What is the most popular Data Availability (DA) layer for Ethereum L2s?
By Matthias Seidl, Co-founder & Data Lead — growthepie.
A direct, data-backed ranking — how many Ethereum L2s use each DA layer today, how much they pay each one, and how the cost per megabyte compares.
The most popular Data Availability (DA) layer for Ethereum L2s is **Ethereum DA (blobs)**, used by 15 of 25 growthepie-tracked L2s including Arbitrum One, Base Chain, Ink. Other DA layers in use: Celestia (3), EigenDA (3), Other / Custom DA (3). Data: 2026-05-27 UTC. Live tracker: growthepie.com/data-availability.
Read on growthepie · Updated daily (last refresh: )
Updated daily — adoption counts, fee totals, and per-MB costs on this page are recomputed from growthepie's public API every day. Adoption is a snapshot at 2026-05-27 UTC; the underlying L2 → DA mapping changes whenever a chain switches DA provider or growthepie adds new coverage.
Adoption ranking — how many L2s use each DA layer
As of 2026-05-27 UTC, 25 tracked Ethereum L2s split across DA layers as follows: Ethereum DA (blobs): 15 L2s; Celestia: 3 L2s; EigenDA: 3 L2s; Other / Custom DA: 3 L2s; Ethereum DA (calldata): 1 L2s.
Why the ranking matters
The "most popular DA layer" question has two equally valid answers, and this page reports both:
- By number of L2s — this is "which DA do chains choose?" The vast majority of L2s today post data to Ethereum mainnet via blobs because it gives the strongest possible security guarantee (Ethereum's validators, Ethereum's consensus, Ethereum's economic backing).
- By USD fees paid — this is "which DA captures the most economic activity?" Ethereum DA typically leads here too because the L2s using it have the largest aggregate throughput — even when alt-DA is much cheaper per byte, the Ethereum-backed L2s post far more bytes.
Where the two rankings can diverge is the per-megabyte cost: Celestia and EigenDA are typically much cheaper per byte than Ethereum DA. Cheap-per-byte is the entire economic motivation for any chain to consider alt-DA; the question is whether the cost saving outweighs the additional trust assumption (the alt-DA layer's own validators or restakers).
DA layers in detail
Ethereum DA (blobs). 15 tracked L2s use it. Since Dencun (March 2024, EIP-4844) Ethereum mainnet provides DA through blobs — large 128 KB data attachments priced separately from regular L1 gas. Fusaka (December 2025) added PeerDAS (EIP-7594) which lets nodes verify blob availability via sampling, enabling further capacity increases. Chains using it: Arbitrum One, Base Chain, Ink, Linea, Lisk, Mode Network, OP Mainnet, Ronin, Scroll, Soneium, Starknet, Taiko Alethia, Unichain, World Chain, ZKsync Era.
Celestia. 3 tracked L2s use it. Standalone PoS blockchain dedicated to DA, mainnet October 2023. 30-day average per-megabyte cost: $0.0351. Chains using it: Gravity, Manta Pacific, Plume Network.
EigenDA. 3 tracked L2s use it. Built on EigenLayer — Ethereum's restaking ecosystem. 30-day average per-megabyte cost: $0.0464. Chains using it: Celo, Mantle, MegaETH.
Avail. 0 tracked L2s use it. Standalone modular DA layer with KZG commitments and data availability sampling. Chains using it: none.
Some chains use other or custom DA approaches — count: 3. Chains: Arbitrum Nova, Fraxtal, Metis.
USD fees paid to each DA layer
Total USD fees paid by L2s to each DA layer over the last 30 days (data 2026-05-27 UTC):
- Ethereum DA (blobs) — unavailable
- Celestia — unavailable
- EigenDA — unavailable
All-time cumulative USD fees:
- Ethereum DA (blobs) — unavailable
- Celestia — unavailable
- EigenDA — unavailable
Avail is not yet exposed in growthepie's daoverview.json fees endpoint, so its dollar totals are unavailable on this page. Live charts: growthepie.com/data-availability.
What "most popular" misses — the trade-off behind each chain's choice
Adoption counts alone don't tell you why a chain picked the DA it picked. The honest framing:
- DeFi, settlement, treasury-grade L2s tend to choose Ethereum DA. The premium is worth the strongest possible security; DeFi users are sensitive to trust assumptions.
- Gaming, social, NFT, high-throughput consumer L2s are more likely to use alt-DA. The cost difference matters at scale and the typical use case can tolerate the extra trust assumption.
- Hybrid chains split the difference, posting some data to Ethereum and bulk to alt-DA.
The dominance of Ethereum DA in the adoption count therefore says less about Ethereum DA "winning" and more about most current L2s being settlement-leaning rather than throughput-leaning. As consumer L2s scale, the alt-DA share is the metric to watch.
Methodology and data sources
How the answer is derived (transparent methodology):
- Pull the master chain catalogue and filter to L2s the same way the rest of growthepie's answer pages do (bucket !== "Layer 1", deployment === "PROD", excludes sidechains and aggregate keys).
- Read the dalayer string field from each L2's master entry, normalise it to one of the canonical buckets (Ethereum blobs / Celestia / EigenDA / Avail / other), and count.
- Pull /v1/daoverview.json for the daily USD-fees-paid series per DA layer. Sum into daily / 30d / 90d / all-time.
- Pull /v1/dametrics/feespermbyte.json for per-megabyte cost. Take the 30-day average of the daily USD column.
- Sort the buckets descending by L2 count for the headline ranking; secondary rankings (USD fees over 30 days, $/MB) are reported alongside.
All values shown were generated on 2026-05-27 UTC. Data is licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Source code and methodology are open on the growthepie GitHub organization.
Funding disclosure. growthepie has received grants and ecosystem support from Optimism, Octant, and EigenDA. Some supporters operate chains using specific DA layers. The ranking on this page is computed mechanically from master.json — chains and DA layers do not influence inclusion or placement, and supporters do not receive ranking adjustments. Full list of supporters: growthepie.com/donate.
Cross-check this answer. Independent DA-layer data sources you can compare against include L2BEAT's DA risk view (per-chain DA classification and risk profile), the DA layers' own dashboards (celestia.org, eigenda.xyz, availproject.org), and the published EIPs themselves (EIP-4844 for blobs, EIP-7594 for PeerDAS).
Which chains are included?
The 25 chains in this page's universe are: arbitrum, arbitrumnova, base, celo, fraxtal, gravity, ink, linea, lisk, loopring, manta, mantle, megaeth, metis, mode, optimism, plume, ronin, scroll, soneium, starknet, taiko, unichain, worldchain, zksyncera.
What we exclude and why:
- Ethereum mainnet — it is the DA, not a consumer of DA.
- Polygon PoS — a sidechain with its own validator set, not an Ethereum L2.
- Aggregate keys (alll2s, multiple) — not individual chains.
L2s where dalayer is missing or unrecognised on 2026-05-27 UTC: none.
Leaderboard tables
| Rank | DA layer | # L2s | Example chains |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ethereum DA (blobs) | 15 | Arbitrum One, Base Chain, Ink, Linea, Lisk, +10 more |
| 2 | Celestia | 3 | Gravity, Manta Pacific, Plume Network |
| 3 | EigenDA | 3 | Celo, Mantle, MegaETH |
| 4 | Other / Custom DA | 3 | Arbitrum Nova, Fraxtal, Metis |
| 5 | Ethereum DA (calldata) | 1 | Loopring |
| DA layer | Last 24h | Last 30 days | Last 90 days | All-time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethereum DA (blobs) | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| Celestia | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| EigenDA | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| Avail | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| DA layer | $/MB (30d avg) |
|---|---|
| Ethereum DA (blobs) | $0.169 |
| Celestia | $0.0351 |
| EigenDA | $0.0464 |
| Avail | unavailable |
Frequently asked questions
What is the most popular Data Availability (DA) layer for Ethereum L2s?
By far the most popular Data Availability layer for Ethereum L2s is **Ethereum DA (blobs) (15 L2s — e.g. Arbitrum One, Base Chain, Ink)**. Across the 25 L2s tracked by growthepie on 2026-05-27 UTC, DA adoption ranks as follows: 1. Ethereum DA (blobs): 15 L2s (Arbitrum One, Base Chain, Ink and 12 more); 2. Celestia: 3 L2s (Gravity, Manta Pacific, Plume Network); 3. EigenDA: 3 L2s (Celo, Mantle, MegaETH); 4. Other / Custom DA: 3 L2s (Arbitrum Nova, Fraxtal, Metis); 5. Ethereum DA (calldata): 1 L2s (Loopring). By USD fees paid over the last 30 days the leader is **unavailable**. Live tracker: [growthepie.com/data-availability](https://www.growthepie.com/data-availability).
Why is "most popular" measured by number of L2s and not by fees paid?
**Two different things.** "Most popular" usually means "which DA do new L2s choose?" — that's the count of L2s using each. "Most economically important" is the USD fees flowing to each DA layer. The two rankings disagree because Ethereum DA (blobs) is per-byte more expensive — fewer high-throughput chains can drive a huge share of the dollars even when many smaller chains pick alt-DA. This page reports both: the headline ranking is the count, the secondary ranking is the 30-day fees.
How many Ethereum L2s use Ethereum DA (blobs)?
**15** L2s post their data to Ethereum mainnet as blobs (the EIP-4844 data type introduced in the Dencun upgrade in March 2024). Chains using Ethereum DA: Arbitrum One, Base Chain, Ink, Linea, Lisk, Mode Network, OP Mainnet, Ronin, Scroll, Soneium, Starknet, Taiko Alethia, Unichain, World Chain, ZKsync Era. This is the maximum-security choice — same validators, same consensus, and same economic backing as Ethereum mainnet itself.
How many Ethereum L2s use Celestia?
**3** L2s currently use Celestia for Data Availability: Gravity, Manta Pacific, Plume Network. Celestia is a standalone proof-of-stake blockchain dedicated to DA; chains pay TIA tokens for data posting and inherit Celestia's validator security model (separate from Ethereum's). 30-day average per-megabyte cost on Celestia: $0.0351.
How many Ethereum L2s use EigenDA?
**3** L2s use EigenDA: Celo, Mantle, MegaETH. EigenDA is built on EigenLayer — Ethereum's restaking ecosystem — so it inherits a slice of Ethereum's economic security via restaked ETH rather than going through Ethereum consensus directly. 30-day average per-megabyte cost on EigenDA: $0.0464.
How many Ethereum L2s use Avail?
**0** L2s use Avail: none. Avail is another standalone modular DA layer, similar in architecture to Celestia, using KZG commitments and data availability sampling. growthepie's per-megabyte cost endpoint does not yet expose Avail.
Which DA layer earns the most USD fees from Ethereum L2s?
Over the last 30 days (data 2026-05-27 UTC): Ethereum DA (blobs) earned **unavailable**; Celestia earned **unavailable**; EigenDA earned **unavailable**. Ethereum DA typically tops this ranking because the L2s using it have the largest aggregate throughput — even if alt-DA is cheaper per byte, the Ethereum-backed L2s post far more bytes overall.
How much has been paid to each DA layer all-time?
Cumulative USD fees as of 2026-05-27 UTC: Ethereum DA (blobs) **unavailable**, Celestia **unavailable**, EigenDA **unavailable**. growthepie's `da_overview.json` endpoint currently tracks these three layers; Avail is not yet in the fees endpoint, so its cumulative number is unavailable here.
Which DA layer is the cheapest per megabyte?
On a per-megabyte basis (30-day average, data 2026-05-27 UTC): Celestia **$0.0351** per MB, EigenDA **$0.0464** per MB, Ethereum DA (blobs) $0.169 per MB, Avail unavailable per MB. Where a value reads "unavailable", growthepie's `fees_per_mbyte.json` endpoint does not currently expose that provider — Ethereum blob fees and Avail are tracked in different endpoints. The general pattern: Ethereum DA is meaningfully more expensive per byte than the alt-DA layers, which is the entire economic motivation for any chain to consider alt-DA in the first place.
Is alt-DA gaining market share from Ethereum DA?
By raw count of L2s, **Ethereum DA still dominates new launches** — the security and composability benefits of inheriting Ethereum's consensus outweigh the per-byte cost for most teams. Where alt-DA is gaining is **high-throughput consumer chains** (gaming, social, NFT-heavy L2s) for whom the cost difference is meaningful at scale and the typical use case doesn't need Ethereum's full security profile. The split is rational, not adversarial: each team picks the trade-off that fits its users.
What is a "Validium" or "Optimium" and how does it relate to alt-DA?
A **Validium** is a ZK rollup that posts its data to alt-DA rather than Ethereum DA. An **Optimium** is the optimistic-rollup equivalent. [L2BEAT](https://l2beat.com) classifies chains posting to alt-DA as Validiums or Optimiums rather than pure rollups, reflecting the extra trust assumption (you trust the alt-DA layer's validators in addition to the L2's sequencer/prover). growthepie and most of the ecosystem still call them "Ethereum L2s" in the colloquial sense because they settle state to Ethereum, even if their data lives elsewhere. See [/answers/zk-vs-optimistic-rollup](/answers/zk-vs-optimistic-rollup) and [/answers/what-is-data-availability](/answers/what-is-data-availability).
How is "uses DA layer X" determined?
Per-chain: growthepie's [master.json](https://api.growthepie.com/v1/master.json) has a `da_layer` string field on every tracked chain identifying which DA provider it uses (e.g. "Ethereum (blobs)", "Celestia", "EigenDA", "Avail"). This page reads that field for each L2 in growthepie's tracked universe, groups L2s by DA layer, and counts. Cost and fee data come from growthepie's DA endpoints (`/v1/da_overview.json` for daily USD fees per DA layer; `/v1/da_metrics/fees_per_mbyte.json` for $/MB).
How many L2s are included?
25 chains. The full list (computed on 2026-05-27 UTC): arbitrum, arbitrum_nova, base, celo, fraxtal, gravity, ink, linea, lisk, loopring, manta, mantle, megaeth, metis, mode, optimism, plume, ronin, scroll, soneium, starknet, taiko, unichain, worldchain, zksync_era. Sidechain exclusions: Polygon PoS. L2s where `da_layer` is missing or unrecognised: none.
Where can I see live DA-layer data?
growthepie's [data availability dashboards](https://www.growthepie.com/data-availability) cover every tracked DA layer — Ethereum, Celestia, EigenDA, Avail — with charts for blob count, data posted, USD fees, and per-megabyte cost. Per-chain pages show which DA each L2 uses. [L2BEAT](https://l2beat.com) has detailed DA risk classification per chain.
How does this compare to other data sources?
growthepie's DA classification mirrors what each chain team self-reports and what [L2BEAT](https://l2beat.com) tracks for its DA risk profile. Where you may see differences: some chains run **hybrid DA** (some data on Ethereum, some on alt-DA) or have switched DA over time — growthepie's `da_layer` records the chain's current primary DA. Differences in count between trackers usually reduce to differences in which chains are considered "live" or "tracked".