Proving is the bottleneck. ZK-rollups like zkSync and StarkNet promise scalability, but their proof generation costs dominate transaction fees and latency. The prover's computational load is the primary constraint, not the verifier's work.
green-blockchain-energy-and-sustainability
Blog
Why Zero-Knowledge Proofs Demand a New Hardware Calculus
The shift to ZK-centric scaling (zkSync, StarkNet) doesn't eliminate energy costs—it offloads them to specialized provers. This creates a new critical frontier where hardware efficiency dictates protocol sustainability, decentralization, and cost. We analyze the prover's dilemma and the race for optimal hardware.
introduction
THE HARDWARE BOTTLENECK
The Prover's Burden: ZK's Dirty Little Secret
Zero-knowledge proof generation is computationally prohibitive, creating a centralizing force that undermines the decentralized networks it aims to secure.
Hardware centralizes power. Efficient proving requires specialized hardware like GPUs or FPGAs, creating a capital-intensive proving market. This centralizes power with entities like Ulvetanna, mirroring the ASIC mining centralization in Bitcoin.
General-purpose hardware fails. Standard CPUs and cloud instances are orders of magnitude slower for ZK operations like multi-scalar multiplication (MSM) and Number Theoretic Transforms (NTT). This forces a shift to accelerated hardware.
Evidence: A single zkEVM proof on consumer hardware takes minutes, while a GPU-accelerated prover from a service like Succinct completes it in seconds. This performance gap defines economic viability.
key-trends
ZK-PROOF ECONOMICS
The New Hardware Frontier: Three Inescapable Trends
The shift from general-purpose CPUs to specialized hardware is not optional; it's the only path to scaling ZK-verified blockchains for mass adoption.
01
The Problem: The ZK Bottleneck is Economic, Not Just Computational
General-purpose CPUs and GPUs are too slow and power-hungry for production-scale ZK proving. This creates a prover monopoly, centralizing trust and making private transactions prohibitively expensive.
- Cost Barrier: Proving a simple transfer can cost $0.50+ on a CPU, killing micro-transactions.
- Time-to-Finality: A CPU proving time of ~10 minutes defeats the purpose of fast L2s.
- Centralization Risk: High capital costs for prover hardware lead to few operators, undermining decentralization.
$0.50+
Per-Tx Cost
~10 min
Prove Time
02
The Solution: ASICs & Custom Silicon (See: Ingonyama, Cysic)
Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) and FPGA-based accelerators are being built solely for ZK operations like MSM and NTT. They offer order-of-magnitude improvements in performance per watt.
- Performance Leap: Specialized hardware achieves 100-1000x faster proving vs. CPUs.
- Cost Collapse: Drives proving costs toward <$0.01, enabling viable private DeFi and gaming.
- Prover Decentralization: Lower operational costs allow more participants to run provers, aligning with crypto's trust-minimization ethos.
1000x
Faster
<$0.01
Target Cost
03
The New Stack: Prover Networks & Proof Markets
Hardware specialization enables a new infrastructure layer: decentralized prover networks like RiscZero and proof markets. Blockchains become verifiers-only, outsourcing heavy proving to a competitive hardware marketplace.
- Modular Design: Separates proof generation (prover network) from verification (L1/L2).
- Market Efficiency: Proof pricing becomes commoditized, driven by hardware competition between Ingonyama, Cysic, and Ulvetanna.
- Universal Circuits: Projects like RiscZero's zkVM allow any code to generate ZK proofs, making this hardware stack general-purpose.
Verifier-Only
New Chain Design
Commoditized
Proof Pricing
ZK-SNARK VS. ZK-STARK VS. FRI
Hardware Calculus: The Prover's Trade-Off Matrix
Comparing the hardware acceleration requirements and trade-offs for dominant ZK proof systems used by protocols like zkSync, StarkNet, and Polygon zkEVM.
| Core Metric / Constraint | GPU (NVIDIA A100 / H100) | FPGA (Custom Acceleration) | ASIC (zk-SNARK Specific) |
|---|---|---|---|
Proving Time for 1M Tx Batch | 2-5 minutes | 45-90 seconds | < 30 seconds |
Hardware Cost per Prover Node | $15k - $30k | $50k - $200k | $500k+ (NRE) |
Energy Efficiency (Joules/Proof) | ~5000 J | ~800 J | ~50 J |
Parallelization Support | |||
Algorithm Agility (e.g., FRI -> Nova) | |||
Memory Bandwidth Requirement |
| ~500 GB/s | < 100 GB/s |
Suited for General-Purpose EVMs | |||
Dominant Bottleneck | Memory Bandwidth | Logic Fabric Utilization | Fixed Circuit Design |
deep-dive
THE HARDWARE BOTTLENECK
The Prover's Dilemma: Efficiency vs. Decentralization
Zero-knowledge proof generation creates an unavoidable hardware arms race that centralizes proving power.
Proving is computationally asymmetric. The verifier's cheap check is subsidized by the prover's immense, specialized computation. This creates a natural economic centralization around the most efficient hardware.
General-purpose CPUs are obsolete. ZK-SNARKs for circuits like those in zkEVMs (Scroll, Polygon zkEVM) require FFTs and MSMs that demand parallel, high-bandwidth memory. This is a GPU and FPGA domain.
The end-state is ASIC dominance. Projects like Mina Protocol and Aleo already assume custom hardware. The proving market will resemble Bitcoin mining, where efficiency dictates control of the proving layer.
Evidence: A single Ethereum block proof on a high-end GPU takes minutes, not seconds. This latency forces centralized proving services like RiscZero or Ingonyama to emerge as infrastructure.
protocol-spotlight
ZK'S HARDWARE FRONTIER
Architecting for Hardware: Who's Getting It Right?
The computational intensity of ZK proofs is forcing a fundamental shift from software optimization to hardware co-design.
01
The Problem: The GPU Bottleneck
General-purpose GPUs are inefficient for ZK's specialized workloads, leading to prohibitive proving costs and slow finality. This is the primary barrier to scaling ZK-rollups like zkSync and Starknet.
- Cost: Proving a simple transaction can cost $0.10-$0.50 on commodity hardware.
- Time: Proving latency often exceeds ~10 seconds, limiting user experience.
$0.50
Per Tx Cost
>10s
Prove Time
02
The Solution: Custom ASICs (e.g., Ulvetanna, Fabric Cryptography)
Application-Specific Integrated Circuits are the endgame for ZK performance, offering orders-of-magnitude efficiency gains for fixed algorithms like Keccak hashing and MSMs.
- Performance: 100-1000x improvement in throughput vs. GPUs.
- Trade-off: ~2-year development cycles and $10M+ NRE costs create high risk and lock-in.
1000x
Throughput Gain
$10M+
NRE Cost
03
The Pragmatic Middle: FPGA Acceleration (e.g., Ingonyama, Cysic)
Field-Programmable Gate Arrays offer a flexible, iterative path to hardware acceleration. They can be reprogrammed for evolving ZK constructions (e.g., Halo2, Plonky2) while still delivering ~10-50x speedups.
- Agility: Update algorithms in weeks, not years.
- Deployment: Enables cloud-based proving services with ~1-5 second latency.
50x
Speedup
~1s
Cloud Latency
04
The Software Layer: Proof Aggregation (e.g., =nil;, Succinct)
Hardware is useless without efficient software orchestration. Aggregation protocols batch thousands of proofs into a single verification, amortizing hardware costs across many users and chains.
- Efficiency: Reduces on-chain verification cost by >99%.
- Interop: Enables shared security models and ZK light clients for cross-chain (e.g., EigenLayer, Polygon AggLayer).
>99%
Cost Reduction
1 Proof
For 1000s of Txs
05
The Economic Model: Prover Markets (e.g., Espresso, Gevulot)
Decentralizing hardware requires a robust economic layer. Prover markets create competitive, permissionless networks where specialized hardware competes on cost and speed, preventing centralization.
- Incentives: MEV-like rewards for fastest provers.
- Redundancy: Eliminates single points of failure for critical infra like ZK-rollup sequencers.
MEV
Prover Rewards
100%
Uptime Target
06
The Endgame: ZK Virtual Machines (e.g., RISC Zero, zkVM)
The ultimate abstraction: proving general-purpose computation. This moves the hardware target from specific ZK-SNARK curves to optimizing zero-knowledge virtual machines, making any program provable.
- Generality: Enables ZK coprocessors and verifiable off-chain compute for AI and games.
- Challenge: Requires further 10-100x hardware efficiency gains to be practical.
Any Program
Provable
100x
Efficiency Needed
risk-analysis
THE BOTTLENECK
The Bear Case: When Hardware Fails
The scalability promise of ZK proofs is fundamentally constrained by the physical and economic limits of specialized hardware.
Proving time is the ultimate bottleneck. A ZK rollup's throughput is not determined by its virtual machine, but by the speed at which its prover hardware can generate validity proofs. This creates a direct dependency on ASIC/GPU supply chains and manufacturing cycles.
Hardware centralization creates systemic risk. The capital intensity of high-performance provers favors centralized operators like zkSync or Polygon zkEVM, creating a single point of failure. A hardware flaw or supply shock in a dominant Accelerator vendor like NVIDIA cripples the network.
Prover economics are unsustainable. The operational cost of generating proofs, dominated by electricity and hardware depreciation, must be subsidized by sequencer fees. Networks like Starknet face a trilemma: high fees, slow finality, or unsustainable sequencer subsidies.
Evidence: The cost to generate a ZK-SNARK proof for a simple transfer on a consumer GPU is ~$0.01. Scaling to Arbitrum's 10 TPS would require a $10M+ ASIC cluster, centralizing control and creating a regulatory attack surface.
takeaways
WHY ZKPS DEMAND NEW SILICON
TL;DR: The New Hardware Mandate
General-purpose CPUs are failing the zero-knowledge proof workload, creating a bottleneck that defines the next generation of blockchain infrastructure.
01
The Problem: The CPU Bottleneck
ZK proof generation is a parallelizable, arithmetic-heavy workload that chokes on CPU architectures. A single Groth16 proof on a high-end CPU can take ~30 seconds, making real-time applications impossible and costs prohibitive.\n- Sequential Execution: CPUs process operations one after another, wasting potential.\n- Memory Bandwidth Limits: Constrains data flow for large polynomial computations.\n- Thermal Throttling: Sustained, intensive workloads cause CPUs to slow down to prevent damage.
30s+
Proof Time (CPU)
$5+
Est. Cost/Proof
02
The Solution: GPU & FPGA Parallelism
Hardware like NVIDIA GPUs and FPGAs exploit the inherent parallelism in ZK circuits (MSMs, NTTs). Projects like Ingonyama and Cysic are building dedicated accelerators, achieving 100-1000x speedups over CPUs.\n- Massive Core Counts: Thousands of cores compute polynomial operations simultaneously.\n- Specialized Memory Hierarchies: Optimized for the large data sets in proof generation.\n- Flexible Precision: Handle the 254-bit finite field arithmetic native to ZK-SNARKs.
100-1000x
Speedup vs CPU
<1s
Target Proof Time
03
The Frontier: Custom ASICs (zkASICs)
The endgame is application-specific integrated circuits, like those from Cysic and planned by Polygon. These remove all general-purpose overhead, offering ultimate performance-per-watt and enabling sub-cent proof costs at scale.\n- Fixed-Function Logic: Silicon etched solely for ZK primitives (MSM, NTT, Poseidon).\n- Energy Efficiency: Drives down operational costs for prover networks.\n- Economic Moats: Creates infrastructure barriers akin to Bitcoin mining ASICs.
>1000x
Efficiency Gain
<$0.01
Target Cost/Proof
04
The Consequence: Prover Centralization Risk
High-performance hardware creates a centralizing force. Without careful protocol design, proof generation becomes the domain of specialized data centers, undermining decentralization. This mirrors the MEV searcher and Ethereum PoW mining centralization dilemmas.\n- Capital Barrier: ASIC/GPU farms require significant upfront investment.\n- Geographic Concentration: Follows cheap electricity and favorable regulation.\n- Protocol Response: Necessitates designs like proof aggregation (e.g., Nebra) and decentralized prover markets.
$10M+
Farm Entry Cost
~5
Major Prover Ops
05
The New Stack: Hardware-Aware ZK VMs
Next-generation virtual machines like zkVM (RISC Zero) and zkEVM (Polygon zkEVM, Scroll) are being designed with hardware acceleration in mind. They use cycle-efficient architectures and hardware-friendly primitives (e.g., Goldilocks field) to minimize prover overhead.\n- Instruction Set Design: Opcodes optimized for parallel hardware execution.\n- Field Selection: 64-bit friendly fields reduce circuit complexity vs. 256-bit.\n- Toolchain Integration: Compilers that target GPU/FPGA backends directly.
10-100x
VM Speedup
64-bit
Optimized Field
06
The Business Model: Prover-as-a-Service
The hardware shift births a new infrastructure layer: PaaS. Companies like Espresso Systems (with Tiramisu) and Ulvetanna are building cloud services for proofs, abstracting hardware complexity. This becomes the AWS for ZK, monetizing throughput and latency.\n- Economies of Scale: Large operators amortize hardware costs across many clients.\n- Liquidity for Proofs: Markets match provers with applications needing capacity.\n- Vertical Integration: Potential for operators to also run sequencers or validators.
$10B+
Potential Market
~100ms
Service Latency
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