Modularity

Blockchain technology is undergoing a significant shift - transitioning from the monolithic model, where a single blockchain handles all functions including execution, consensus, settling, and data availability (as seen in Ethereum), to a modular design. This paradigm envisions a plug-and-play architecture, where each component of the blockchain stack is outsourced to a marketplace of third-party providers, enabling different blockchains to combine distinct elements for various functionalities. For instance, an optimistic rollup on the OP Stack could serve as the execution layer, supplemented by a zk proof from third-party providers like RISC Zero. Ethereum would serve for settlement and consensus, while data availability could be ensured through platforms such as Celestia, Espresso, or others. In addition, third-party providers like LayerZero and CCIP could facilitate cross-chain interoperability, restaking protocols like EigenLayer could provide a shared network of validators for consensus, and MEV marketplaces and decentralized build blocker networks like Flashbots SUAVE could complete the stack.

This approach aims to relieve the pressure on the foundational chain, Ethereum, allowing it to focus solely on settlement and consensus. At the same time, modularity introduces flexibility and composability, thus widening the scope for blockchain design, accelerating innovation, enhancing user experience, and bringing the industry closer to mass adoption.

Intents

This movement towards modularity partly overlaps with another trend - the advent of intent-based blockchain architecture. The aim is to make the blockchain experience more flexible, nuanced, and sophisticated while also increasing blockchains awareness of the external environment/context. Under the intent-based framework, users express their desired outcomes by signing off-chain orders and delegating the task of achieving them to sophisticated and professional third parties. This concept departs from the current imperative model, where users interact directly with smart contracts by signing on-chain transactions and specifying each parameter explicitly.

Examples of intents-based architecture can be found across various domains, including DEXs (e.g., UniswapX, Arrakis Finance, DefiEdge), block builders, and MEV (e.g., Flashbot SUAVE), and cross-chain interoperability (e.g., LayerZero, CCIP). In all these instances, a decentralized network of operators, acting as third-party providers, interprets users' preferences and executes them efficiently. This off-chain outsourcing allows operators to perform complex tasks that might be challenging on-chain, like combining multiple transactions to generate intricate sequences, executing transactions across multiple chains, enabling gas fee payments in any token, and even capturing MEV. While intent-based protocols promise higher returns to end users and offer flexibility and convenience, they also abstract users' intent, moving away from the fundamental blockchain approach of direct and permissionless interaction with verifiable smart contracts without intermediaries.

The shift towards modularity and intent-based architecture introduces more intermediation between users and the base blockchain, Ethereum, where most state settlement and data posting occur. While this abstraction enriches the user experience, it also introduces complexities, multiplies trust assumptions, and expands the attack surface. As we embark on this path, we must evaluate whether this is a solid and secure trajectory for the future of blockchain technology.