Comparing Ethereum 2.0, Near, and Polkadot: The Future of Modular Blockchains

·

Introduction

Modular blockchains have emerged as a key trend for 2024, endorsed by major players like a16z. With Ethereum's Cancun upgrade on the horizon, debates around modular vs. monolithic architectures intensify. This article explores their complementary roles—modular chains can serve as middleware for monolithic chains, and vice versa—highlighting how they evolve together by learning from each other's strengths.


Key Architectural Approaches

Monolithic vs. Modular Blockchains

Shared Goal: Scalability via:

  1. Sharding (Ethereum, Near, Polkadot).
  2. Rollups (Ethereum’s L2 solutions).

Ethereum 2.0 vs. Near

Nightshade Sharding

Starsight: ZK-Centric Future


Ethereum 2.0 vs. Polkadot

Shared Design Philosophy

Polkadot’s Advanced Features

  1. Substrate Framework: Simplifies app-chain launches.
  2. XCMP: Enables cross-parachain messaging without relay chain mediation.
  3. On-Chain Governance: Autonomous protocol upgrades.

Challenges

Universal Issues

  1. Innovation Dilemma: EVM dominance vs. new VMs (Move, WASM).
  2. Consensus-Building: Beyond technical specs to social adoption.

Modular-Specific Problems


The Path Forward: Collaboration


FAQ

Q1: What’s the difference between modular and monolithic blockchains?
A1: Modular chains decouple functions (e.g., execution, consensus), while monolithic chains integrate them.

Q2: Why is Near adopting ZKPs?
A2: For stateless validation, reducing costs and improving scalability.

Q3: How does Polkadot’s XCMP improve interoperability?
A3: It allows parachains to communicate directly without relay chain mediation.

👉 Explore more on blockchain interoperability