ONGOING
Learn the difference between modular and monolithic blockchain architectures, why Ethereum chose modular scaling, and how this shapes the blockchain landscape in 2026.
Modular vs. Monolithic Blockchains: A Foundational Architecture Choice
Blockchain architecture comes in two broad philosophies: monolithic and modular. The choice between them shapes nearly everything about a blockchain's performance characteristics, security model, and scaling roadmap.
A monolithic blockchain handles all core functions on a single layer: execution (processing transactions and running smart contracts), settlement (finalizing the canonical state), consensus (nodes agreeing on that state), and data availability (making transaction data accessible). Solana and early Ethereum are examples of monolithic designs.
A modular blockchain separates these functions across specialized layers. Execution happens on one layer, settlement on another, with consensus and data availability potentially handled by dedicated systems. Ethereum's current architecture, with its mainnet as the settlement and data availability layer and a rich ecosystem of L2s handling execution, is the leading example of modular design in practice.
The Case for Monolithic: Simplicity and Performance
Monolithic blockchains have genuine advantages that explain why high-performance chains like Solana chose this architecture.
Internal optimization is more powerful when all functions are co-designed. A monolithic chain can parallelize execution, optimize storage, and tune consensus with full knowledge of how each component interacts. Solana's combination of Proof of History, pipelining, and parallel execution is possible precisely because all components were designed together.
The user experience is simpler. One chain, one set of addresses, one liquidity pool, one network to worry about. No bridging, no cross-chain coordination, no fragmented liquidity across multiple layers.
Transaction finality is straightforward. A transaction confirmed on a monolithic chain is final on that chain. There is no challenge period for withdrawals and no uncertainty about which layer provides ultimate security. The limitation is the trilemma: pushing throughput higher eventually requires sacrificing decentralization or security.
The Case for Modular: Specialization and Ethereum's Roadmap
Modular design argues that specialized layers optimized for their specific function outperform generalist layers trying to do everything.
Ethereum's mainnet is now optimized for security and decentralization as a settlement layer. It does not need to be fast or cheap because its only job is to provide finality for the L2s built on top of it. Those L2s handle the execution that requires speed and low cost.
Data availability layers like Celestia and EigenDA provide specialized data storage for rollups, separate from execution entirely. By designing specifically for the data availability problem, they can provide this function more efficiently than a general-purpose blockchain.
The vision is composability of trust: applications can assemble the combination of execution, settlement, and data availability that best fits their requirements, choosing the most efficient option for each function rather than accepting one chain's compromise across all of them.
Celestia and the Data Availability Layer
Celestia is the leading example of a blockchain built exclusively for data availability, representing modular design taken to its logical conclusion.
Celestia does not process smart contracts or execute transactions. It does one thing: ensure that data posted to it is available to anyone who wants to download it, with mathematical guarantees through Data Availability Sampling.
Data Availability Sampling allows light nodes to verify that block data is available without downloading the entire block. Light nodes sample random small chunks. If enough samples are successfully retrieved, the probability that any data is withheld approaches zero exponentially.
Rollups can use Celestia as their data availability layer instead of Ethereum, significantly reducing operating costs while maintaining strong availability guarantees. This represents genuine competition to Ethereum's DA role and is one reason Ethereum's EIP-4844 blob transactions were prioritized.
How Modular Design Affects Users in Practice
The monolithic versus modular debate can seem abstract, but it has direct practical implications for how users experience blockchains.
On a monolithic chain like Solana, simplicity is the main benefit. There is one address space, one native token for fees, and no concept of bridging within the ecosystem. The tradeoff is that performance limits are baked in at the design level, and outages affect the entire system.
In a modular ecosystem like Ethereum, users interact primarily with L2 networks for most activities. This means managing assets across different chains, understanding bridging, and navigating different fee tokens on different networks.
As modular infrastructure matures, cross-chain abstractions are improving. Account abstraction across chains, unified liquidity protocols, and intent-based transaction systems that route optimally across the modular stack are reducing the user-facing complexity. The vision is that users experience modularity as seamless performance rather than as operational complexity.
Modular vs. Monolithic: Different Bets on the Same Future
The monolithic versus modular debate is not resolved and may not need to be. Different use cases genuinely suit different architectures.
High-frequency applications that need consistent low latency may prefer monolithic chains optimized for their specific requirements. Applications requiring maximum security, access to Ethereum's deep liquidity, and composability with the widest DeFi ecosystem will continue to build on Ethereum's modular stack.
The technical progress on both sides is genuine. Solana continues to improve throughput and reliability. Ethereum's modular stack continues to reduce costs and improve user experience. The competition between these architectures is driving innovation that benefits the entire space.
This information, including any opinions and analyses, is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice or recommendation. You should always conduct your own research before making any investment decisions and are solely responsible for your actions and investment decisions.
The services of Freedx are not directed at, or intended for use by residents of the United States, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates, nor by any person in any jurisdiction where such use would be contrary to local laws or regulations.
© 2025 Freedx, All Rights Reserved