Proving time is the bottleneck. A ZK-EVM's throughput is limited by how fast it can generate proofs, not by how cheaply they are verified on-chain. This creates a direct trade-off between proving latency and hardware cost.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Prover Performance: The True Bottleneck for ZK-EVMs
The industry obsesses over circuit design and EVM equivalence, but the raw, physical act of proof generation on commodity hardware is the ultimate throttle on ZK-rollup throughput and cost. This is a hardware problem first.
introduction
THE BOTTLENECK
Introduction
Prover performance, not proof size or verification cost, is the primary constraint for scaling ZK-EVMs to mainstream adoption.
The EVM is a hostile target. Proving general-purpose computation like the EVM opcode set is exponentially harder than proving a custom circuit, which is why zkSync Era and Scroll require specialized provers and massive compute clusters.
Hardware dictates economics. The capital expenditure for prover infrastructure, dominated by high-end GPUs or custom ASICs, becomes the core operational cost, determining a chain's transaction fees and finality speed.
Evidence: Polygon zkEVM's prover, powered by Plonky2, requires a 64-core CPU server to generate a proof for a 5M gas block in under 10 minutes, illustrating the immense computational demand.
key-trends
ZK-EVM PERFORMANCE
The Prover Pressure Cooker: Three Unavoidable Trends
The race for ZK-EVM supremacy is won or lost at the prover layer, where computational intensity defines scalability, cost, and decentralization.
01
The Problem: Exponential State Growth
Every new L2 transaction requires proving the entire EVM state transition. As TVL and activity scale, proving overhead grows non-linearly, threatening finality times.
- State size grows with $10B+ TVL and millions of accounts.
- Naive proving of full state leads to >10 minute finality, breaking UX.
- This is the core bottleneck for zkSync Era, Scroll, and Polygon zkEVM.
>10 min
Naive Finality
$10B+
TVL Pressure
02
The Solution: Incremental & Parallel Proving
Break the monolithic proof into parallelizable chunks and only prove state diffs. This is the architectural shift led by RiscZero and Succinct Labs.
- Incremental proving (e.g., zkVM continuations) proves only state changes.
- Parallel proving leverages GPU/FPGA clusters for 10-100x speedup.
- Enables sub-2-second finality for high-throughput dApps like Uniswap and Aave.
10-100x
Speedup
<2 sec
Target Finality
03
The Trend: Specialized Hardware Proliferation
General-purpose CPUs cannot win the proving race. The future is a hierarchy of FPGAs, GPUs, and custom ASICs, creating a new infrastructure market.
- FPGAs (e.g., Ulvetanna) offer ~50% cost reduction vs. cloud CPUs.
- Future ZK-ASICs could reduce costs by >90%, but risk recentralization.
- This arms race mirrors Bitcoin mining, creating a prover commodity market.
-50%
FPGA Cost Save
-90%
ASIC Potential
deep-dive
THE BOTTLENECK
The Hardware Wall: Why Proving Doesn't Scale
The computational intensity of generating zero-knowledge proofs creates a fundamental hardware constraint that limits ZK-EVM throughput.
Proving is the bottleneck. Transaction execution is trivial compared to the cryptographic work of generating a SNARK or STARK proof. This proving overhead is the primary cost and latency factor for ZK-rollups like zkSync and Scroll.
Moore's Law is insufficient. Proving complexity scales super-linearly with program size. Doubling a circuit's gates more than doubles proving time. This non-linear scaling outpaces general CPU/GPU improvements, demanding specialized hardware.
Specialized provers are mandatory. General-purpose cloud instances fail economically. Projects like Risc Zero and Ingonyama are building ZK-specific ASICs and GPUs to achieve the terahertz-scale multiplications required for viable L2 block times.
Evidence: A mid-complexity ZK-EVM proof on consumer hardware takes minutes, not seconds. This latency, not Ethereum's gas limit, dictates the practical TPS ceiling for ZK-rollups until hardware catches up.
ZK-EVM PERFORMANCE MATRIX
Prover Economics: The Cost of Truth
A first-principles breakdown of prover performance, cost, and hardware requirements across leading ZK-EVM architectures. This is the bottleneck for scaling.
| Key Metric / Feature | zkSync Era (zkEVM) | Scroll (zkEVM) | Polygon zkEVM | Starknet (Cairo VM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Proving Time (L1 Finality) | ~10 minutes | ~4 minutes | ~3.5 minutes | < 1 minute |
Prover Cost per Tx (Est.) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.08 - $0.20 | $0.12 - $0.35 | $0.05 - $0.15 |
Hardware Dependency | CPU (Heavy GPU opt.) | CPU-focused | CPU + GPU Hybrid | CPU (STARK-native) |
Proving Circuit Type | SNARK (PLONK/Groth16) | SNARK (PLONK/Groth16) | SNARK (Plonky2) | STARK |
Trusted Setup Required | ||||
Prover Throughput (TPS, peak) | ~200 TPS | ~150 TPS | ~250 TPS | ~500 TPS |
L1 Verification Gas Cost | ~500k gas | ~450k gas | ~600k gas | ~1.2M gas |
Native Parallel Proving |
protocol-spotlight
PROVER PERFORMANCE
Architectural Responses: How Leading ZK-EVMs Are Coping
The core challenge for production ZK-EVMs is not EVM compatibility, but the computational and economic cost of proving it.
01
The Problem: The Sequential Bottleneck
Naive ZK-VM execution is inherently sequential, mirroring a single CPU core. Proving time scales linearly with computation, making ~10-30 second proof times for simple swaps a non-starter for user experience.
- Key Constraint: Single-threaded execution in the prover.
- Result: High latency and cost, blocking mainstream L1 equivalence.
~30s
Naive Proof Time
1x
Parallelism
02
The Solution: Parallel Proving Pipelines
Projects like zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM decouple execution from proving. The sequencer executes transactions in parallel like a regular L1, while the prover's job is to validate the result of that execution.
- Key Benefit: Enables sub-2 second block times for users.
- Key Benefit: Prover can work asynchronously, amortizing cost over many transactions.
<2s
User Latency
Async
Prover Work
03
The Problem: Hardware Inefficiency
General-purpose CPUs are terrible at the structured, repetitive arithmetic (MSMs, FFTs) that dominate ZK proving. This creates a ~100-1000x cost gap versus optimistic rollups.
- Key Constraint: Proving cost dominates operational expenses.
- Result: High fees or unsustainable subsidies.
100x
Cost Premium
CPU
Inefficient Hardware
04
The Solution: Specialized Proving Hardware
The entire stack is moving towards hardware acceleration. Scroll and Taiko are designing GPGPU/FPGA provers, while Risc Zero and Succinct are building for the custom ASIC future.
- Key Benefit: ~10-50x cost reduction from GPU/FPGA alone.
- Key Benefit: ASICs promise L1-level marginal costs, making ZKRs economically viable.
10-50x
Cost Reduction
ASIC Future
Endgame
05
The Problem: Monolithic Proof Overhead
Generating a single, massive proof for an entire block is slow and requires immense memory (~200+ GB RAM). It's a monolithic process that's hard to parallelize and creates a single point of failure.
- Key Constraint: Memory wall and long proving times for large blocks.
- Result: Limits block gas limits and throughput.
200GB+
Memory Required
Monolithic
Architecture
06
The Solution: Recursive & Distributed Proving
zkSync's Boojum and Polygon's Plonky2 use recursive proofs to break the block into smaller, parallelizable chunks. Multiple provers can work simultaneously, with proofs aggregated recursively into a final proof.
- Key Benefit: Enables horizontal scaling of prover networks.
- Key Benefit: Reduces hardware requirements per node, enabling decentralization.
Horizontal Scale
Architecture
Distributed
Prover Network
counter-argument
THE HARDWARE ACCELERATION PATH
The Optimist's Rebuttal: "It's Just Software"
Prover performance is a solvable engineering problem, not a fundamental limit, with specialized hardware and algorithmic innovation driving exponential efficiency gains.
Proving is a parallelizable computation. The core ZK-SNARK operations—FFTs and MSMs—are embarrassingly parallel, making them ideal for GPU and ASIC acceleration. Companies like Ulvetanna and Cysic are building hardware specifically for these cryptographic primitives, targeting 100-1000x improvements over general-purpose CPUs.
Algorithmic breakthroughs outpace Moore's Law. Innovations like Halo 2, Plonky2, and Nova have already reduced proof generation times by orders of magnitude through recursive composition and better polynomial commitments. This software-driven progress is independent of and multiplicative with hardware gains.
The bottleneck shifts to cost, not time. With accelerated proving, the constraint becomes the economic cost of compute, not latency. This creates a commoditized proving market where protocols like Polygon zkEVM, zkSync Era, and Scroll compete on prover efficiency and cost, not just feature sets.
Evidence: Ulvetanna's FPGA-based system demonstrates a 100x speedup for MSM operations versus a high-end CPU. This trajectory mirrors the evolution of Bitcoin mining from CPUs to ASICs, proving that specialized hardware conquers cryptographic bottlenecks.
risk-analysis
PROVER PERFORMANCE
Centralization Vectors & Bear Case Scenarios
The computational intensity of proof generation creates a centralizing force, threatening the censorship-resistance and liveness guarantees of ZK-rollups.
01
The Prover Oligopoly
ZK-proof generation requires specialized hardware (GPUs, ASICs) and deep expertise, creating a high barrier to entry. This concentrates power with a few large operators like Ulvetanna or Ingonyama, risking single points of failure and potential censorship.\n- Economic Moats: High capital costs for hardware create winner-take-most dynamics.\n- Liveness Risk: If the dominant prover goes offline, the chain halts.
<10
Major Provers
$1M+
Hardware Cost
02
Sequencer-Prover Collusion
The sequencer (who orders transactions) and the prover (who proves them) are often the same entity in early-stage rollups like zkSync Era or Starknet. This merges two critical roles, enabling maximal extractable value (MEV) theft and transaction censorship before a proof is even generated.\n- Trust Assumption: Users must trust a single entity for both ordering and validity.\n- Opaque MEV: Provers can front-run or censor transactions with no on-chain record.
100%
Initial Control
High
MEV Risk
03
Proof Market Fragility
Decentralized proof markets, proposed by Espresso Systems or RiscZero, rely on economic incentives for prover competition. In practice, low profit margins and high latency tolerance can lead to market collapse during volatile gas prices or spam attacks, reverting to centralized fallbacks.\n- Incentive Misalignment: Proving is a commodity; lowest bidder wins, sacrificing reliability.\n- Fallback Centralization: Networks often have a 'safe mode' with a trusted prover.
~30s
Proving Window
Low Margin
Profitability
04
Hardware Arms Race & ASIC-ification
The pursuit of faster, cheaper proofs drives specialization towards ASICs (like those from Cysic or Ulvetanna). This creates a rigid cost structure and protocol lock-in, as new proof systems (e.g., from Plonky3 to Binius) could render millions in hardware obsolete overnight.\n- Capital Sunk Cost: Massive investment in one proving scheme creates resistance to upgrades.\n- Centralized R&D: A few hardware firms control the roadmap for efficiency gains.
12-18mo
Hardware Cycle
Protocol Risk
Lock-in
future-outlook
THE BOTTLENECK
The Endgame: Specialized Silicon and Prover Markets
The performance of the prover, not the verifier, is the fundamental constraint on ZK-EVM throughput and cost.
Proving is the bottleneck. The verifier's job is trivial, requiring only a few elliptic curve operations. The prover's work is computationally explosive, scaling with circuit size and constraint count. This asymmetry defines the scaling problem.
General compute fails. CPUs and GPUs are inefficient for the massive parallel arithmetic and polynomial operations in ZK proofs. This inefficiency translates directly to high proving times and prohibitive operational costs for high-throughput chains.
Specialized hardware wins. Custom ASICs, like those from Ingonyama or Cysic, accelerate specific proof systems (e.g., Plonk, STARK). These accelerators deliver order-of-magnitude improvements in proving speed, making sub-second finality for large blocks economically viable.
A prover market emerges. Decoupling proof generation from sequencing creates a competitive prover-as-a-service layer. Projects like RiscZero and Succinct enable any chain to outsource proving, commoditizing the hardware and driving efficiency through competition.
takeaways
PROVER PERFORMANCE
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The viability of a ZK-EVM is determined by its prover's speed, cost, and hardware requirements. This is the core scaling challenge.
01
The Bottleneck is Arithmetic, Not EVM Opcodes
The real cost isn't emulating opcodes like SLOAD, but the cryptographic overhead of proving their execution. Keccak hashes and digital signatures dominate prover cycles.\n- Keccak256 can be 1000x more expensive than an ADD opcode.\n- ECDSA signature verification is a primary cost center for L2 sequencers.
1000x
Cost Delta
~70%
Prover Time
02
Parallelism is Non-Negotiable
Serial proving of Ethereum-sized blocks is impossible for real-time finality. Architectures must be designed for massive parallelization from day one.\n- Scroll's zkEVM uses a GPU-optimized pipeline.\n- zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM implement aggressive circuit partitioning.\n- The goal is sub-linear prover time growth with block size.
32+
Cores Needed
< 10 min
Target Proof Time
03
Hardware Dictates Economics
Prover cost is a direct function of hardware efficiency. The race is between GPU clusters (Scroll, Polygon) and custom ASICs (Ingonyama, Cysic).\n- GPUs offer flexibility but higher operational cost.\n- ASICs promise 10-100x efficiency gains but lock you into a single proof system (e.g., PLONK, STARK).\n- The winning stack will have a < $0.10 per tx proving cost.
10-100x
ASIC Gain
< $0.10
Cost/Tx Target
04
The Recursive Proof Endgame
To scale to millions of TPS, you don't prove one block—you prove a proof of many blocks. Recursive proof aggregation (e.g., Nova, Plonky2) is the final boss.\n- Enables horizontal scaling of provers.\n- Reduces on-chain verification to a single proof.\n- Succinct, Risc Zero, and Lumina are building this infrastructure layer.
1
On-Chain Proof
1M+ TPS
Theoretical Scale
05
zkEVM Type is a Prover Trade-Off
The choice between Type 1 (zkEthereum), 2 (zkSync Era), 3 (Scroll), and 4 (zkVM) is fundamentally a prover performance compromise.\n- Type 1: Perfect compatibility, impractically slow prover.\n- Type 2/3: Minor VM changes for 100-1000x prover speed-up.\n- Type 4 (Starknet): Language-level compatibility, fastest prover, hardest tooling migration.
100-1000x
Speed Trade-Off
4 Types
Architecture Spectrum
06
Prover Centralization is Inevitable
High-performance proving requires specialized, expensive hardware. This leads to prover centralization, creating a new trust vector. The security model shifts to 1-of-N honest prover assumptions.\n- Mitigated by proof markets (e.g., Espresso, Georli).\n- Requires robust slashing mechanisms for faulty proofs.\n- The sequencer-prover separation is critical for L2 decentralization.
1-of-N
Honest Assumption
$$$
Hardware Barrier
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