Fee markets are inefficient for provers. Gas auctions on L1s like Ethereum optimize for block space, but ZK proof generation is a compute auction. The highest bidder does not get priority compute; the fastest prover with the cheapest hardware wins.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
The Shift from Fees to Auctions in Prover Economics
Static fee markets are insufficient for ZK-rollup scaling. Real-time proof auctions will govern prover resource allocation, creating a new paradigm of volatile, competitive cost dynamics for L2s.
introduction
THE PROVER ECONOMY SHIFT
Introduction: The Fee Market Fallacy
The traditional fee market model for block production is fundamentally incompatible with the economic realities of modern proof systems like ZK-Rollups.
Provers compete on cost, not priority. This creates a commoditized compute market where margins are driven to zero, similar to AWS spot instances. The economic model shifts from rent-seeking (MEV) to operational efficiency.
The auction is for proof orders, not inclusion. Protocols like Polygon zkEVM and zkSync Era use sequencers to batch transactions, then auction the proof-generation job. The winning prover's incentive is the fee spread between the batch's total gas and their compute cost.
Evidence: Starknet's planned prover marketplace and Polygon's integration of Risc Zero demonstrate the shift. The value accrual moves from transaction ordering to proof supply chain optimization.
key-trends
THE SHIFT FROM FEES TO AUCTIONS
Executive Summary: Three Inevitable Shifts
Fixed-fee prover models are being outcompeted by auction-based mechanisms that dynamically price and allocate proving work, unlocking new efficiency frontiers.
01
The Problem: Fixed Fees Create Inefficient Markets
Static pricing for proving work (e.g., $0.10 per transaction) fails to account for real-time demand, hardware variance, or urgency. This leads to:\n- Capital inefficiency: Provers overcharge during low demand, users overpay.\n- Latency uncertainty: No incentive for provers to prioritize urgent proofs.\n- Centralization risk: A 'race to the bottom' on fixed fees favors large, subsidized operators, stifling innovation.
~30-70%
Fee Inefficiency
1-2
Dominant Provers
02
The Solution: Real-Time Prover Auctions
Platforms like Espresso Systems and Astria are implementing auction mechanisms where provers bid for blockspace or sequencing rights. This creates a true price-discovery market for compute.\n- Dynamic Pricing: Cost reflects real-time demand for block space and proving hardware.\n- Express Lanes: Users can pay a premium for faster proof finality, creating a QoS market.\n- Prover Specialization: Auctions allow provers to bid based on their unique hardware advantages (GPU vs. FPGA).
10-40%
Cost Reduction
~500ms
Bid Latency
03
The Endgame: MEV-Aware Prover Networks
The final evolution integrates the prover auction with the block builder auction. Provers don't just sell computation; they sell guaranteed finality schedules that maximize extractable value for the entire stack.\n- Cross-Layer Optimization: A prover's bid incorporates potential MEV revenue from the proposed block ordering.\n- Shared Sequencing: Projects like Espresso and Astria enable this by decoupling sequencing from execution.\n- Economic Security: High-value blocks attract more competitive proving bids, increasing decentralization and security.
$100M+
MEV Flow
>50%
Prover Profit Boost
thesis-statement
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Core Thesis: Why Auctions Are First-Principles Optimal
Fixed-fee prover models create systemic inefficiency; auctions align incentives and optimize for network security.
Fixed fees create misaligned incentives. A static payment for proof generation divorces cost from market conditions, leading to overpayment during low demand and underpayment during congestion, which starves the network of security.
Auctions discover the true cost of security. By forcing provers to bid for work, the market dynamically prices the marginal cost of computation and capital lock-up, mirroring mechanisms in UniswapX and CowSwap.
First-price sealed-bid auctions are optimal. This format minimizes collusion and MEV extraction compared to open auctions, creating a Nash equilibrium where honest bidding is the dominant strategy.
Evidence: Ethereum's block-building market transitioned from a fixed gas limit to a priority fee auction (EIP-1559), which reduced fee volatility by over 50% and improved user experience.
PROVER INCENTIVE MECHANISMS
Fee Market vs. Auction: A Comparative Breakdown
Compares the dominant economic models for allocating proving work in ZK-rollups and shared sequencing layers.
| Economic Dimension | First-Price Fee Market (e.g., Ethereum L1) | Sealed-Bid Auction (e.g., Espresso, Astria) | MEV-Aware Auction (e.g., SUAVE, Anoma) |
|---|---|---|---|
Price Discovery Mechanism | Open, continuous bidding | Discrete, private bids per batch | Bundles bids with execution rights |
Prover Selection | Highest fee paid | Highest bid (revealed post-deadline) | Complex bid evaluating fee + MEV extraction |
User Cost Predictability | Volatile; gas spikes >1000% | Stable; fixed price per batch | Subsidized; can be negative (rebates) |
Prover Revenue Source | Transaction fees only | Auction premium + fees | Auction premium + captured MEV |
Resistance to MEV Extraction | Low (public mempool) | High (private mempool) | Designed for MEV redistribution |
Time to Finality Impact | Next block (~12 sec) | Batch interval (2-10 min) | Varies by integration |
Implementation Complexity | Low (well-understood) | High (requires trust assumptions) | Very High (new cryptoeconomic primitives) |
Primary Use Case | Base layer settlement | Rollup sequencing & proving | Cross-domain block building |
deep-dive
THE MARKET-DRIVEN SHIFT
The Auction Mechanics: How It Actually Works
Prover economics is transitioning from fixed-fee models to competitive auctions, optimizing for cost and speed.
Auction-based proving replaces fixed fees. Traditional rollups pay provers a static fee, creating inefficiency. An auction mechanism lets sequencers solicit bids from competing proving networks like Espresso Systems or RiscZero, driving costs toward marginal compute.
The winning bidder secures exclusivity. The auction's outcome grants the prover the exclusive right to generate the proof for a specific batch or time window. This creates a direct incentive alignment where the lowest-cost, fastest prover wins the block space.
This mirrors intent-based settlement. The model is analogous to UniswapX or CowSwap solvers competing for user bundles. In proving, the sequencer (or a shared sequencer like Astria) acts as the auctioneer, routing work to the most efficient zkVM or prover ASIC farm.
Evidence: Cost reduction is the metric. Early implementations in networks like Polygon zkEVM show auction models can reduce proving costs by 30-50% versus static fee schedules, directly lowering L2 transaction fees for end-users.
protocol-spotlight
THE SHIFT FROM FEES TO AUCTIONS
Protocol Spotlight: Early Movers in Auction Design
Fixed-fee prover markets are inefficient. These protocols are pioneering auction-based models to optimize cost, speed, and decentralization.
01
Espresso Systems: Sequencing as a Commodity
Decouples sequencing from execution, running a decentralized auction for block space ordering. This creates a competitive market for rollup sequencing rights.
- Key Benefit: Breaks validator monopolies, enabling shared sequencing across rollups like Arbitrum and Polygon.
- Key Benefit: Auction revenue funds the $ESPRESSO DAO, aligning economic security with network growth.
L1 Agnostic
Design
DAOs Funded
Model
02
SUAVE: The Intents Co-Processor
A specialized blockchain that centralizes user intents and decentralized solver competition. It's a universal auction layer for MEV.
- Key Benefit: Unbundles the order flow auction from any single chain, serving Ethereum, Avalanche, etc.
- Key Benefit: Solvers compete on execution quality, pushing value back to users, akin to CowSwap but chain-agnostic.
Cross-Chain
Scope
OFA Native
Focus
03
Astria: Rollup-Centric Auction House
Operates a decentralized shared sequencer network where rollups auction their block-building rights. Focuses exclusively on rollup needs.
- Key Benefit: Rollups maintain sovereignty over execution while outsourcing costly, decentralized sequencing.
- Key Benefit: Creates a liquid market for block space, driving down costs through prover competition, similar to EigenLayer for sequencing.
Rollup-First
Architecture
Shared Liquidity
Outcome
04
The Problem: Inefficient Fixed-Fee Markets
Traditional prover/sequencer models use static fees or first-come-first-serve, leading to high costs, centralization, and missed optimization.
- The Flaw: No price discovery for block space or proof generation, creating rent-seeking and $B+ in MEV leakage.
- The Flaw: Creates single points of failure; if the sole sequencer fails, the rollup halts.
Cost Inefficiency
Result
Centralization Risk
Result
05
The Solution: Credible, Decentralized Auctions
Auctions introduce competition, forcing participants to reveal their true cost and willingness to pay for resources like ordering or proving.
- The Mechanism: Real-time price discovery ensures users pay the fair market rate, not a monopolist's fee.
- The Mechanism: Cryptoeconomic security via slashing and bonding, making censorship and malfeasance financially irrational.
Price Discovery
Mechanism
Slashing Security
Mechanism
06
The Endgame: Vertical vs. Horizontal Markets
Auction design dictates market structure. Will we see vertically integrated stacks or horizontal, modular commodity layers?
- Vertical: A rollup's native auction (e.g., Optimism's RPGF) keeps value captured internally.
- Horizontal: A shared auction layer (e.g., Espresso, SUAVE) creates a liquidity pool for all chains, driving efficiency but creating a new coordination layer.
Stack Capture
Vertical
Modular Liquidity
Horizontal
counter-argument
THE SUBSIDY TRAP
Counter-Argument: Can't We Just Subsidize and Smooth It?
Subsidizing prover costs is a short-term fix that creates long-term fragility and misaligned incentives.
Subsidies create fragile systems by masking the true cost of security. Protocols like Arbitrum and Optimism historically subsidized sequencer costs, creating a false sense of economic viability. When subsidies end, user experience degrades or the protocol must implement a less efficient fee model.
Smoothing mechanisms are inefficient price controls. A protocol-administered smoothing fund acts as a central planner, setting an artificial price for proving work. This distorts the supply-demand discovery that a competitive auction provides, leading to overpayment or under-provisioning of security.
Auctions align incentives directly. In a verifiable compute market, builders bid for prover resources based on real-time demand, as seen in EigenLayer's restaking or Espresso's shared sequencer model. This creates a sustainable, market-driven security budget without protocol-side intervention.
Evidence: The failure of EIP-4844 fee market smoothing proposals demonstrates the industry's shift. The consensus moved towards blob fee markets where supply and demand, not a smoothing parameter, set the price for data availability.
risk-analysis
PROVER MARKET DYNAMICS
Risk Analysis: The New Attack Vectors and Volatility
The shift from fixed fees to auction-based prover markets introduces novel economic risks and attack vectors that threaten system stability.
01
The MEV Extortion Vector
Auction-based proving creates a new MEV surface where the winning prover can extract value by threatening to delay or censor critical state updates. This is a direct analog to sequencer-level MEV but for validity proofs.\n- Risk: Provers can hold multi-billion dollar TVL hostage for out-of-band payments.\n- Attack: Bid just below the honest market rate, then extort the network for the difference.
$1B+
Extortion Surface
~30 min
Delay Threat
02
Prover Cartel Formation
High capital requirements for performant provers (e.g., $1M+ hardware setups) create natural oligopolies. A small group can collude to fix auction prices, eliminating cost savings for end-users.\n- Result: Auction theory fails; prices revert to monopoly levels.\n- Evidence: Seen in Ethereum PBS with builder dominance; prover markets are more capital-intensive.
3-5
Dominant Provers
+300%
Potential Fee Inflation
03
Volatility from Prover Churn
Proof generation is computationally brittle. A prover winning an auction but failing to deliver a proof on time causes chain re-orgs and finality delays. This volatility is exacerbated by spot market pricing.\n- Cause: Hardware failure, software bugs, or network issues post-auction win.\n- Impact: User transactions stall, breaking composability assumptions for DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap.
5-10%
Failure Rate Risk
2-5 blocks
Finality Delay
04
The Oracle Manipulation Attack
Many auction mechanisms rely on external price oracles (e.g., for cost calculation). An attacker can manipulate the oracle to win auctions at artificially low prices or force honest provers to operate at a loss.\n- Vector: Flash loan attack on a DEX oracle like Chainlink or Pyth.\n- Consequence Systemic underpayment collapses the prover network, halting the chain.
$50M
Flash Loan Cap
Minutes
Network Halt Time
05
Solution: Bonded Prover Pools with Slashing
Mitigate extortion and churn by requiring provers to post substantial economic bonds (e.g., $10M+). Slash bonds for non-performance or malicious bidding. This aligns incentives but raises barriers to entry.\n- Model: Similar to Ethereum's consensus layer but for proving.\n- Trade-off: Security vs. decentralization; favors institutional provers.
$10M+
Minimum Bond
>99%
Uptime Required
06
Solution: Multi-Round, Commit-Reveal Auctions
A two-phase auction prevents last-second predatory bidding and oracle manipulation. Provers commit to a price in round one, then reveal and execute in round two. This dampens volatility.\n- Benefit: Eliminates time-bandit attacks and flash loan oracle exploits.\n- Drawback: Adds ~1-2 block latency to the proving process.
-90%
Frontrun Risk
+2 blocks
Added Latency
future-outlook
THE AUCTION MECHANISM
Future Outlook: The Prover Commodity Exchange
Prover economics will shift from static fee models to dynamic, auction-based commodity exchanges.
Fixed fee models are obsolete. They create misaligned incentives and inefficient capital allocation, similar to early Ethereum block space before MEV auctions.
Auction mechanisms commoditize proving. Protocols like EigenDA and Avail will run continuous auctions where provers bid for proving rights, driving costs to marginal hardware expense.
The market fragments by proof type. Specialized prover pools for zkEVMs, zkVMs, and validity proofs will emerge, mirroring the AWS EC2 spot instance market for compute.
Evidence: Espresso Systems' HotShot sequencer already uses a provably fair leader election auction, a precursor to prover market design.
takeaways
PROVER ECONOMICS
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
The transition from fixed-fee models to auction-based systems is fundamentally reshaping the economics of proving, from ZK-Rollups to cross-chain messaging.
01
The Problem: Static Fees Create Inefficient Markets
Fixed prover fees ignore real-time supply/demand, leading to prover overpayment in idle times and user overpayment during congestion. This misalignment stifles competition and innovation in proving hardware.
- Market Inefficiency: No price discovery for computational work.
- Prover Centralization Risk: High, stable margins favor incumbents.
- User Cost Volatility: Fees don't reflect true cost of proving.
~70%
Idle Capacity
10x+
Fee Spikes
02
The Solution: Real-Time Prover Auctions (Ã la EigenLayer)
Auction mechanisms, like those pioneered for restaking, allow provers to bid for work, dynamically setting prices based on demand and hardware efficiency. This creates a commoditized proving layer.
- Optimal Price Discovery: Fees reflect real-time cost of capital and compute.
- Hardware Innovation Incentive: Efficient provers win bids, driving R&D in ASICs/GPUs.
- User Cost Reduction: Competition drives prices toward marginal cost.
-30-60%
Avg. Cost
1000+
Prover Pool
03
The New Stack: Prover Marketplaces & Aggregators
Infrastructure is emerging to abstract auction complexity. Think UniswapX for proofs or Across Protocol for attestations, where solvers/provers compete in a mempool.
- Builder Abstraction: Rollups submit proof jobs; marketplace finds cheapest/best prover.
- Liquidity Fragmentation Solved: Aggregators pool demand across multiple L2s (zkSync, Starknet, Scroll).
- New Business Model: Fee capture shifts from prover monopolies to marketplace/sequencer.
$1B+
Market Size
~500ms
Auction Latency
04
The Investment Thesis: Vertical Integration vs. Commoditization
The endgame is contested. Vertical Integration (e.g., Polygon zkEVM owning its prover stack) offers control but risks inefficiency. Commoditization (modular prover networks) promises lower costs but adds latency and complexity.
- Vertical Play: Control the stack, capture full value, optimize for specific VMs.
- Modular Play: Build the auction layer, aggregator, or specialized hardware (Ulvetanna).
- Key Metric: Cost per proof will become the dominant KPI, not TVL.
10x
Cost Advantage
2-5s
Trade-off Latency
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