FHE is a research toy. It solves for a niche privacy problem while ignoring the dominant market demand for scalable, cost-effective verification. Projects like Aztec Network demonstrate the immense engineering overhead for minimal user adoption.
venture-capital-trends-in-web3
Blog
Why FHE is a Distraction for Pragmatic ZK Venture Capital
Fully Homomorphic Encryption promises ultimate privacy but remains computationally impractical. This analysis argues that near-term venture returns will be captured by optimized ZK proof systems like zkEVMs and coprocessors, not by chasing theoretical cryptography moonshots.
introduction
THE REALITY CHECK
Introduction
FHE's theoretical promise distracts from the immediate, deployable ZK primitives that generate revenue today.
ZKPs are a production-ready primitive. ZK rollups like zkSync and StarkNet process billions in value by proving state transitions, not encrypting them. The venture capital flows to infrastructure that scales blockchains, not obfuscates them.
The market votes with its TVL. Total Value Locked in ZK L2s exceeds $1.5B. FHE applications struggle to break $50M. Capital allocators prioritize ZK-VMs and coprocessors like RISC Zero that enable new applications, not just privacy.
key-trends
WHY FHE IS A DISTRACTION
Executive Summary: The Pragmatic ZK Investment Thesis
Fully Homomorphic Encryption is a research novelty, not a deployable primitive for the next 5 years. Pragmatic capital must focus on ZK systems solving today's scaling and privacy bottlenecks.
01
The Performance Chasm: FHE vs. ZK
FHE's computational overhead is measured in orders of magnitude, not percentages. A simple transaction can take minutes and cost ~$10+ in compute, versus ZK's ~$0.01 and ~500ms.\n- ZK Proofs: Verify state transitions (e.g., zkSync, StarkNet).\n- FHE: Compute on encrypted data, a fundamentally heavier task.
1000x
Slower
$10+
Per Tx Cost
02
The Market Reality: Scaling > Absolute Privacy
Demand is for cheap, fast L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism) and private payments (Aztec), not for on-chain encrypted Google Sheets. ZK-Rollups are delivering ~90% cost reduction today.\n- ZK-EVMs (Scroll, Polygon zkEVM) are shipping.\n- FHE use-cases (dark pools, MEV protection) are niche and can be served by existing ZK tech.
90%
Cost Reduction
$10B+
ZK L2 TVL
03
The VC Trap: Chasing Theoretical Moonshots
Investing in FHE today is a 10-year research bet, not a pragmatic deployment play. Capital is better allocated to teams solving ZK hardware acceleration (Ulvetanna, Ingonyama) and prover market efficiency.\n- Real Problem: ZK proving costs and finality speed.\n- Distraction: Building a new cryptography stack from scratch.
10Y
Time Horizon
100x
Capital Efficiency
04
The Bridge to Nowhere: FHE's Composability Problem
FHE-encrypted data is a walled garden. It cannot be efficiently verified by a ZK-SNARK or understood by an EVM, breaking composability—the core innovation of DeFi (Uniswap, Aave).\n- ZK Proofs: Are succinct certificates of truth, universally verifiable.\n- FHE Outputs: Are opaque blobs, requiring specialized, trusted interpreters.
0
Native Composability
High
Trust Assumptions
05
The Pragmatic Path: ZK as a Versatile Primitive
ZK-SNARKs/STARKs are a Swiss Army knife for blockchain: scaling (rollups), privacy (zk-proof of solvency), and interoperability (bridges like zkBridge). This versatility creates multiple revenue streams from a single R&D focus.\n- One Stack: Powers L2s, private L1s (Aleo), and co-processors (Risc Zero).\n- FHE: A single, monolithic application.
Multi
Use Cases
1 Stack
R&D Focus
06
The Regulatory Mirage: FHE's False Privacy Promise
FHE does not solve regulatory compliance (Travel Rule, KYC). Authorities will demand decryption keys, creating a centralized backdoor. ZK-proofs of compliance (e.g., proof of accredited investor) offer a cryptographically sound alternative.\n- ZK: Prove a property about data without revealing it.\n- FHE: Hide data entirely, which regulators will not tolerate.
No
Regulatory Solution
Centralized
Failure Point
thesis-statement
THE PERFORMANCE REALITY
The Core Argument: FHE's Computational Wall
FHE's computational overhead creates a fundamental barrier to practical blockchain scaling, making it a poor near-term investment for VCs seeking deployable ZK tech.
FHE is computationally intractable for general-purpose smart contracts. Each encrypted operation requires orders of magnitude more processing than plaintext, creating a prohibitive gas cost that no user will pay.
The trade-off is asymmetric versus succinct ZK proofs. Projects like zkSync and Starknet prove state transitions are valid without revealing data, a model that scales. FHE attempts to compute on the secret data, which is fundamentally heavier.
Real-world evidence is absent. No major L1 or L2 uses FHE for core logic. Contrast this with the ZK-EVM rollup race where Polygon, Scroll, and others have live networks processing real transactions with verifiable scaling roadmaps.
DECISION MATRIX
ZK vs. FHE: A Pragmatic Comparison for Builders
A first-principles comparison of cryptographic primitives for on-chain computation, focusing on current production viability and venture capital allocation.
| Cryptographic Primitive | Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) | Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) | Verifiable Computation (VC) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Function | Prove statement validity without revealing data | Compute on encrypted data without decrypting | Verify off-chain computation was executed correctly |
Production Maturity (2024) | EVM via zkEVMs (Scroll, zkSync), zkRollups (Starknet) | Testnet-only (Fhenix, Inco), limited tooling | Established (Truebit, Cartesi) |
Prover Time (Complex Op) | 2-5 seconds (zkVM, Plonk) |
| < 1 second (Optimistic or Interactive) |
On-Chain Verification Cost | ~200k-500k gas (Groth16) |
| ~50k-100k gas (Optimistic challenge) |
Developer Tooling | Circom, Noir, Halo2, Cairo | TFHE-rs (Rust), Concrete (Python) | RISC-V toolchains, Cartesi Machine |
Hardware Acceleration | Custom ASICs (Cysic, Ulvetanna), GPUs | FPGAs (Zama), GPUs (NuCypher) | Standard CPUs, optional TEEs |
Primary Use Case Fit | Private transactions, scaling (zkRollups), identity | Encrypted on-chain voting, sealed-bid auctions | Off-chain game logic, complex DeFi strategies |
VC Investment Thesis (2023-24) | $1.2B+ (Polygon, zkSync, StarkWare rounds) | $80M+ (Zama, Fhenix, Inco rounds) | $50M+ (Cartesi, RISC Zero rounds) |
deep-dive
THE INFRASTRUCTURE LAYER
Where the Real Alpha Is: The ZK Maturity Curve
Venture capital focused on end-user ZK applications is chasing a distraction; the durable value accrues to the infrastructure enabling them.
FHE is a premature optimization. Fully Homomorphic Encryption solves for a privacy niche that lacks immediate, scalable demand. The computational overhead is 1000x+ versus ZK proofs, making it commercially non-viable for most current blockchain use cases like private DeFi on Aave or Uniswap.
The maturity curve favors tooling. Real alpha is in the prover markets, proof aggregation layers, and specialized hardware. Companies like RiscZero and Succinct are building the foundational compilers and provers that every ZK-rollup (zkSync, Starknet) will depend on, analogous to how AWS profits from the app economy.
Evidence: The total value secured by ZK-rollups exceeds $5B, yet their shared bottleneck is proof generation cost and speed. Ventures funding the next privacy-preserving DEX are betting on the app; those funding the next Ulvetanna (ZK hardware) are betting on the entire stack.
protocol-spotlight
THE REALIST'S GUIDE
Protocol Spotlight: Capitalizing on the ZK Stack
ZK-rollups are scaling Ethereum today; FHE is a research project with a 5-year horizon. VCs should fund builders, not buzzwords.
01
The Problem: FHE's Performance Tax
Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) is computationally intractable for high-throughput applications. Its overhead makes it a non-starter for general-purpose L2s.
- Latency: Operations are ~1000x slower than plaintext or ZK.
- Cost: Prohibitive for on-chain gas, limiting use to niche, high-value data.
- State: Projects like Fhenix and Inco are years from competing with zkSync, Starknet, or Polygon zkEVM on TPS.
~1000x
Slower
5+ Years
Horizon
02
The Solution: ZK Stack's Modular Flywheel
zkSync's ZK Stack and Starknet's Appchains provide battle-tested, modular frameworks for launching sovereign L2/L3s. This is where real capital deployment happens.
- Time-to-Market: Launch a custom chain in weeks, not years.
- Liquidity: Native shared bridging with the main L2 (e.g., Hyperchains).
- Proven Scale: zkSync Era processes 100+ TPS; the stack inherits this performance.
100+ TPS
Proven Scale
Weeks
To Launch
03
The Reality: Privacy is a Feature, Not a Chain
Demand for on-chain privacy is real, but FHE is overkill. ZK-proofs already provide robust privacy for specific applications without the performance tax.
- Use Case Fit: Aztec (private DeFi) uses ZK. Tornado Cash used ZK-SNARKs.
- Pragmatic Path: Integrate ZK-privacy modules (e.g., zk.money model) into existing ZK-rollups.
- VC Play: Fund dApps using ZK-proofs for privacy, not monolithic FHE chains.
Feature
Not Foundation
Existing Tech
ZK Proofs
04
The Capital: Follow the Developers & TVL
VCs chase narratives; builders chase users. The developer and capital migration to the ZK Stack is the leading indicator.
- Developer Activity: Starknet and zkSync SDKs have 10x more devs than any FHE ecosystem.
- TVL Signal: $1B+ collectively locked in major ZK-rollups versus ~$0 for FHE.
- Strategic Bet: Invest in infrastructure enabling this migration: ZK prover services, shared sequencers, interop layers.
$1B+
TVL Signal
10x Devs
Activity
counter-argument
THE DISTRACTION
Steelman: The Case for FHE (And Why It's Wrong)
FHE's theoretical promise obscures its practical irrelevance for near-term ZK venture returns.
FHE is computationally intractable. Fully Homomorphic Encryption allows computation on encrypted data, but its overhead is 1000x worse than ZK-SNARKs. This makes it unusable for on-chain scaling or DeFi primitives today.
The use cases are speculative. Proponents cite private smart contracts and MEV resistance, but ZK-Proofs and TEEs already solve these problems with mature tooling like Aztec and Oasis. FHE is a solution seeking a problem.
Venture capital misallocates resources. Funding for Fhenix and Zama diverts talent from optimizing ZK-VMs like zkSync's Era or Starknet's Cairo. The market demands throughput, not theoretical privacy.
Evidence: A basic FHE transaction requires ~1GB of proof data versus ~10KB for a Groth16 ZK-SNARK. The infrastructure for scalable FHE execution does not exist.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: FHE, ZK, and Venture Realities
Common questions about why FHE is a distraction for pragmatic ZK venture capital.
FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) allows computation on encrypted data, while ZK (Zero-Knowledge) proves a statement's truth without revealing the data. FHE is a cryptographic primitive, whereas ZK is a proof system. For blockchain scaling and privacy, ZK proofs (as used by zkSync, StarkNet, and Aztec) are production-ready, while FHE remains computationally impractical for most on-chain applications.
investment-thesis
THE DISTRACTION
The Pragmatic VC Playbook
FHE's theoretical promise obscures the immediate, deployable ZK primitives that generate real user traction and revenue.
FHE is a research trap. It solves for a theoretical 'perfect privacy' that most applications, like private voting or dark pools, do not require today. VCs funding FHE startups are subsidizing cryptography PhDs, not funding products with a path to users.
ZK-SNARKs are production-ready. Protocols like zkSync, Starknet, and Aztec deploy ZK proofs for scaling and selective privacy right now. The battle-tested tech stack, from Halo2 to Plonky2, proves the infrastructure layer is solved.
The market votes with volume. Arbitrum and zkSync Era process millions of transactions weekly; FHE applications process speculative tweets. Pragmatic capital flows to scaling rollups and privacy-preserving apps built on mature ZK, not to vaporware.
Evidence: Compare the Total Value Locked (TVL) in Aztec's zk.money (which pivoted from FHE) to any pure FHE chain. The data shows users prefer functional, partial privacy over unimplemented, absolute guarantees.
takeaways
WHY FHE IS A DISTRACTION
TL;DR: Key Takeaways
FHE's theoretical promise is overshadowed by practical constraints that make it a poor investment target for VCs focused on near-term, scalable ZK applications.
01
The Performance Chasm
FHE's computational overhead is prohibitive for high-throughput blockchains. While ZK-SNARKs (e.g., zkSync, StarkNet) achieve ~100ms proof times, FHE operations can take seconds to minutes. This makes it unsuitable for DeFi primitives requiring sub-second finality.
1000x
Slower
~100ms
ZK Baseline
02
The Cost Fallacy
FHE's gas costs are astronomically higher than ZK alternatives. A simple encrypted balance check on Fhenix or Inco can cost 100-1000x more gas than a similar ZK proof on Scroll or Polygon zkEVM. This destroys any viable economic model for mainstream dApps.
1000x
Cost Premium
$0.01+
Per TX Target
03
ZK's Privacy Evolution
ZK is already solving privacy without FHE's baggage. Aztec uses ZK for private smart contracts. Tornado Cash (pre-sanctions) used ZK for anonymity. New architectures like zkSharding and recursive proofs (e.g., Nova) are extending ZK's privacy frontier with far better efficiency.
Aztec
Private L2
Nova
Recursive ZK
04
The Developer Desert
FHE lacks a mature developer ecosystem. Compare ~50 active FHE devs to ~10,000+ building with ZK toolkits like Circom, Halo2, and StarkWare's Cairo. Without developers, there is no application layer to generate venture-scale returns.
50
FHE Devs
10k+
ZK Devs
05
Regulatory Misdirection
FHE's 'encrypt everything' model creates a regulatory nightmare. It inherently obscures transaction data from validators and regulators alike, inviting immediate scrutiny (see Tornado Cash). ZK's selective transparency (proving compliance without revealing data) is a more pragmatic path.
OFAC
Compliance Hurdle
Selective
ZK Transparency
06
The Market Signal
Capital and usage flow to ZK, not FHE. ZK Rollups secure >$20B TVL. FHE chains have <$50M TVL. Major infrastructure bets from a16z, Paradigm, and Electric Capital are overwhelmingly on ZK scaling (e.g., StarkWare, zkSync), not general-purpose FHE.
$20B+
ZK TVL
<$50M
FHE TVL
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