Monolithic proving is the bottleneck. Every transaction requires a single, integrated prover to generate a validity proof. This creates a hardware dependency on specialized, expensive machines like GPUs or FPGAs, limiting throughput to the physical capacity of that hardware.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
Modular Proving Systems Are the Only Path to Hyper-Scalable Rollups
Monolithic ZK stacks are hitting fundamental bottlenecks. This analysis argues that a modular architecture—separating proof generation, aggregation, and verification—is the only viable path to scaling Ethereum to millions of TPS.
introduction
THE PROOF
The Monolithic Bottleneck
Monolithic execution layers cannot scale because their integrated proving systems create a fundamental hardware and cost ceiling.
Modular proving decouples execution from verification. Systems like RiscZero and Succinct Labs separate the proof generation layer. This allows rollups to outsource proving to a competitive, decentralized network of provers, breaking the hardware monopoly.
The cost curve diverges. Monolithic proving costs scale linearly with usage. A modular proving market enables economies of scale and competition, driving costs toward marginal electricity. This is the model EigenLayer AVS networks are built to enable.
Evidence: A monolithic zkEVM prover today processes ~50-100 TPS. A modular network, by parallelizing proof generation across thousands of nodes, targets 10,000+ TPS. The architectural difference is orders of magnitude.
key-trends
THE BOTTLENECK THESIS
Why Monolithic Stacks Fail at Scale
Monolithic architectures, where execution, settlement, consensus, and data availability are bundled, create a single point of failure for scalability.
01
The Synchronous Bottleneck
Monolithic L1s like Ethereum or Solana require every node to process every transaction, creating a hard physical limit on throughput. This forces a trade-off between decentralization and speed.
- Sequential Execution forces a ~12-15 TPS ceiling on Ethereum.
- State Growth becomes unmanageable, requiring expensive hardware and leading to $100M+ state bloat.
~15 TPS
Ethereum Cap
$100M+
State Bloat
02
The Proving Wall
Integrating a prover (like a zkVM) directly into a monolithic chain creates a resource conflict. The chain must halt to generate a proof, or it must run a prover as a supernode, recentralizing the system.
- Proof Generation Time can be 10-100x slower than execution, stalling finality.
- Hardware Costs for high-end provers create centralized operator sets, defeating decentralization.
10-100x
Proof Lag
Centralized
Operator Risk
03
The Inflexibility Trap
A monolithic stack cannot upgrade one component without a hard fork of the entire system. This stifles innovation in virtual machines, data availability layers, and consensus mechanisms.
- Hard Fork Coordination is politically fraught and slow, taking months to years.
- Cannot Specialize, forcing all dApps to use the same inefficient VM, unlike modular stacks like Eclipse or Celestia-based rollups.
Months
Upgrade Time
0
VM Choice
04
The Data Availability Crisis
In a monolithic design, data availability is tied to consensus. Scaling data posting (e.g., calldata) becomes the primary cost and bottleneck, as seen with Ethereum's $100+ L1 gas fees during peaks.
- Blob Fees are volatile and can constitute >90% of a rollup's operational cost.
- Fixed Capacity cannot match demand spikes, unlike dedicated DA layers like Celestia, EigenDA, or Avail.
>90%
Cost Driver
$100+
Peak Fees
05
Modular Proving: The Celestia & EigenLayer Model
Decoupling the prover into a specialized network (a Proof Market) allows rollups to outsource computation. Systems like RiscZero, Succinct, and Polygon zkEVM leverage this.
- Parallel Proof Generation enables ~1-10 second finality for zkRollups.
- Cost Efficiency via competitive markets reduces proving costs by 10-100x versus in-house operation.
1-10s
zk Finality
10-100x
Cheaper Proofs
06
The Sovereign Rollup Endgame
The final form is a rollup that chooses its own settlement, DA, and prover. This is enabled by modular stacks like Celestia, EigenDA, and Espresso for sequencing.
- Unbundled Security allows tapping into $10B+ in pooled security (EigenLayer) for DA.
- Best-in-Class Components let architects mix Celestia DA, Ethereum settlement, and a RiscZero prover.
$10B+
Pooled Security
Mix & Match
Architecture
thesis-statement
THE PROOF
The Modular Mandate: Decouple or Die
Monolithic proving is the primary bottleneck preventing rollups from achieving true hyper-scalability.
Monolithic provers create a single point of failure. A single STARK or SNARK prover must process all transactions, creating a compute bottleneck that caps throughput regardless of execution layer speed.
Modular proving decouples execution from verification. Specialized proving networks like Risc Zero and Succinct allow rollups to outsource proof generation, enabling parallel processing and heterogeneous proving backends.
This separation enables specialized hardware. Dedicated zkVM or zkEVM provers can be optimized for specific workloads, similar to how Nvidia GPUs accelerated AI model training.
Evidence: Celestia's data availability layer proves the market demands decoupled infrastructure. Proving networks are the next logical modular primitive, following the same architectural playbook.
HYPERSCALING DECISION MATRIX
Monolithic vs. Modular Proving: A Cost & Latency Projection
A first-principles comparison of proving architectures for rollup scalability, focusing on quantifiable trade-offs between capital efficiency, latency, and decentralization.
| Architectural Metric | Monolithic Prover (e.g., zkSync, Polygon zkEVM) | Hybrid Prover (e.g., StarkNet, Scroll) | Fully Modular Prover (e.g., RiscZero, SP1, zkWasm) |
|---|---|---|---|
Proving Time for 1M Tx Batch |
| 2-4 hours | < 30 minutes |
Estimated Prover Cost per Tx (2025E) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.05 - $0.15 | < $0.01 |
Hardware Requirement for Viable Operation | Custom ASIC Cluster ($1M+ CapEx) | High-End GPU Farm ($200k+ CapEx) | Commodity Cloud CPU/GPU |
Prover Decentralization Timeline | 2026+ (ASIC bottleneck) | 2025 (GPU/ASIC hybrid) | 2024 (CPU/GPU commodity) |
Time-to-Finality (L1 Inclusion) | 12+ hours | 3-6 hours | < 1 hour |
Cross-Rollup Proof Aggregation Support | |||
Multi-VM / Custom VM Support (EVM, SVM, Move) | |||
Prover Market Competition (Avoids Monopoly Rent) |
deep-dive
THE ARCHITECTURE
Anatomy of a Modular Proving Stack
Decoupling proof generation from settlement and execution is the prerequisite for scaling rollups beyond the limits of monolithic designs.
Monolithic proving is a bottleneck. A single sequencer-prover creates a linear dependency, capping throughput at the speed of its chosen proof system like zkSync's Boojum or Polygon zkEVM's Plonky2.
Decoupling enables specialization. Dedicated proving networks like RiscZero or Succinct allow rollups to outsource heavy computation, adopting the fastest prover for each job without protocol-level changes.
Shared provers create economies of scale. A network like Espresso or Geometric aggregates proofs from multiple rollups, amortizing hardware costs and achieving higher utilization than any single chain.
Evidence: Ethereum's Dencun upgrade made data cheap, shifting the bottleneck to proof generation cost and speed, which modular architectures directly optimize.
protocol-spotlight
PROVING INFRASTRUCTURE
Early Movers in the Modular Stack
The monolithic prover is a bottleneck. These projects are decoupling proof generation to unlock hyper-scalable execution.
01
The Problem: The Monolithic Prover Bottleneck
Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism are hitting a wall. Their integrated provers can't scale with demand, creating a single point of failure and unpredictable, spiking costs for users.
- Sequencing Halt Risk: A prover failure can stall the entire chain.
- Cost Volatility: Proof generation costs spike with L2 activity, passed to users.
- Hardware Lock-in: Tied to a single proving scheme (e.g., Groth16, PLONK).
~10s
Proving Time
$1M+
Hardware Cost
02
RISC Zero: The General-Purpose zkVM
A modular, proof-carrying compute environment. Developers write code in Rust/Go, and RISC Zero generates a zero-knowledge proof of correct execution, compatible with any chain.
- Developer Agility: No circuit writing. Use standard languages and toolchains.
- Universal Verifier: A single on-chain verifier can validate proofs from any app.
- Modular Stack Core: Enables zkVM-based rollups and co-processors for L1s like Ethereum.
~1 min
Proof Gen Time
100%
Rust Compatible
03
Succinct: The Shared Proving Marketplace
A decentralized network for proof generation. Rollups like Polygon zkEVM and Scroll can outsource proving to a competitive marketplace of specialized hardware operators.
- Cost Efficiency: Market competition drives down proving costs.
- Uptime Guarantees: Redundant provers eliminate single points of failure.
- Proof Aggregation: Can bundle multiple rollup proofs into one for Ethereum settlement, saving ~90% on gas.
-70%
Proving Cost
24/7
Uptime
04
The Solution: Specialized Coprocessors & L3s
Modular proving enables new architectures. zkVM co-processors (e.g., using RISC Zero) let L1s like Ethereum or Solana offload complex computations. L3 app-chains can use a shared prover network for security and scale.
- Unbounded Compute: L1s gain access to heavy computation verified by ZK proofs.
- Sovereign Scaling: App-chains maintain sovereignty while leveraging shared security.
- Final Path: The end-state is a mesh of specialized chains connected by verifiable compute.
1000x
Compute Scale
L1 Finality
Security
counter-argument
THE MONOLITHIC FALLACY
The Integration Counterargument (And Why It's Wrong)
The argument for integrated execution and proving is a short-sighted optimization that fails at scale.
Integrated stacks create vendor lock-in by coupling a rollup's execution environment to a specific proving backend like RISC Zero or SP1. This prevents the rapid adoption of proving innovations from newer, faster systems like Jolt or Boojum, forcing a costly, disruptive migration.
Specialization always beats integration at the infrastructure layer. The internet separated TCP/IP from HTTP; blockchains separate consensus from execution. A modular proving interface is the logical next step, allowing rollups like Arbitrum or Optimism to hot-swap provers for cost and speed.
The performance ceiling is provable. A monolithic prover is a single point of optimization. A competitive market of specialized proving networks (e.g., Succinct, Gevulot, Lagrange) creates continuous efficiency gains, driving proving costs toward zero, which is the only path to true hyper-scalability.
takeaways
MODULAR PROVING
TL;DR for CTOs and Architects
Monolithic provers are the single point of failure for rollup scalability. Here's why you must decompose them.
01
The Problem: Monolithic Provers Hit a Wall
A single prover handling all logic (execution, storage, recursion) creates a bottleneck. It forces a trade-off between general-purpose flexibility and specialized performance. This is why proving times for large zkEVMs can still be ~10 minutes and cost ~$0.10+ per transaction at scale.
~10 min
Prove Time
$0.10+
Cost/Tx
02
The Solution: Specialized Co-Processors (RiscZero, Axiom)
Offload specific, heavy computations (like Merkle proofs, signature verification, historical data access) to dedicated proving units. This turns your rollup's VM into a coordinator, not a bottleneck.\n- Key Benefit: Enables trustless access to on-chain history and complex crypto.\n- Key Benefit: 10-1000x faster proving for targeted ops vs. a general zkEVM.
1000x
Faster Ops
Off-chain
Data Access
03
The Solution: Recursive Proof Aggregation (Lumio, Succinct)
Use a layered proving stack. Base layer provers generate proofs for blocks, which are then cheaply aggregated into a single final proof. This separates latency (fast block proofs) from throughput (slow, cheap final proof).\n- Key Benefit: Enables ~2s block times with ~20 min finality.\n- Key Benefit: ~10-100x reduction in on-chain verification costs.
~2s
Block Time
-90%
On-Chain Cost
04
The Solution: Dedicated DA Provers (Avail, Celestia, EigenDA)
Separate Data Availability (DA) proof generation from execution proof generation. A light client proof of data availability can be generated independently and verified by the rollup's prover.\n- Key Benefit: Unlocks use of any DA layer without rebuilding your prover.\n- Key Benefit: ~100x cheaper DA sampling vs. full Ethereum calldata.
~100x
Cheaper DA
Any Layer
DA Agnostic
05
The Architecture: Prover Marketplaces (Espresso, Gevulot)
Treat proving as a commoditized resource. Rollups post proof jobs to a decentralized network of specialized hardware (GPUs, FPGAs). This creates cost competition and hardware innovation separate from rollup development.\n- Key Benefit: Dynamic, auction-based pricing for proving power.\n- Key Benefit: Fault tolerance via multiple redundant provers.
Auction
Pricing
Redundant
Fault Tolerance
06
The Bottom Line: Proving is the New Execution Layer
Just as execution split from consensus (Ethereum), proving must now split into specialized components. Your rollup stack should be a coordinator of proofs, not a generator. The winning architecture will be a modular proving pipeline sourcing from co-processors, aggregators, and DA provers via a marketplace.
Modular
Pipeline
Coordinator
Rollup Role
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