SNARKs are production-proven. STARKs are an academic marvel, but SNARKs power the largest ZK-rollups today. zkSync, Polygon zkEVM, and Scroll all deploy SNARK variants because the tooling and developer familiarity exist.
venture-capital-trends-in-web3
Blog
Why SNARKs Will Outlive STARKs in the Venture Portfolio
A cynical but optimistic analysis of why SNARKs' practical advantages—smaller proofs, mature tooling, and developer adoption—will deliver better venture returns than STARKs' theoretical superiority.
introduction
THE VERDICT
Introduction
SNARKs will dominate venture portfolios due to their superior production-readiness, ecosystem maturity, and capital efficiency.
The trust assumption is a red herring. STARKs boast post-quantum security without trusted setups, but SNARKs like Groth16 and PlonK use universal ceremonies (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau) that amortize risk across the entire ecosystem. This trade-off is acceptable for scaling.
Capital efficiency dictates adoption. SNARK proofs are smaller and cheaper to verify on-chain. For a venture portfolio, this translates to lower operational costs and higher margins for portfolio companies versus the heavier computational load of STARKs.
Evidence: The total value locked in SNARK-based L2s exceeds $3B, while STARK-based chains like Starknet hold under $1B. This market signal validates the pragmatic, investor-driven preference for SNARK infrastructure.
thesis-statement
THE REALITY CHECK
The Core Argument: Product-Market Fit Beats Purity
SNARKs will dominate venture portfolios because their immediate, pragmatic advantages in existing markets outweigh STARKs' theoretical superiority.
SNARKs have immediate utility in scaling and privacy for existing blockchains. Their smaller proof sizes and faster verification are the critical path for L2s like zkSync and Scroll to reduce costs today, not in some optimized future.
STARKs require a paradigm shift that the market has not demanded. Their quantum resistance and transparency are architecturally pure, but this purity creates friction for integration with dominant EVM ecosystems and existing trust assumptions.
Venture capital follows adoption, not elegance. The success of Circom and Halo2 proves developers choose tools that work now. STARKs' reliance on a nascent Cairo toolchain is a product-market fit failure that capital will not finance indefinitely.
Evidence: Ethereum's roadmap prioritizes SNARK-friendly EIPs (e.g., EIP-4844 for blobs). This institutional alignment makes SNARK-based L2s the default investment thesis, starving STARK-focused ventures of the ecosystem oxygen needed to survive.
market-context
THE ZK WARS
The State of Play: Where Capital is Flowing
Venture capital is consolidating around SNARK-based infrastructure, not STARKs, due to a decisive convergence of hardware, software, and market dynamics.
SNARKs win hardware acceleration. The dominance of GPU-based proving (e.g., zkVMs like Risc Zero, SP1) creates a massive, accessible market for acceleration. STARKs require specialized, expensive hardware (FPGAs/ASICs), creating a supply chain bottleneck that venture capital avoids.
EVM compatibility is non-negotiable. SNARK recursion libraries (e.g., Plonky2, Halo2) integrate directly with Ethereum's Keccak and secp256k1. This enables native ZK-EVM rollups (Scroll, Polygon zkEVM). STARKs' reliance on hash functions like Poseidon mandates costly cryptographic bridging for Ethereum.
The ecosystem is a flywheel. Circom and Noir dominate the ZK circuit writing market. This developer momentum feeds directly into application-specific chains using zkRollup frameworks (Polygon CDK, zkSync's ZK Stack). STARK tooling (Cairo) remains a walled garden.
Evidence: Funding tells the story. In 2023, SNARK-focused infrastructure (Succinct, Ingonyama, Ulvetanna) secured over $150M. The capital targets the proving hardware stack and EVM-aligned proving systems, not theoretical advantages.
key-trends
WHY SNARKS WIN THE ZK WARS
Three Trends Cementing SNARK Dominance
STARKs get the hype, but SNARKs are winning the war for production-grade zero-knowledge infrastructure. Here's the data-driven case for why VCs are doubling down.
01
The Recursive Proof Problem
Building a single, massive proof for a complex blockchain state is computationally impossible. Recursive SNARKs (like those from Nova and Plonky2) solve this by chaining small proofs, enabling incremental verifiability.
- Key Benefit 1: Enables L2 state proofs for Ethereum (e.g., zkSync, Scroll) without monolithic proving times.
- Key Benefit 2: Creates a verifiable compute stack, allowing proofs to prove other proofs, a foundational primitive for zkVMs.
~100ms
Increment Time
Unbounded
State Growth
02
The Trusted Setup Boogeyman
The perennial critique of SNARKs is their requirement for a trusted setup ceremony. Projects like Aztec and Zcash have turned this weakness into a strength through perpetual powers-of-tau ceremonies.
- Key Benefit 1: Ceremonies like Penumbra's attract 10,000+ participants, making collusion statistically impossible and creating a public good.
- Key Benefit 2: Provides post-quantum security hedges via Nova-Scotia and other constructions, while STARKs' quantum resistance remains a future advantage with present performance penalties.
10K+
Ceremony Participants
1-Time
Universal Setup
03
The Hardware Proving Wall
STARK proofs are larger and verification is slower on-chain. SNARK-friendly hashes (Poseidon) and specialized hardware (GPUs, Accseal ASICs) create an unassailable moat for high-throughput applications.
- Key Benefit 1: ~10x cheaper on-chain verification gas costs versus STARKs, critical for Ethereum L1 settlement.
- Key Benefit 2: GPU proving farms (e.g., Ulvetanna) optimize for the SNARK algorithm stack, driving proving costs down exponentially while STARK hardware lags.
10x
Cheaper L1 Verify
$0.01
Target Proof Cost
WHY SNARKS WILL DOMINATE VENTURE PORTFOLIOS
Proof Systems: A Pragmatic Comparison
A first-principles comparison of SNARKs and STARKs on metrics that determine long-term viability and investment returns.
| Feature / Metric | SNARKs (e.g., Groth16, Plonk) | STARKs (e.g., StarkEx, StarkNet) | Why It Matters for VCs |
|---|---|---|---|
Trusted Setup Required | SNARK's 'Achilles' Heel' is a one-time, manageable cost for established protocols. | ||
Proof Size (Bytes) | < 1 KB | 45-200 KB | SNARKs enable cheap, permanent on-chain verification. STARKs bloat L1 calldata. |
Verification Gas Cost (ETH Mainnet) | $0.10 - $0.50 | $5 - $20 | SNARKs are economically viable for micro-transactions and high-frequency state updates. |
Prover Hardware | Consumer GPU / CPU | High-end CPU / RAM | SNARKs enable decentralized proving pools. STARKs trend toward centralized proving services. |
Recursive Proof Aggregation | Both enable L2 validity rollups, but SNARK recursion is more mature (e.g., zkSync, Scroll). | ||
Post-Quantum Security | Quantum threat is 10-15 years out. STARK's 'future-proofing' is a costly premium today. | ||
Ecosystem Tooling & Devs | High (Circom, Halo2) | Medium (Cairo) | SNARKs have a 3-year headstart. Developer liquidity follows tooling. |
Time to Finality (Proving) | 3-10 seconds | 10-30 seconds | SNARKs enable near real-time UX for DeFi (e.g., dYdX v3, Aztec). |
deep-dive
THE VERIFIER'S DILEMMA
Why Smaller Proofs Win Markets
SNARKs' compact proof size creates a decisive economic advantage for on-chain verification, directly impacting scalability and cost.
Verification cost is linear with proof size on Ethereum L1. A 45KB STARK proof costs ~500K gas, while a 288-byte Groth16 SNARK costs ~230K gas. This 2x+ cost difference determines protocol viability for high-frequency applications like zkRollups or cross-chain bridges.
Smaller proofs enable trust-minimized on-chain verification, which is the gold standard for security. This forces a trade-off: STARKs' quantum resistance and transparency are architecturally elegant, but SNARKs' practical efficiency wins deployments in systems like Polygon zkEVM and zkSync.
The bottleneck is L1 block space, not prover time. Venture portfolios prioritize protocols that scale today under existing constraints. SNARK tooling like Circom and Halo2 delivers production-ready circuits, while STARK ecosystems remain more nascent.
protocol-spotlight
WHY SNARKS WIN THE VC DOLLARS
The SNARK Stack in Production
STARKs get the hype, but SNARKs are winning the war for production-grade, venture-backable infrastructure. Here's the data-driven case.
01
The Recursive Proof Problem
Scaling L2s and zkEVMs requires constant, cheap proof aggregation. STARK proofs are large and slow to verify on-chain. Recursive SNARKs (e.g., Nova, Plonky2) create a proof-of-proofs chain, compressing days of computation into a single on-chain verification.
- Key Benefit 1: Enables succinct state transitions for L2s like Scroll and Polygon zkEVM.
- Key Benefit 2: Reduces finality from hours to ~20 minutes.
~20 min
Finality
1000x
Compression
02
The Hardware Advantage: GPU & ASIC Provers
SNARKs (particularly Groth16, Plonk) are hardware-friendly. This has spawned a dedicated prover market (Ulvetanna, Ingonyama) where specialized hardware drives costs down exponentially. STARKs are CPU-bound, hitting a scaling wall.
- Key Benefit 1: Proving costs follow Moore's Law, not linear scaling.
- Key Benefit 2: Creates a defensible, high-margin B2B market for prover services.
10-100x
Cost Curve
ASIC/GPU
Optimized
03
The Interoperability Primitive
Light-client bridges and cross-chain messaging (LayerZero, Wormhole) need trust-minimized verification of foreign chain state. A SNARK proof of consensus is a ~10KB universal verifier, versus a STARK proof that's orders of magnitude larger and more expensive to verify on-chain.
- Key Benefit 1: Enables gas-efficient on-chain verification for any chain.
- Key Benefit 2: Critical infrastructure for omnichain apps and restaking ecosystems.
~10KB
Proof Size
$0.01
Verify Cost
04
The Privacy Scaling Fallacy
VCs fund adoption, not academic purity. Aztec, the flagship STARK-based private rollup, pivoted due to complexity and cost. In contrast, SNARK-based privacy pools (e.g., Tornado Cash, zk.money) prove that selective, application-specific privacy wins. The market wants modular privacy, not a monolithic private L2.
- Key Benefit 1: Modular privacy integrates into existing DeFi (Uniswap, Aave).
- Key Benefit 2: Avoids the regulatory trap of a fully anonymous chain.
App-Specific
Model
>$1B
Historical TVL
05
The Ethereum Alignment Premium
Ethereum's roadmap (EIP-4844, Verkle Trees) is optimized for KZG commitments and SNARK-friendly cryptography. Building with SNARKs (Plonk, Groth16) guarantees long-term gas efficiency and protocol support. STARKs, using hash-based commitments, remain a foreign element in the Ethereum stack.
- Key Benefit 1: First-class citizen on Ethereum, eligible for future optimizations.
- Key Benefit 2: Eliminates cryptographic abstraction risk for L2s.
EIP-4844
Native Support
Roadmap
Aligned
06
The Developer Flywheel: Circom & Noir
STARKs lack a mature, high-level language framework. Circom (SNARK) has a ~3-year headstart, with vast libraries and audit history. Noir (SNARK/STARK-agnostic) is gaining traction by abstracting the backend. The network effect of developers and audited circuits is an unassailable moat.
- Key Benefit 1: Faster dev cycles and lower audit risk.
- Key Benefit 2: Creates a standardized circuit library ecosystem.
3+ Years
Head Start
1000s
Circuits
counter-argument
THE VERDICT
Steelmanning STARKs (And Why It's Not Enough)
STARKs offer superior cryptographic security, but SNARKs' ecosystem and tooling create an insurmountable moat for venture-scale adoption.
STARKs are cryptographically superior. They rely on collision-resistant hashes, avoiding trusted setups and quantum threats that SNARKs face. This makes them the theoretically ideal choice for long-term state verification.
SNARKs dominate developer mindshare. The Groth16/PLONK ecosystem with Circom, Halo2, and Noir is entrenched. Projects like Aztec and Zcash are built on it, creating a network effect STARKs cannot quickly replicate.
Venture capital follows tooling, not theory. Investors bet on adoption curves. The proven deployment path for SNARKs via Mina Protocol or zkSync's earlier work de-risks integration, making STARKs a harder sell despite their elegance.
Evidence: Ethereum's roadmap prioritizes SNARK-friendly upgrades (EIP-4844, data blobs) that benefit existing rollups like Scroll. STARK-based chains like Starknet must build infrastructure from scratch, slowing ecosystem velocity.
investment-thesis
THE ARCHITECTURAL ADVANTAGE
The Venture Takeaway: Bet on Ecosystems, Not Isolated Tech
SNARKs' ecosystem momentum and developer ergonomics create a defensible moat that isolated technical superiority cannot overcome.
SNARKs have won developer mindshare. The tooling ecosystem around Circom, Halo2, and Noir is more mature and accessible than STARK toolchains. This creates a network effect where new projects default to SNARKs, reinforcing the standard.
STARKs are technically superior but isolated. Their reliance on custom AIR constraints and the Cairo VM creates a walled garden. While StarkWare's vertical integration is powerful, it limits cross-chain and multi-prover interoperability that the modular stack demands.
Venture returns favor composable primitives. Look at the adoption of Plonky2 by Polygon zkEVM or the use of Nova by projects like Lurk. These SNARK libraries become infrastructure, not just features. STARKs remain a feature of a single chain.
Evidence: The EVM ecosystem's gravitational pull is decisive. zkSync, Scroll, and Polygon zkEVM all use SNARK variants for EVM compatibility. This EVM alignment guarantees a larger addressable market and more exit paths than any STARK-based chain.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQs for Skeptical Investors
Common questions about why SNARKs are a more durable investment than STARKs for venture portfolios.
SNARKs have a 5+ year head start, with battle-tested implementations like Zcash and Aztec. This maturity translates to a larger, more stable developer ecosystem, proven security audits, and established trust in production. STARKs, while innovative, are still scaling their operational and developer tooling.
takeaways
WHY SNARKS WIN
TL;DR for Busy CTOs and VCs
STARKs get the hype, but SNARKs are the workhorse. For venture-scale returns, bet on the technology that's already shipping in production.
01
The Production-Ready Workhorse
SNARKs are the incumbent, battle-tested in $2B+ TVL systems like zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM. STARKs are still proving scalability in production (see Starknet).\n- Key Benefit 1: Mature tooling (Circom, Halo2) means faster time-to-market.\n- Key Benefit 2: Smaller proof sizes (~200 bytes) enable cheap L1 verification today.
2B+
TVL
~200B
Proof Size
02
The Mobile & Cross-Chain Future
The killer app is trust-minimized light clients. SNARKs' tiny proof size is non-negotiable for on-chain verification from resource-constrained devices.\n- Key Benefit 1: Enables zk-bridges (like Succinct, Polyhedra) that are cheaper and more secure than optimistic models.\n- Key Benefit 2: Critical for the Ethereum PoS light client (Portal Network), making SNARKs a core L1 primitive.
10x
Cheaper L1 Verify
KB
Data per Proof
03
The Recursive Proof Monopoly
Recursive SNARKs (e.g., Nova, Plonky2) are the only viable path to parallel proving and infinite scalability. They allow proofs of proofs, compressing days of work into a single on-chain verification.\n- Key Benefit 1: Enables zk-rollups to scale horizontally without congesting L1.\n- Key Benefit 2: Foundation for zkVMs and zkCo-processors (Risc Zero) that can prove any computation.
O(log n)
Scalability
Parallel
Proving
04
The Trusted Setup Hedge
The 'trusted setup' critique is a red herring. Ceremonies like Powers of Tau are massive, decentralized rituals (1000s of participants). The risk is bounded and known, unlike the novel cryptographic assumptions STARKs rely on.\n- Key Benefit 1: Transparent (post-setup) and upgradable—new curves can be adopted.\n- Key Benefit 2: Enables more efficient constructions (Groth16) that STARKs can't match, leading to ~10x cheaper proving costs for apps.
1000s
Setup Participants
10x
Cost Edge
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