Executive Summary
The persistent challenge of blockchain scalability, encapsulated by the “Blockchain Trilemma,” has catalyzed a fundamental shift away from traditional, “monolithic” architectures toward “modular” designs. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the competing philosophies and technologies defining this new era, comparing the Ethereum rollup ecosystem against the modular vision pioneered by Celestia and other layer-2 scaling frameworks.
The analysis finds that the industry is converging on rollups as the primary execution scaling solution, but diverges on the underlying infrastructure for security, settlement, and data availability (DA). Ethereum’s “rollup-centric roadmap” posits the L1 as an integrated, high-security hub, bundling settlement, consensus, and (via EIP-4844 and Danksharding) data availability. This model offers “Smart Contract Rollups” (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) deep, shared security and native composability.
In contrast, Celestia offers a “pluggable” modular stack, providing only consensus and DA. This enables “Sovereign Rollups,” which handle their own settlement. The core trade-off is clear: the Ethereum model provides superior shared security and interoperability, while the Celestia model provides complete sovereignty, customization, and political autonomy.
The mechanics of rollups themselves present a further trade-off. Optimistic Rollups, secured by “fraud proofs,” offer developer convenience but suffer from long withdrawal times. Zero-Knowledge (ZK) Rollups, secured by “validity proofs,” offer fast finality and superior security but are computationally intensive and complex to build. The long-term consensus points toward ZK-Rollups as the end-state technology.
Ultimately, this report concludes that the “real path” to scalability is not a single solution. It is a hybrid, application-specific future. The market is bifurcating into two primary models: (1) an integrated, high-security hub (Ethereum) for applications prioritizing shared liquidity and composability, and (2) a modular marketplace (Celestia, et al.) for applications prioritizing sovereignty, customization, and low cost. The next-generation challenge is no longer execution speed, but solving the ecosystem-wide “fragmented liquidity” and user-experience friction created by this new, multi-chain reality.
I. The Foundational Challenge: From the Trilemma to the Monolithic Bottleneck
A. Deconstructing the Blockchain Trilemma
The primary obstacle to blockchain adoption is the “Blockchain Trilemma,” a concept articulated by Vitalik Buterin.1 It posits that a decentralized network struggles to simultaneously achieve three critical properties: Decentralization, Security, and Scalability.1 In practice, optimizing one property often compromises at least one of the others.5
These three pillars are in direct conflict:
- Decentralization vs. Scalability: True decentralization requires the network to be verifiable by many participants, often with consumer-grade hardware. However, this slows down the network, as every node must process and verify every transaction, limiting transaction speed.1
- Scalability vs. Decentralization: Conversely, achieving high scalability (i.e., high transactions per second, or TPS) often involves using fewer, more powerful nodes. This increases transaction speed but concentrates network control, thus reducing decentralization.1
- Security vs. Scalability: Decentralization is a cornerstone of security; a network with more participants is harder for a malicious entity to attack or control.5 If achieving scalability introduces vulnerabilities or centralizes power, it can weaken the network’s overall security.1
For most of blockchain history, scalability has remained the “major challenge” for leading decentralized networks.2
B. The Monolithic Architecture and its Inherent Bottleneck
The Blockchain Trilemma is not an immutable law of physics but rather a practical constraint imposed by a specific design: the monolithic blockchain. In a monolithic architecture (e.g., Bitcoin, pre-rollup Ethereum, Solana), a single layer is responsible for handling all four core functions of the network 6:
- Execution: Processing transactions and smart contract state changes.
- Settlement: Providing a secure destination for transactions and resolving disputes.
- Consensus: Ordering transactions and agreeing on the state of the chain.
- Data Availability (DA): Ensuring all transaction data is published and accessible for verification.
This “all-in-one” design creates the monolithic bottleneck. Because every node in the network must perform all four functions, the network’s total capacity is limited by the capacity of its individual nodes.6 To increase network throughput (scalability), every node must become more powerful. This leads directly to higher hardware requirements 6, which in turn prices out smaller validators, forcing centralization.9
This practical outcome is the trilemma in action. The industry’s broad pivot away from the “ETH Killer” narrative—which largely consisted of monolithic chains compromising on decentralization for speed 6—and toward a modular approach, including Ethereum’s own “rollup-centric roadmap” 12, signifies a collective admission that the monolithic paradigm is an evolutionary dead end for achieving decentralized scale.
II. The Great Unbundling: The Rise of the Modular Stack
A. Defining the Four Layers
The solution to the monolithic bottleneck is “unbundling”.9 A modular blockchain architecture separates the core functions into specialized, interchangeable layers.7 This “separation of concerns” allows each component to be optimized and scaled independently.6 The four disaggregated functions are:
- Execution Layer: This is where applications live and transactions are executed. It processes user operations and computes new state transitions. Rollups are a primary example of a modular execution layer.8
- Settlement Layer: This layer acts as a “transaction destination”.10 It provides a hub for execution layers to post their state roots, verify proofs, and resolve disputes. It is the ultimate arbiter of a rollup’s state.16
- Consensus Layer: This layer is responsible for transaction “authenticity” 10 and, most critically, ordering.18 It provides the canonical timeline for transactions, which the execution layer then processes.
- Data Availability (DA) Layer: This layer acts as “public storage”.10 It guarantees that the raw transaction data from the execution layer has been published and is accessible for any network participant to download and verify.18
B. The Modular Thesis
The modular thesis is that this specialization leads to “order-of-magnitude scalability gains”.6 By offloading tasks to specialized layers, the system avoids the “all-in-one” bottleneck and enables horizontal scaling.6 Instead of trying to make one chain infinitely faster (vertical scaling), a modular system allows thousands of execution layers (rollups) to operate in parallel, all sharing the security and data guarantees of common, underlying DA and consensus layers.19
This “modular stack” is an abstract framework, not a single product. The primary conflict in the current market is between two competing philosophies on how to bundle these layers. Ethereum is retrofitting modularity by bundling L1 as a Settlement + Consensus + DA Layer.8 Celestia, by contrast, offers a stack that bundles only Consensus + DA.7 This architectural difference—specifically, the location of the settlement layer—is the central source of the trade-offs explored in this report.
III. A Comparative Analysis of L2-Spectrum Scaling Frameworks
The term “Layer 2” (L2) is often used as a marketing catch-all. Technically, the critical distinction lies in the solution’s security model: does it re-create its own security, or does it inherit security from Layer 1?
A. The Independent Security Model: Sidechains
A sidechain is an independent, parallel blockchain. It connects to a main chain (like Ethereum) via a two-way bridge but runs its own consensus mechanism, such as Proof-of-Stake (PoS) or Proof-of-Authority (PoA).23
The key feature of a sidechain is that it does not inherit L1 security.25 It is responsible for its own security, which is entirely dependent on the honesty and decentralization of its own validator set.25 The canonical example is the Polygon PoS chain, which operates as a separate PoS sidechain.25
This independent model carries significant risks:
- Validator Centralization: To achieve high speeds and low fees, sidechains often rely on a small, permissioned validator set. This “lessens the diversity of parties” and increases the risk of validator collusion or censorship.26
- Bridge Vulnerabilities: The bridge connecting the sidechain to the L1 is a complex smart contract and a prime target for exploits.30
- L1 Dependency: A halt or major state revert on the L1 (e.g., Ethereum) can destabilize the sidechain’s ability to manage its validator set, which is often anchored to the L1.29
B. The Inherited Security Model: Rollups
Rollups are considered “true” L2 solutions because they directly inherit the full security of their parent Layer 1.25
They achieve this by executing transactions off-chain but posting all transaction data (or a cryptographic proof of the transactions) back to the L1 mainnet.27 The L1 serves as the indestructible data availability and settlement layer, guaranteeing that the rollup’s state is valid and that any participant can independently reconstruct it and exit the system.34 A sidechain offers no such guarantee; it is a separate, trusted security zone.27
The industry is clearly converging on the rollup model as the only acceptable L2 scaling solution that does not compromise L1 security. The most potent evidence for this is Polygon’s own strategic evolution. The project, famed for its PoS sidechain 25, is now aggressively building and promoting its zkEVM rollup.25 This pivot from an independent security model to an inherited one is a market-leading signal that the security trade-offs of sidechains are considered unacceptable for high-value ecosystems in the long term.
IV. Deep Dive: The Mechanics of Modern Rollups
Rollups are the key execution component in the modular stack. They come in two primary forms: Optimistic and ZK, distinguished by their verification method.
A. Optimistic Rollups (ORs): The “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” Model
Optimistic Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) 32 operate by “optimistically” assuming all transactions in a batch are valid.38 The rollup’s operator (or “sequencer”) posts the batch data and the new state root to the L1.
This assumption is secured by a “dispute period” (or “challenge period”), typically lasting seven days.38 During this window, any independent “verifier” node can challenge an invalid state transition by submitting a Fraud Proof to the L1 smart contract.33 This proof allows the L1 to re-execute the suspicious transaction and verify the fraud. If the proof is successful, the fraudulent batch and all subsequent batches are reverted.43
- Pros: ORs are (or were) easier to make EVM-compatible, allowing for simple “lift-and-shift” migration of existing Ethereum dApps.32 The computational overhead in the “normal case” (no fraud) is very low.41
- Cons: The 7-day dispute period creates the main drawback: long withdrawal times.41 This results in poor capital efficiency for users.46 Furthermore, the security model relies on a “1-of-N” trust assumption: at least one honest verifier must be online, monitoring the chain, and able to submit a fraud proof if needed.46 This system is potentially vulnerable to censorship or DDoS attacks targeting these verifiers.39
B. ZK-Rollups: The “Don’t Trust, Verify” Model
Zero-Knowledge Rollups (e.g., StarkNet, zkSync) 32 operate on the opposite principle: they assume all transactions are false until proven valid.38
Every batch of transactions submitted to the L1 is accompanied by a cryptographic Validity Proof (such as a ZK-SNARK or ZK-STARK).33 This proof mathematically guarantees that the new state root is the correct result of executing the transactions in the batch.39 The L1 smart contract does not need to trust the operator; it simply verifies the proof.33
- Pros:
- Fast Finality & Capital Efficiency: There is no dispute period. Once the validity proof is verified on L1 (which can take minutes to hours), the transactions are final. This allows for immediate withdrawals, offering vastly superior capital efficiency.39
- Superior Security Model: Security relies on mathematics and cryptography, not on the economic incentives or liveness of third-party verifiers.44
- Data Efficiency: ZK-Rollups offer more efficient data compression on-chain.45
- Cons:
- Computational Intensity: Generating ZK proofs off-chain is extremely computationally intensive and expensive, often requiring specialized hardware.41
- Developer Complexity: Building a ZK-EVM (an EVM-compatible virtual machine that can be proven with ZK-cryptography) is extraordinarily complex.39
The choice between OR and ZKR is a direct trade-off between short-term developer convenience (ORs) and long-term user/capital efficiency (ZKRs). However, as ZK-EVM technology matures, the long-term industry consensus is that ZK-Rollups will obsolete Optimistic Rollups for almost all use cases.42 A security model based on mathematical certainty 44 is fundamentally superior to one based on economic liveness assumptions 46 that carry potential attack vectors.39
C. Table 1: Comparative Analysis: Optimistic vs. ZK-Rollups
| Feature | Optimistic Rollups | ZK-Rollups |
| Core Philosophy | “Innocent until proven guilty” 38 | “False until proven valid” 38 |
| Proof Mechanism | Fraud Proofs [39, 42] | Validity Proofs (ZK-SNARKs/STARKs) [33, 39] |
| Trust Assumption | 1-of-N honest verifier must be online 46 | Relies on cryptography/mathematics 44 |
| Withdrawal/Finality Time | Long (~7 days) due to dispute period 41 | Fast (minutes/hours) once proof is verified [39, 44, 46] |
| Capital Efficiency | Low (funds locked during withdrawal) 46 | High (no lock-up period) 46 |
| Off-Chain Computation | Low (state execution) [41] | Very High (ZK proof generation) 41 |
| On-Chain Gas Cost (Proof) | Low (in normal case) 42 | High (ZK proof verification) [33, 39, 42] |
| Data Cost | Higher (posts full transaction data) [45] | Lower (offers better data compression) 45 |
| EVM/Developer Complexity | Simpler / High EVM Compatibility [41, 45] | Very Complex / Requires specialized zkEVMs 39 |
| Key Examples | Arbitrum, Optimism 32 | StarkNet, zkSync, Polygon zkEVM [25, 32, 33] |
V. The Great Data Availability Debate: Two Competing Visions
Rollups solve execution, but they still need to post their data to a DA layer. The cost and availability of this data is the new scalability bottleneck. Two dominant visions have emerged to solve this.
A. Vision 1: Ethereum’s Rollup-Centric Roadmap (Integrated DA)
Ethereum is adapting its L1 to become a high-throughput DA layer for its own native rollup ecosystem.
- The Old Bottleneck (CALLDATA): Historically, rollups posted their data using the CALLDATA field of an Ethereum transaction.47 This was extremely expensive because CALLDATA is stored permanently by all L1 nodes, even though rollups only need the data to be temporarily available (e.g., for the 7-day fraud-proof window).47
- The Interim Solution (EIP-4844: Proto-Danksharding): Implemented in the March 2024 Dencun upgrade 50, EIP-4844 introduced “blob-carrying transactions”.52 “Blobs” (Binary Large Objects) are large packets of data (128 KB) 51 that are not stored by the EVM (execution layer). Instead, they are stored by the consensus layer (Beacon Node) and, critically, are temporary—they are pruned (deleted) after ~18-90 days.47 This design slashed L2 data posting costs by 10-100x.47
- The Endgame (Full Danksharding): EIP-4844 is the “scaffolding” for full Danksharding.55 This will expand the number of blobs per block from ~6 to 64+, creating a massive data-pipe of ~16 MB per slot.13 To allow nodes to handle this, Ethereum will implement Data Availability Sampling (DAS).56 DAS is a technique that allows nodes to probabilistically verify that all data in a block is available by sampling only a few small pieces, rather than downloading the entire 16MB block.13 This is Ethereum’s plan to scale L1 data capacity and enable its rollup ecosystem to reach 100,000+ TPS.13
This roadmap was, in many ways, a defensive, competitive move. Celestia was the “first mover in modular data availability” 60, and the high cost of CALLDATA was pushing Ethereum’s own L2s to explore these cheaper, specialized DA layers.19 EIP-4844 created a domestically-competitive product to stop this “poaching” and retain its rollup ecosystem.
B. Vision 2: Celestia’s Modular Ecosystem (Pluggable DA)
Celestia is a minimalist L1 blockchain designed from the ground up to only provide Consensus and Data Availability.18 It does not provide settlement, leaving that function entirely to the rollups themselves.16
Celestia also uses DAS, but with a different architectural focus: enabling light nodes (like a mobile wallet) to become first-class citizens that can verify DA.62 In Celestia’s model, the more light nodes that join the network and perform data availability sampling, the more data (and thus larger blocks) the network can securely handle.62 This creates a unique scaling dynamic where security and throughput scale organically with the number of users 62, rather than being limited by the hardware requirements of full nodes.
This sets up a fundamental philosophical competition. Ethereum’s pitch is maximal, static economic security: its DA is secured by a 1M+ validator set with hundreds of billions of dollars at stake.66 Celestia’s pitch is dynamic, accessible security: its validator set is smaller 66, but it argues that true decentralization comes from enabling billions of users to participate in verification via light nodes.65
C. Table 2: Data Availability Layer Comparison: Ethereum (Danksharding) vs. Celestia
| Feature | Ethereum (Danksharding) | Celestia |
| Architecture | Integrated: Bundles Settlement + DA + Consensus [54, 56] | Modular: Bundles Consensus + DA only 18 |
| DA Mechanism | Blobs (EIP-4844) progressing to Full Danksharding [54] | Namespaced Merkle Trees (NMTs) 62 |
| DAS Implementation | DAS for full nodes & validators to verify large blocks [57] | DAS for Light Nodes to verify DA 62 |
| Light Client Role | Follow block headers (traditional) | Actively participate in DA security via DAS 62 |
| Est. Throughput | EIP-4844: ~0.067 MB/s. PeerDAS: ~1.067 MB/s [67] | ~1.33 MB/s (governable to 6.67 MB/s) [67] |
| Security Source | Full economic security of Ethereum’s PoS validator set 66 | Economic security of Celestia’s PoS validator set 66 |
| Scaling-Security | Security is fixed by L1 validator set. | Security scales with the number of light nodes sampling 62 |
| Consensus | Gasper (GHOST + Casper) [66, 68] | Tendermint [19, 66] |
VI. The Architectural Flashpoint: Sovereign vs. Smart Contract Rollups
The choice of a DA layer has profound consequences for a rollup’s architecture, security, and sovereignty. This is the most critical distinction in the modular debate.
A. Smart Contract Rollups (The Ethereum Model)
These are rollups (like Arbitrum and Optimism) that use an L1 (Ethereum) for both Data Availability and Settlement.16
- Mechanism (Settlement & Verification): The rollup’s state, validity, and bridge are defined and finalized by a smart contract on the L1.16 This contract is the “source of truth”; it receives state roots, verifies proofs (either fraud or validity), and governs withdrawals.17
- Canonical Chain: The L1 smart contract defines the canonical chain of the rollup.61 To know the “true” state of Arbitrum, one must check its contract on Ethereum.
- Trade-off (Pro): The rollup inherits the full security and social consensus of Ethereum.69 It also benefits from a shared settlement layer, which enables trust-minimized bridging and high composability with other rollups that also settle on Ethereum.11
- Trade-off (Con): Loss of Sovereignty. The rollup is a “guest” on Ethereum’s platform. It is “bound to the limitations of an enshrined settlement layer”.70 It cannot easily change its core rules or hard fork (e.g., to fix a bug) without the permission and social consensus of the L1.17
B. Sovereign Rollups (The Celestia Model)
These are rollups that use a DA layer (like Celestia or Ethereum) for DA only, but they handle their own Settlement.17
- Mechanism (Settlement & Verification): There is no L1 settlement contract defining the rollup’s state.16 Transactions are verified as correct by the rollup’s own nodes in its own P2P network.16
- Canonical Chain: The canonical chain is determined by the rollup’s own nodes and social consensus.61 The nodes download data from the DA layer and locally apply a fork-choice rule to determine the “true” chain, just like an L1.
- Trade-off (Pro): Full Sovereignty. The rollup is its own master. Developers have complete control over their execution environment (e.g., using a non-EVM), governance, and upgrade timeline.69 They can hard fork at will to deploy upgrades or resolve bugs, without needing any permission from the DA layer.61
- Trade-off (Con): Loss of Shared Settlement. The rollup must bootstrap its own settlement security.72 It loses the native, trust-minimized bridging and composability that comes from sharing a settlement layer with other rollups.17
The “Sovereign Rollup” concept is, in effect, a re-branding of an “L1 with pluggable DA.” It possesses all the defining characteristics of an L1—sovereignty, self-settlement, and the ability to fork 72—it simply rents its DA and consensus functions rather than building them from scratch.22
This distinction is not just technical; it is political.71 A Smart Contract Rollup “outsources its sovereignty” to the L1’s governance.71 If the L1 (e.g., Ethereum) were to censor the rollup’s L1 contract—for example, due to regulatory pressure like the OFAC sanctions on Tornado Cash—the rollup would be compromised. A Sovereign Rollup is immune to this specific vector; if its DA layer (even Ethereum) censored it, the rollup’s community could fork and simply “choose a new DA layer”.71 This makes the choice of rollup architecture a deeply political decision about autonomy and censorship-resistance.
C. Table 3: Architectural Trade-offs: Smart Contract Rollups vs. Sovereign Rollups
| Feature | Smart Contract Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum on Ethereum) | Sovereign Rollups (e.g., Rollkit on Celestia) |
| Role of Base Layer | DA + Settlement + Consensus 16 | DA + Consensus only [17, 61, 72] |
| Settlement Layer | L1 Smart Contract 16 | The Rollup’s Own P2P Network 16 |
| Transaction Verification | L1 Contract (verifies proofs) 16 | Rollup Nodes (verify proofs locally) [16, 73] |
| Canonical Chain Defined By | L1 Smart Contract / L1 Social Consensus [61, 71] | Rollup’s Own Nodes / Rollup Social Consensus 72 |
| Upgradability / Hard Forks | Permissioned / Difficult. Tied to L1 contracts & social consensus 17 | Permissionless / Easy. Can fork at will, like an L1 61 |
| Primary Benefit | Shared Security & Composability [61, 69] | Sovereignty & Flexibility 69 |
VII. Ecosystem-Level Consequences: Composability, Liquidity, and User Experience
Both the integrated and modular scaling paths solve for execution, but in doing so, they create a significant new problem: fragmentation.
A. The Challenge of Fragmented Liquidity
In the monolithic L1 world, all applications and liquidity were unified in one place (e.g., Ethereum L1). In the new modular, multi-chain world, liquidity is “fragmented” across dozens, if not hundreds, of different L2s, rollups, and modular chains.11 This fragmentation is a key challenge for both the Ethereum L2 ecosystem and the Celestia modular ecosystem. It complicates asset transfers, increases slippage, and harms overall capital efficiency.11
B. Interoperability & Composability: The Core Trade-off
- Ethereum’s Model (Shared Settlement): The “seamless composability” of dApps on Ethereum L1 is one of its “dominant” features.11 By forcing all its L2s to use a shared settlement layer (the L1 itself), the Ethereum ecosystem retains a path to high-security, trust-minimized interoperability.61 This “hub-and-spoke” model fosters a “deep liquidity” ecosystem where L2s can communicate securely via the L1.11
- Celestia’s Model (Separate Settlement): The “sovereign” model explicitly sacrifices this shared settlement layer. This “pushes complexity to developers, who must manage interoperability and composability themselves”.75 Bridging between two sovereign rollups requires custom, often less-secure, bridges, as there is no common L1 “court” to arbitrate disputes between them.17
For the end-user, all of this fragmentation creates a “complex user experience”.11 Users are forced to “navigate different chains, wallets, and bridges” 11, which adds significant friction and security risks.11 The ultimate success of either ecosystem will depend on “reducing UX friction, and ensuring better interoperability”.9
C. Ethereum’s Response: Vitalik Buterin’s 2025 Vision for Cross-L2 Interoperability
Ethereum’s roadmap explicitly acknowledges this fragmentation as a critical, unsolved problem.77 The goal is to make moving assets and data between different L2s “have the same experience” as if they were all just shards of one unified blockchain.78 Proposed solutions to achieve this include:
- Standardized Cross-Chain Bridges: Moving away from bespoke, risky multisig bridges and toward trustless, standardized protocols.78
- Faster Finality: Using ZK proof aggregation to speed up deposit/withdrawal times from days (for ORs) or hours (for ZKRs) down to minutes or even a single slot (12s).77
- Shared Sequencing: Creating a shared marketplace for L2s to order transactions, which can help enable atomic cross-L2 composability.78
The primary bottleneck for the industry is no longer execution speed; it is cross-chain user experience.
VIII. Concluding Analysis: The Real Path to Scalability (A 2025 Perspective)
A. The Monolithic Resurgence vs. The Modular Endgame
As of 2025, the expert consensus is not that one architectural model will definitively “win”.9 The future is a “diverse and multi-architectural” one.9 Monolithic chains like Solana will continue to serve as “premium” environments for applications that prioritize raw speed and a simple, integrated developer experience above all else.6
However, the dominant design paradigm for building decentralized systems at scale has clearly shifted to modularity.8 Ethereum is “retrofitting modularity” 8, and a new, specialized “modular stack” of components (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) is emerging to create a “plug-and-play” ecosystem.9
B. The Case for Coexistence: A Hybrid Future
The “real path” to scalability will be a “hybrid” landscape 9 where these specialized and integrated stacks coexist, serving different market needs. The market appears to be maturing into two primary, coexisting models:
- The Integrated “Hub” (Ethereum): The Ethereum L1 will serve as the high-security “settlement and coordination hub” 9 for a massive ecosystem of Smart Contract Rollups. This will be the “premium” environment for high-value DeFi and applications where shared security and deep, native composability are non-negotiable.11
- The Modular “Market” (Celestia, etc.): A “marketplace” of plug-and-play DA layers 19 will serve a “long tail” of Sovereign Rollups and application-specific chains.20 This will be the environment for applications (e.g., Web3 gaming, social media) that prioritize sovereignty, customization (e.g., non-EVMs), governance control, and ultra-low cost.69
We will also see the proliferation of “mix-and-match” hybrids, such as “Celestiums” 61—rollups that use Ethereum for settlement (inheriting its security and composability) but use Celestia for data availability (to save costs).
C. Recommendations for Developers and Researchers
The “real path to scalability” is application-specific. The emergence of modularity means developers are no longer forced into a one-size-fits-all monolithic solution. The choice of architecture should be driven by the application’s core priorities.
- Recommendation 1: Choose the Ethereum Stack (Smart Contract Rollup) if your application’s primary drivers are maximal security, deep liquidity, and seamless composability with the existing, dominant DeFi ecosystem.11
- Recommendation 2: Choose the Modular Stack (Sovereign Rollup) if your application’s primary drivers are full sovereignty, governance control, the need for a customized execution environment, and the ability to hard fork independently of a base layer.69
The future of blockchain architecture is not a single, victorious chain.21 It is a highly specialized, interconnected, and hybrid “network of networks” 9, where “sharding” (as a DA scaling technique), “rollups” (as execution environments), and “modular chains” (as plug-and-play components) all coexist.