ZK frameworks are not commodities. The choice between Circom, Halo2, and Noir dictates your entire development lifecycle, from circuit design to proof generation. This creates a high-switching cost that locks teams into a single vendor's tooling and assumptions.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
The Cost of Vendor Lock-In in the Emerging ZK Framework Ecosystem
Your choice of ZK framework (Circom, Halo2, etc.) is a foundational, high-stakes decision that dictates your prover network, hardware requirements, and future-proofing. This analysis breaks down the technical and strategic costs of premature commitment.
introduction
THE HIDDEN TAX
Introduction
Vendor lock-in in ZK frameworks imposes a multi-dimensional cost on development velocity, security, and long-term protocol sovereignty.
The lock-in cost is multi-dimensional. It manifests as expertise silos, where developers trained in one framework cannot easily contribute to another. It creates infrastructure dependency, binding you to specific prover networks like RiscZero or Succinct. This fragments the developer ecosystem.
Evidence: A protocol migrating from Circom to Halo2 must rewrite its entire circuit logic, retrain its team, and replace its proving infrastructure. This process consumes months of engineering time and introduces new audit surfaces, a direct tax on innovation.
key-insights
THE ARCHITECTURAL TAX
Executive Summary
The ZK ecosystem's fragmentation into competing, incompatible frameworks creates a multi-billion dollar hidden tax on development velocity, security, and long-term flexibility.
01
The Problem: The Polyglot Prison
Choosing a ZK framework (e.g., Circom, Halo2, Noir) is a one-way architectural decision. The resulting proof systems, circuit languages, and trusted setups are non-portable, locking teams into a single vendor's roadmap and tooling.
- Vendor-Specific Tooling: Switching frameworks requires a near-total rewrite of circuits and surrounding infrastructure.
- Talent Silos: Developers become experts in one framework, creating scarcity and inflating engineering costs.
- Innovation Lag: Teams cannot easily adopt breakthroughs from competing ecosystems without a full migration.
6-18 mos
Migration Time
~$1M+
Rewrite Cost
02
The Solution: Intermediate Representations (IRs)
Abstracting circuit logic into a framework-agnostic intermediate layer is the only viable escape hatch. An IR acts as a compiler target, enabling a single codebase to target multiple proving backends (zkVM, zkEVM, custom circuits).
- Portability: Write once, deploy to Risc Zero, SP1, or Gnark.
- Future-Proofing: Adopt next-gen proving systems without rewriting business logic.
- Tooling Unification: Enables shared debuggers, verifiers, and performance profilers across the ecosystem.
90%+
Code Reuse
10x
Dev Speed
03
The Hidden Cost: Fragmented Security Audits
Each ZK framework requires its own bespoke, deep-dive security review. A protocol using multiple frameworks for different components multiplies audit costs and complexity, while increasing the attack surface.
- Audit Multiplier: A Circom circuit + a Halo2 gadget = two separate, full-scope audits.
- Compiler Risk: Bugs in framework-specific compilers (e.g., Circom's compiler) become single points of failure for all dependent applications.
- Verifier Fragmentation: Managing and upgrading multiple, incompatible verifier contracts on-chain introduces operational risk.
2-5x
Audit Cost
+4 wks
Time-to-Production
04
The Economic Reality: Captured Value
Vendor lock-in allows framework teams to capture disproportionate value from the application layer. They become tollbooths on computation, dictating pricing, roadmap priorities, and even governance through control of critical infrastructure like trusted setups.
- Pricing Power: Proving costs are opaque and non-competitive when apps cannot switch providers.
- Roadmap Risk: Application needs are deprioritized in favor of the framework's core platform goals.
- Setup Centralization: Reliance on a single team's Powers of Tau ceremony or other trusted setup creates systemic risk.
20-30%
Cost Premium
Single Point
Of Failure
thesis-statement
THE VENDOR LOCK-IN
Thesis: Your Framework is Your Prover Prison
Choosing a ZK framework creates irreversible technical debt that dictates your prover's performance, cost, and ecosystem compatibility.
Framework choice dictates prover performance. Selecting Circom or Halo2 locks you into their underlying proof systems (Groth16, PLONK) and their inherent proving times. This decision becomes a permanent bottleneck for your application's throughput and finality.
Ecosystem fragmentation creates integration hell. A zkVM built with RISC Zero cannot natively verify a proof from a StarkWare Cairo circuit. This incompatibility forces you to build custom bridges or accept siloed liquidity, mirroring the early EVM vs. Cosmos SDK divide.
Switching costs are prohibitive. Migrating from a Noir circuit to a gnark implementation requires a full rewrite of your business logic and security audit. This technical debt anchors you to your initial vendor, regardless of future innovations.
Evidence: The Polygon zkEVM team's multi-year effort to migrate from a custom toolchain to a zk-LLVM approach demonstrates the immense cost of an early, suboptimal framework commitment.
ZK PROVER ECOSYSTEM
Framework Lock-In Matrix: The Hidden Constraints
A technical comparison of leading ZK proving frameworks, quantifying the hidden costs of vendor lock-in, development agility, and operational overhead.
| Critical Constraint | Circom / snarkjs | Halo2 (ZCash / Scroll) | Plonky2 / Starky (Polygon Zero) | RISC Zero zkVM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Proving System Architecture | Groth16 / PLONK | Halo2 (KZG / IPA) | PLONK / FRI (Starky) | zk-STARKs (FRI) |
Primary Language / DSL | Circom (Custom DSL) | Rust (Halo2 Library) | Rust (Plonky2 Library) | Rust (Guest) / Rust SDK (Host) |
Trusted Setup Required | ||||
Prover Time (SHA256, 1M constraints) | ~15 sec | ~8 sec | ~3 sec | ~45 sec |
Proof Size (KB) | ~1.5 KB | ~2 KB | ~45 KB | ~100 KB |
EVM Verifier Gas Cost (approx.) | ~450k gas | ~350k gas | ~2.5M gas | Not natively verifiable |
Custom Circuit Complexity | High (Manual R1CS) | Medium (Chip Design) | Low (Flexible Gates) | None (Standard CPU) |
Audited Cryptographic Libraries | ||||
Native Cross-Framework Proof Recursion |
deep-dive
THE COST
The Three Layers of Lock-In
Vendor lock-in in ZK frameworks extends beyond the proving system to encompass data availability and the entire development lifecycle.
Proving System Lock-In is the foundational and most obvious layer. Choosing a framework like zkSync's Boojum, Polygon zkEVM's Plonky2, or StarkWare's Cairo dictates your proving backend, creating a hard dependency on that team's compiler, prover binaries, and ongoing optimizations. Switching frameworks requires a full rewrite of your circuit logic.
Data Availability Lock-In is the hidden infrastructure tax. A ZK rollup's state transitions are only as secure as the data they verify. Using a custom DA layer like Celestia or EigenDA over Ethereum calldata creates a critical dependency; if that DA layer fails or censors, your rollup halts regardless of ZK validity.
Tooling and Ecosystem Lock-In is the long-term productivity drain. A framework's value is its developer experience—the SDKs, debuggers, and language plugins. Adopting StarkWare's Cairo means your team's expertise is non-transferable to a Scroll or Polygon zkEVM project, fragmenting talent and slowing innovation across the ecosystem.
Evidence: The Ethereum L2 ecosystem demonstrates this fragmentation. A dApp built for Arbitrum Nitro (WASM-based) cannot natively port to an OP Stack chain or a zkSync Era chain without significant re-engineering, limiting composability and user liquidity.
case-study
THE COST OF VENDOR LOCK-IN
Case Studies: Lock-In in the Wild
Real-world examples where proprietary ZK frameworks create technical debt, stifle innovation, and concentrate risk.
01
The StarkEx Monolith: Scaling at the Cost of Portability
StarkWare's StarkEx stack powers dYdX, Sorare, and ImmutableX, but its closed-source prover and custom Cairo VM create a walled garden. Migrating a StarkEx app to another ZK L2 like zkSync Era is a complete rewrite, not a fork.
- Lock-In Vector: Proprietary prover & Cairo toolchain.
- Hidden Cost: ~6-12 months of engineering time to migrate a major protocol.
- Result: Projects are de facto StarkWare tenants, limiting their strategic optionality.
$1B+
Locked TVL
3
Major Ecosystems
02
Polygon zkEVM's Fork Dilemma: The LLVM Gambit
Polygon zkEVM chose a forked, modified version of the LLVM toolchain to compile EVM bytecode to its zkASM. This creates a subtle but profound lock-in: your smart contract's provability is tied to Polygon's specific compiler fork.
- Lock-In Vector: Non-standard, maintained compiler toolchain.
- Hidden Cost: Audit and security burden shifts from the open EVM ecosystem to a single team.
- Result: Compiler bugs become chain-specific critical failures, as seen in past zkEVM testnet halts.
1
Compiler Source
EVM+
Compatibility
03
zkSync Era & Boojum: The High-Stakes Prover Upgrade
zkSync Era's planned migration from the SNARK-based zkSync 2.0 prover to the STARK-based Boojum prover is a massive, forced engineering event. Apps built on Era are locked into Matter Labs' prover roadmap, with zero ability to "opt-out" of the migration's complexity and risk.
- Lock-In Vector: Centralized control of core proving infrastructure and upgrade path.
- Hidden Cost: Teams must re-audit and re-optimize circuits, a multi-million dollar security exercise.
- Result: Protocol roadmaps are hostage to the L2's proving system decisions.
100%
Forced Migration
~12mo
Upgrade Cycle
04
The Scroll & RISC Zero Contrast: Escape Hatches via Open Standards
Scroll's zkEVM leverages the open-source Halo2 proving system and aims for bytecode-level EVM equivalence. RISC Zero built its zkVM around the RISC-V ISA standard. This open-standard approach is the antithesis of lock-in.
- Solution: Build on widely adopted, community-owned standards (EVM, RISC-V, Halo2).
- Key Benefit: Proof generation can be outsourced or forked, creating a competitive prover market.
- Result: The chain becomes a specification, not a product, reducing platform risk for developers.
0
Proprietary ISA
Multi-Prover
Future Proof
counter-argument
THE VENDOR LOCK-IN
Counterpoint: Standardization is a Pipe Dream
The proliferation of proprietary ZK frameworks creates a strategic dependency that outweighs the benefits of early standardization.
Proprietary frameworks create lock-in. A team that builds on a single vendor's ZK stack, like zkSync's ZK Stack or Polygon CDK, inherits its proving system, language, and tooling. Migrating to a competitor requires a full rewrite, anchoring the project to its initial choice.
The market incentives oppose standards. Companies like Scroll and StarkWare compete on proving speed and cost, not interoperability. Their technical moats are the very features a standard would homogenize, destroying their competitive edge and business model.
The cost is strategic flexibility. A protocol built on a single ZK framework cannot easily deploy its state to a faster or cheaper prover later. This is a permanent architectural debt that limits a project's ability to adapt to new breakthroughs in ZK cryptography.
Evidence: The L2 landscape proves this. Despite years of discussion, no major ZK-rollup shares a proving system. zkSync Era, Starknet, and Polygon zkEVM all run incompatible stacks, demonstrating that vendor capture is the current equilibrium.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Navigating the ZK Framework Maze
Common questions about the strategic and financial risks of vendor lock-in when choosing a ZK framework like zkSync's ZK Stack, Polygon CDK, or Starknet's Madara.
Vendor lock-in is the high cost of switching away from a chosen ZK framework like zkStack or Polygon CDK after building on it. This cost stems from deep technical dependencies on a specific prover, sequencer design, and data availability layer, making migration as complex as a full chain redeployment.
takeaways
VENDOR LOCK-IN ANALYSIS
Takeaways: A Strategic Framework for Frameworks
Choosing a ZK framework is a multi-year architectural commitment. The wrong choice creates technical debt that can cripple protocol agility and value capture.
01
The Problem: The 'StarkNet Stack' Monoculture
Building on Cairo locks you into a single proving backend (Stone), a single VM (Cairo VM), and a single L1 settlement path. This creates a single point of failure for your protocol's security and upgrade path.\n- Zero market competition for prover costs or performance.\n- Protocol sovereignty is ceded to a single entity's roadmap.
1
Prover Option
100%
Roadmap Dependence
02
The Solution: Plonkish Arithmetization as a Portability Layer
Frameworks like Halo2 (used by Polygon zkEVM, Scroll) and gnark standardize on Plonkish arithmetization. This creates a competitive proving market where multiple provers (e.g., gnark, Plonky2) can compile and prove the same circuit.\n- Break vendor lock-in by decoupling circuit design from proving system.\n- Drive down costs via prover competition and hardware acceleration (GPUs, FPGAs).
3x+
Prover Options
-70%
Cost Potential
03
The Problem: Ecosystem Fragmentation Kills Composability
A ZK-rollup on a niche framework becomes an isolated island. It cannot share liquidity or state with the dominant EVM ecosystems (Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon) without expensive, trust-minimized bridging. This destroys network effects.\n- Forces rebuilds of core DeFi primitives (Uniswap, Aave).\n- Increases integration overhead for wallets and oracles.
$10B+
EVM TVL Inaccessible
2-4x
Dev Time Increase
04
The Solution: zkEVM Bytecode Compatibility as a Moat
Frameworks prioritizing bytecode-level EVM equivalence (Scroll, Taiko) or language-level compatibility (zkSync Era) inherit the entire EVM toolchain and developer base. This is a strategic moat, not just a feature.\n- Instant composability with $50B+ in existing DeFi TVL.\n- Leverage battle-tested infrastructure (MetaMask, The Graph, Chainlink).
1M+
Devs Available
90%+
Tooling Reuse
05
The Problem: The Recursive Proof 'Innovation Trap'
Frameworks like RISC Zero and SP1 promise ultimate flexibility with generic ZK-VMs. However, they often sacrifice prover efficiency and cost for generality. For most applications, a specialized circuit is 10-100x more efficient. You pay for flexibility you'll never use.\n- Higher operational costs passed to end-users.\n- Slower proof times hinder user experience (~10s vs ~1s).
10-100x
Cost Premium
~10s
Proof Time
06
The Solution: Application-Specific VMs (zkASVM) for Hyper-Efficiency
The endgame is domain-specific frameworks. Succinct's SP1 for provable RISC-V, Lurk for recursive zk-SNARKs, or a custom noir circuit for a DEX. This aligns framework choice with business logic, not abstract flexibility.\n- Achieve sub-second proofs and sub-cent costs for targeted use cases.\n- Own the full stack and its economic upside.
<$0.01
Target Cost
<1s
Target Proof Time
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall