2025-12-30 15:26:52

In September this year, Celestia, EigenLayer, and Cosmos jointly launched the "Modular Blockchain Standards Working Group" and released the first draft of technical specifications. This draft clarifies how the data availability layer, settlement layer, and execution layer should connect, sounding quite professional. However, the situation is not so simple—Ethereum Foundation immediately came out in opposition, believing that excessive splitting could create hidden risks and potentially weaken the system's security and the synergy between modules.

Vitalik then introduced a new concept in his blog: "Minimum Viable Modular." His point is clear: core functions cannot be infinitely divided; a certain level of integration must be maintained. This debate actually reflects the industry's dilemma—everyone recognizes the advantages of modularity (flexibility, scalability), but also worries that over-optimization could bring other problems.

Since September, this topic has remained hot. The ongoing tug-of-war over standardization is expected to continue until 2025, with parties' stances gradually evolving.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CodeAuditQueen

· 2025-12-30 15:52

Overly splitting is like planting mines, just like re-entrancy attacks—it's covert and bound to cause trouble sooner or later. Vitalik is right this time; modularity also needs a bottom line. I skimmed through the draft from the Standards Working Group; the trust model at the DA layer still has vulnerabilities. Let's wait for the audit report. Another debate over the technical roadmap, and we should see some clues by 2025. The entire industry loves over-optimization; gas savings come at the cost of security. Modularity isn't about making things as fine as possible; integration is also a part of security. This tug-of-war will likely last at least two more years, and the key is who can ultimately hold the line on security.

View OriginalReply0

ExpectationFarmer

· 2025-12-30 15:50

It's the same old story, splitting up again and again, and in the end everyone just does their own thing... That sentence from Vitalik sounds right, but who actually listens when it comes to real implementation? Modularity is really a trade-off between the fish and the bear's paw; to be flexible, you have to sacrifice security, to be secure, you have to stick together—there's no perfect solution. The standard working group seems like a warm-up for the big show in 2025... This kind of tug-of-war is actually beneficial for the ecosystem, forcing those big V influencers to hold each other back, which gives us a chance. Let's wait and see; anyway, it's too early to say anything now.

View OriginalReply0

SatsStacking

· 2025-12-30 15:43

ngl this is a classic case of technical idealism versus engineering pragmatism. Both sides are right, but they just can't see eye to eye. Modularization itself isn't the problem; over-splitting is the real poison. V神's comments this time are pretty harsh. It's another tug-of-war among the big players. Let's wait and see until 2025. Basically, it's a gamble between safety and flexibility—there's no silver bullet, brother. Celestia is eager to standardize their stuff, while the Ethereum consortium doesn't want to be sidelined. It's a cycle. If this standard can't be established, the ecosystem will continue to fracture, which is really annoying. The idea of minimal viable modularity sounds smooth, but can it actually be implemented? Writing articles is easy. Let's see what happens in 2025. Anyway, no one's方案 has won so far.

View OriginalReply0

ILCollector

· 2025-12-30 15:31

Modularization has been ongoing for half a year without any results. It seems that all factions want the cake but don't want to share it. --- Vitalik is right about this "minimum viable modularity." Overly fragmented modularization is really unsafe, but Celestia also has a point. --- Is the tug-of-war going to last until 2025? This pace is similar to L2 competition. In the end, it might still be multi-chain coexistence. --- Basically, it's about wanting flexibility and security at the same time—fish and bear's paw, brother. --- The Ethereum Foundation immediately opposed it once it was proposed. The political undertones are a bit strong, haha. --- Wait, what if this standard working group ultimately fails? It feels a bit uncertain. --- It's really just the old issue of decentralization of power and security—an endless cycle.

View OriginalReply0

ContractExplorer

· 2025-12-30 15:27

It's the same old story again—modularity vs. security. Feels like we'll be arguing about this until 2026. --- Vitalik's "Minimum Viable Modularization" sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Can it really strike a balance? --- Honestly, it's like wanting both the horse to run and not eat grass. This battle might never end. --- Wait, does over-splitting really weaken security? I feel like that logic doesn't quite hold up. --- I'm a bit tired of these endless standard battles. Better to release something usable first and then argue. --- Modularity is indeed flexible, but if you ask me, integrated solutions are more reliable. --- Looking at the trend, they probably won't get it done by 2025. New problems will pop up again—it's truly incredible. --- The Ethereum Foundation's opposition isn't without reason, but it feels a bit reactive.

View OriginalReply0