ZKML is a solution in search of a problem. The core value proposition—proving AI inference on-chain—lacks a killer application that justifies its immense computational overhead. Current use cases like verifiable randomness for Axiom or NFT generation for Giza are niche experiments, not scalable businesses.
venture-capital-trends-in-web3
Blog
Why Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning is a Premature Bet for VCs
A first-principles analysis of ZKML's prohibitive computational overhead and lack of near-term, scalable business models, arguing it remains a long-term research play.
introduction
THE REALITY CHECK
Introduction
Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (ZKML) is a compelling narrative, but its technical and economic immaturity makes it a premature investment thesis for venture capital.
The infrastructure is not production-ready. Frameworks like EZKL and zkml are research projects. Proving times for even simple models are measured in minutes, not milliseconds, making them unusable for real-time applications. The cost per proof on Ethereum L1 is prohibitive.
The market is betting on a narrative, not a product. Venture funding for ZKML startups like Modulus Labs and RISC Zero is speculative capital chasing the convergence of two buzzwords. The technical risk far outweighs the proven demand, mirroring the early, overfunded days of decentralized storage.
key-trends
VC REALITY CHECK
The ZKML Hype Cycle: Three Data-Backed Observations
Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning promises a private, verifiable AI future, but the infrastructure is still in the lab.
01
The Prover Bottleneck: Where the Math Breaks Down
Generating a ZK-SNARK proof for a modern model like ResNet-50 can take hours and cost >$100 in compute. This makes on-chain inference for anything beyond trivial models economically and temporally impossible.
- Key Problem 1: Proof generation time scales super-linearly with model size.
- Key Problem 2: GPU/ASIC infrastructure for ZK proving is nascent, unlike the mature ecosystem for AI training.
>100x
Slower vs. Native
$100+
Per Proof Cost
02
The Data Dilemma: Garbage In, Gospel Out
ZKML proves a computation was performed correctly, not that the underlying data or model is correct or unbiased. A verifiably executed racist AI is still a racist AI. This creates a liability shell game for applications in finance or identity.
- Key Problem 1: Provenance and integrity of training data remains an oracle problem.
- Key Problem 2: Auditing model logic and weights for fairness is outside the ZK proof's scope.
0%
Truth Guarantee
100%
Execution Guarantee
03
The Product-Market Fit Chasm
Beyond privacy-preserving proofs (e.g., Worldcoin's iris verification), compelling use cases are scarce. Most proposed applications—like on-chain AI agents or verifiable trading bots—are solutions in search of a problem, overshadowed by simpler, cheaper off-chain alternatives.
- Key Problem 1: High cost eliminates high-frequency, low-value use cases.
- Key Problem 2: The "verifiability premium" has unclear user demand outside niche DeFi primitives.
<10
Production Apps
~$0
User Willingness to Pay
deep-dive
THE MATH
The Prohibitive Cost of Proof: A First-Principles Bottleneck
ZKML's fundamental economic model is broken because the cost of generating a proof for a model inference is orders of magnitude higher than the value of the inference itself.
Proof generation cost dominates value. A single ZK-SNARK proof for a modest neural network inference on Giza or EZKL costs $0.50-$5.00 in compute. The economic output of that inference—a trading signal, a content recommendation—is often worth fractions of a cent.
The scaling fallacy is real. Proponents argue Moore's Law for ZK (via zkEVMs like zkSync) will solve this. This ignores Amdahl's Law: parallelizing linear layers helps, but non-linear activations (ReLU) remain sequential bottlenecks. Proof time scales with model depth, not just FLOPs.
VCs are funding R&D, not products. Current investments in Modulus Labs and RISC Zero are bets on algorithmic breakthroughs, not deployable infrastructure. The market needs a 1000x cost reduction before applications like AI-powered DeFi oracles become viable.
Evidence: A zkML proof for ResNet-50 takes ~3 minutes and ~$3 on current hardware. Running the same inference on AWS Inferentia costs $0.0001. The verification cost savings on-chain do not offset this 30,000x proof premium.
INFRASTRUCTURE BREAKDOWN
ZKML Proof Cost vs. Utility: A Reality Check
A quantitative comparison of ZKML proof systems against traditional off-chain inference, highlighting the prohibitive cost and latency for most practical applications.
| Metric / Capability | ZKML Proof (e.g., EZKL, RISC Zero) | Optimistic ML (e.g., Modulus) | Traditional Off-Chain Inference |
|---|---|---|---|
Proof Generation Latency (for ResNet-18) | 120-300 seconds | ~2 seconds (dispute period: 7 days) | < 1 second |
Cost per Inference (Est. GPU Compute) | $2.50 - $10.00 | $0.01 - $0.05 (bond + gas) | $0.0001 - $0.001 |
On-Chain Verifier Gas Cost | 1,500,000 - 5,000,000 gas | ~250,000 gas (if disputed) | 0 gas |
Model Update / Retraining Feasibility | Days for re-circuit setup | Instant (new Merkle root) | Instant |
Supported Model Complexity | CNN < 50 layers, Small Transformers | Any model (limited by fraud proof cost) | Unlimited |
Trust Assumptions | Cryptographic (ZK) only | 1-of-N honest validator | Centralized server integrity |
Primary Use Case Today | Proven ML in autonomous worlds (e.g., AI Arena) | High-value, low-frequency predictions | All other web2 and web3 AI (e.g., Oracles, Agents) |
VC Investment Readiness (2024) | Pre-product, R&D phase | Early product, niche market fit | Mature, scaling phase |
counter-argument
THE PREMATURE BET
Steelman: "But What About...?"
Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (ZKML) is a compelling narrative, but its technical and market immaturity makes it a premature investment thesis.
The hardware is not ready. ZKML requires specialized proving hardware (e.g., Cysic's ASICs, Ingonyama's ICICLE) to be cost-effective. Current GPU-based proving times for models like Stable Diffusion are measured in minutes, not milliseconds, destroying any practical latency budget.
The market is a solution in search of a problem. Most touted use cases—like AI-powered on-chain games or verifiable inference—lack a clear, immediate demand vector that justifies the immense proving overhead compared to trusted off-chain compute.
The stack is fragmented and immature. The ecosystem lacks a dominant, production-ready framework. Projects like EZKL, Giza, and Modulus Labs are building separate toolchains, creating developer friction and delaying standardized, auditable primitives.
Evidence: The total value secured or processed by verifiable ML applications is negligible compared to established sectors like DeFi or ZK rollups. No application has demonstrated sustained user adoption or economic activity that hinges on its ZKML component.
risk-analysis
WHY IT'S A PREMATURE BET
The VC Bear Case: Specific Risks in ZKML
Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning promises verifiable AI on-chain, but the path to a viable market is littered with fundamental technical and economic hurdles.
01
The Prover Cost Wall
Generating a ZK proof for a non-trivial ML model is computationally prohibitive, creating a massive economic barrier for mainstream adoption.\n- Proving time for a simple model like ResNet-50 can be ~10 minutes on high-end hardware.\n- Cost per inference can be 100-1000x higher than a standard cloud API call, negating any economic logic.
100-1000x
Cost Premium
~10 min
Proof Time
02
The Oraclization Paradox
Most ZKML architectures require a trusted entity to run the model and generate the proof, reintroducing the oracle problem ZK was meant to solve.\n- Projects like Modulus Labs and Giza act as centralized proving services.\n- This creates a single point of failure and trust, undermining the decentralized verification premise.
1
Trust Assumption
Centralized
Prover Layer
03
The Model Obsolescence Trap
Blockchain state progression is slow; AI model development is blisteringly fast. On-chain verified models will be perpetually outdated.\n- A model deployed today may be obsolete in 3-6 months as new architectures (e.g., from OpenAI, Anthropic) emerge.\n- The hard fork-level effort to upgrade a verified circuit creates massive protocol inertia.
3-6 months
Obsolescence Cycle
Protocol-Level
Update Friction
04
The 'Why On-Chain?' Question
For most purported use cases—like verifiable trading bots or gaming AI—the economic value of on-chain verification does not justify the cost.\n- Axiom and Risc Zero enable general compute, but the market for expensive, verifiable randomness is niche.\n- Real demand is for privacy (e.g., EZKL), not verification, which is a harder cryptographic problem.
Niche
Market Fit
Privacy > Verification
Real Need
05
The Hardware Centralization Risk
Efficient ZK proving requires specialized hardware (GPUs, ASICs). This will lead to prover centralization akin to mining pools, replicating Web2 cloud dynamics.\n- Entities controlling high-performance proving clusters will capture the economic rent.\n- Creates a geopolitical risk similar to Bitcoin mining, concentrated in regions with cheap power.
ASICs/GPUs
Hardware Lock-In
Centralized
Prover Economy
06
The Abstraction Layer Mirage
Developer toolkits promise abstraction, but ZK circuit design remains a dark art. The talent pool is microscopic compared to demand.\n- Frameworks like Cairo (StarkNet) and Circom have steep learning curves.\n- ~1,000 competent ZK engineers globally versus millions of ML engineers, creating a critical bottleneck.
~1,000
ZK Engineers
Dark Art
Circuit Design
investment-thesis
THE INFRASTRUCTURE BET
The Right Way to Play ZKML
VCs betting on ZKML applications are premature; the alpha is in the foundational tooling and proving hardware.
ZKML is a tooling play. The market for on-chain AI agents is speculative and non-existent. The immediate demand is for privacy-preserving off-chain computation, where projects like Modulus Labs and EZKL provide the essential proving systems.
Proving cost is the primary bottleneck. A single ZK-SNARK proof for a small model costs ~$0.20 on Ethereum. This makes application-layer products like AIs in games or DeFi economically unviable until zkVM performance from Risc Zero or Succinct improves 100x.
The real investment is in hardware. The proving time for complex models is measured in minutes, not seconds. Acceleration requires specialized ZK co-processors and FPGA clusters, creating a moat for infrastructure firms like Ingonyama.
Evidence: The most adopted ZKML use case is proof of humanhood, where Worldcoin's Orb generates a ZK proof of uniqueness. This is a simple, high-value verification, not a complex, general-purpose AI model.
takeaways
WHY ZKML IS A PREMATURE BET
TL;DR for Busy CTOs and VCs
Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning promises verifiable AI on-chain, but the technical and market realities make it a long-term research play, not a near-term investment thesis.
01
The Prover Cost Problem
Generating a ZK proof for a non-trivial neural network is computationally prohibitive. The overhead kills any practical use case today.
- Proving time for a small model can be minutes to hours on specialized hardware.
- Cost per inference is 100-1000x higher than running the model directly.
- This makes real-time or high-frequency applications (e.g., DeFi risk engines) economically impossible.
100-1000x
Cost Premium
Minutes
Proving Latency
02
The Model Compression Trap
To make proving feasible, models must be severely simplified, destroying their utility. The current state-of-the-art (e.g., zkSNARKs on TinyML) trades accuracy for provability.
- Model size is constrained to ~10,000 parameters vs. billions for SOTA AI.
- This limits applications to trivial tasks (MNIST digit classification) far from commercial value.
- The gap between provable and performant models is widening, not closing.
~10k
Parameter Limit
Trivial
Use Case Scope
03
Lack of a Killer App
No application demonstrates a clear, defensible need for both decentralization and privacy in AI inference. Most proposed use-cases are solutions in search of a problem.
- "Verifiable AI" for DeFi oracles can use simpler, cheaper cryptographic commitments.
- Private inference is better served by trusted execution environments (TEEs) like Intel SGX today.
- The market hasn't articulated a demand that only ZKML can solve at viable cost.
0
Production Apps
TEEs
Incumbent Solution
04
The Hardware Dependency
Fast ZK proving is gated by specialized hardware (GPUs, ASICs). This recentralizes the trust model and creates a bottleneck, undermining decentralization promises.
- Leaders like Ingonyama, Cysic, and Ulvetanna are building proprietary acceleration hardware.
- The proving market will likely consolidate around a few centralized providers, creating new trust assumptions.
- This shifts the security guarantee from cryptography to hardware integrity, a different and often weaker threat model.
Centralized
Hardware Bottleneck
New Trust Assumptions
Security Model
05
The Oracles Are Good Enough
For the primary proposed use-case—bringing off-chain data/ML on-chain—existing oracle and attestation networks are more practical and battle-tested.
- Chainlink Functions and Pyth already deliver compute and data with established security.
- EigenLayer AVSs can provide cryptoeconomically secured inference without ZK overhead.
- The incremental security benefit of ZK proofs does not justify the massive cost increase for most applications.
Chainlink, Pyth
Incumbent Oracles
Cryptoeconomic Security
Alternative
06
The Research Timeline
Meaningful progress requires breakthroughs in proof systems (e.g., folding schemes, custom gates) and hardware. This is a 5-10 year academic R&D timeline, not a 2-year venture cycle.
- Folding schemes (Nova, SuperNova) and custom toolchains (EZKL, RISC Zero) are in early alpha.
- Venture funding now is betting on research outcomes, not market traction.
- The space is dominated by PhDs publishing papers, not founders shipping products.
5-10 Years
R&D Horizon
Academic
Primary Drivers
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