You cannot decouple DA from Near's execution and consensus layers.
This matters for architects designing for maximum modular flexibility or chains that anticipate needing to switch DA providers for cost or strategic reasons.
pros-cons-b
Celestia vs Near DA
Near DA: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. Celestia is the modular DA pioneer, while NEAR DA is a data availability service built on a monolithic L1.
01
Celestia: Modular Pioneer
First-mover advantage: The first production-grade modular DA layer, with a proven track record securing rollups like Arbitrum Orbit and Manta Pacific. This matters for teams prioritizing battle-tested infrastructure and a large existing ecosystem of integrations (e.g., Rollkit, Eclipse, AltLayer).
02
Celestia: Cost Efficiency
Optimized for data blobs: Dedicated architecture using Data Availability Sampling (DAS) and Namespaced Merkle Trees (NMTs) enables sub-cent fees for high-throughput rollups. This matters for high-frequency applications (e.g., gaming, social) where posting cost is a primary constraint.
03
NEAR DA: High Throughput Base Layer
Leverages monolithic performance: Built on the NEAR L1, which handles ~100K TPS via sharding. This provides a high-throughput, synchronous data pipeline for rollups. This matters for applications that may need to interact with NEAR's execution layer or require its robust validator set.
04
NEAR DA: Integrated Ecosystem
Seamless NEAR tooling: Native integration with the NEAR ecosystem (Aurora, Sender Wallet, BOS) and a unified developer experience. This matters for projects already building on NEAR or those seeking a cohesive stack for both execution and data availability.
05
Celestia: Neutrality & Specialization
Execution-layer agnostic: As a pure DA layer, it doesn't compete with the rollups it secures. This neutrality is critical for sovereign chains and app-chains that want to avoid platform risk. This matters for maximizing sovereignty and flexibility.
06
NEAR DA: Potential Vendor Lock-in
Tied to NEAR's roadmap: As a service of the NEAR L1, its roadmap, performance, and economics are coupled with the parent chain. This matters for teams concerned with long-term dependency on a single ecosystem's governance and technical direction.
MODULAR DA VS. MONOLITHIC DA
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Security
This section dissects the core architectural philosophies and security models of Celestia, the pioneer of modular data availability, and NEAR DA, a data availability service built atop a monolithic L1. We analyze the trade-offs in decentralization, cost, and integration for rollup developers.
Celestia is a modular data availability (DA) layer, while NEAR DA is a service on a monolithic L1. Celestia is purpose-built only for ordering transactions and guaranteeing data availability for rollups, separating execution and consensus. NEAR DA leverages the existing, full-stack NEAR blockchain (with its own execution and consensus) to provide DA as a scalable service, using NEAR's sharding architecture (Nightshade) to post data blobs.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Celestia for Rollup Builders
Verdict: The default choice for sovereign, custom execution environments. Strengths: Celestia is purpose-built as a modular data availability (DA) layer. It provides the cheapest, most scalable raw data posting for rollups like Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Stack, and Polygon CDK chains. Its architecture separates consensus and execution, allowing you to choose any VM (EVM, SVM, Move). Ideal for teams needing maximum sovereignty and control over their chain's upgrade path and economics. Key Metric: ~$0.15 per MB of data posted (vs. ~$1,200 on Ethereum mainnet). Consider: You must manage your own sequencer, prover, and settlement layer.
NEAR DA for Rollup Builders
Verdict: A powerful, integrated alternative with superior developer experience. Strengths: NEAR DA leverages NEAR Protocol's monolithic, sharded architecture to offer high-throughput data posting with fast finality (~2 sec). It's integrated with the NEAR ecosystem, offering a smoother path if you use Aurora (EVM) or plan to leverage NEAR's account abstraction and tooling. Better for teams that want a "batteries-included" L1 experience with strong DA guarantees. Key Metric: ~$0.01 per MB of data posted, with finality orders of magnitude faster than Ethereum. Consider: More tightly coupled with the NEAR ecosystem compared to Celestia's agnosticism.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A direct comparison of the strategic trade-offs between Celestia's modular data availability layer and NEAR's integrated DA service.
Celestia excels at providing a specialized, cost-efficient data availability (DA) layer for sovereign rollups and modular chains. Its architecture separates execution from consensus and DA, enabling projects like Arbitrum Orbit, Eclipse, and Dymension to launch their own chains with minimal overhead. For example, Celestia's data availability sampling (DAS) allows light nodes to verify data availability without downloading the entire chain, a key innovation for scalability. Its current pricing, often cited at fractions of a cent per MB, makes it a compelling choice for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications.
NEAR DA takes a different approach by leveraging the established security and high throughput of the monolithic NEAR L1. This results in a robust, production-ready service that benefits from NEAR's existing validator set, ~100k TPS capacity for DA, and seamless integration with the NEAR ecosystem through tools like the NEAR JS SDK and Aurora. The trade-off is a tighter coupling with the NEAR stack, but for projects already building on or comfortable with NEAR's technology, it offers a simpler, unified development experience and immediate access to a mature DeFi and user base.
The key architectural divergence is foundational: Celestia champions a modular future where chains are sovereign, while NEAR offers a powerful, integrated DA service from a battle-tested L1. Celestia's model fosters maximum flexibility and chain-level innovation, whereas NEAR's provides a turnkey solution with strong network effects.
The final trade-off: If your priority is minimal cost, maximal sovereignty for a new L2 or appchain, and alignment with the modular ecosystem (using Rollkit, Optimism Stack, etc.), choose Celestia. If you prioritize leveraging an existing high-performance L1, simpler integration for NEAR-native projects, and a proven operational track record, choose NEAR DA.
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