Justin Bons believes modular scaling is a technological dead end.
Three Approaches to Blockchain Scalability
Blockchains can achieve scalability through three primary methods:
- L2 Scaling (BTC, ETH, TIA)
- Parallelization (SOL, APT, SUI)
- Sharding (TON, NEAR, EGLD)
Sharding represents the future, while parallelization is an inevitable trend—this, in my view, is the ultimate resolution.
L2 scaling suffers from poor user experience and weak token economics. It fails to control fees within L1 ranges, and fragmentation disrupts usability. In contrast, monolithic scaling methods (parallelization and sharding) avoid these pitfalls by operating as a cohesive system.
Why Parallelization Is Inevitable
Modern CPUs feature multiple cores, yet chains like Ethereum and Bitcoin process transactions sequentially, underutilizing validator hardware—a massive inefficiency. Parallelization maximizes resource use, unlocking higher throughput.
Sharding: The Logical Next Step
Sharding takes parallelism further by distributing workloads across multiple machines, breaking previous scalability limits. Key advantages:
- Maximizes per-shard capacity
- Achieves 100K+ TPS with theoretical limits nearing 1M TPS
- Maintains low node requirements, solving the blockchain trilemma
Unlike traditional designs, sharding scales linearly by adding new shards as adoption grows. Non-sharded chains face quadratic scaling, where node demands escalate until hitting physical constraints.
👉 Discover how cutting-edge blockchains leverage sharding
Debunking Sharding Myths
- "Single shards are vulnerable": False—sharing L1 security via randomized validators ensures robustness.
- "No composability": Cross-shard communication is natively integrated, enabling seamless interoperability.
Ironically, L2 scaling faces worse versions of these issues:
- Individual L2s are attackable due to reliance on governance keys and decentralized sequencers.
- Composability gaps persist without enshrined solutions.
Monolithic vs. Modular Scaling
Monolithic designs allow optional L2 integration, letting markets choose optimal solutions. Modular scaling enforces L1-level constraints—akin to a "planned economy."
👉 Explore monolithic blockchain advantages
Key Contrasts:
| Feature | Monolithic | Modular |
|----------------|---------------------|---------------------|
| Speed | Fast | Slow |
| Cost | Affordable | Expensive |
| Usability | Intuitive | Complex |
The Path Forward
Ethereum could still pivot to sharding, though entrenched interests (VCs, tokenized incentives) resist change. Without robust on-chain governance, user migration may force evolution.
Monolithic scaling realigns with Satoshi’s vision: accessible, efficient blockchain for all.
FAQ
Q: Can monolithic chains support DeFi at scale?
A: Yes—parallelization and sharding enable high-throughput smart contracts without fragmenting liquidity.
Q: Does sharding compromise decentralization?
A: No. Randomized validation distributes security evenly across shards.
Q: Why is L2 scaling still popular?
A: Legacy momentum and vested interests delay superior alternatives.
Q: How do cross-shard transactions work?
A: Native protocols synchronize state updates atomically, ensuring consistency.
The evidence for monolithic scaling grows undeniable. It’s time to embrace architectures that prioritize speed, affordability, and simplicity—the true hallmarks of transformative technology.