The ZK-EVM race is a dead end. Current contenders like Scroll, Polygon zkEVM, and zkSync Era compete on a flawed premise: perfect EVM equivalence. This focus on byte-for-byte compatibility creates massive proving overhead and limits innovation.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
The Future of ZK-EVMs Is a New Virtual Machine
EVM emulation is a costly tax on ZK-rollups. This analysis argues that long-term scaling requires abandoning EVM compatibility for ZK-native virtual machines designed for efficient proof generation from inception, like zkWasm and Cairo.
introduction
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
Introduction
The next evolution of ZK-EVMs is not an incremental optimization but a fundamental re-architecture around a new virtual machine.
The future is a new VM. The winning architecture is a purpose-built virtual machine designed for ZK-proving from first principles, like RISC Zero's zkVM or Aztec's Noir. This VM will execute and prove custom logic orders of magnitude faster than emulating the EVM.
EVM compatibility becomes a compilation target. High-performance ZK-VMs will treat the EVM as a legacy runtime. Developers write in domain-specific languages (DSLs) like Noir or Cairo, which compile to the efficient ZK-VM bytecode, while transpilers handle EVM/Solidity compatibility for deployment.
Evidence: The proving cost disparity is decisive. A simple transfer in a ZK-optimized VM costs under $0.01, while proving the same opcode in an equivalent ZK-EVM costs 100x more. This economic reality forces the shift.
key-trends
THE FUTURE OF ZK-EVMS IS A NEW VIRTUAL MACHINE
The Inevitable Shift: Three Key Trends
The current generation of ZK-EVMs are proving grounds, but their architectural debt—copying the EVM verbatim—limits performance and innovation. The next wave will be purpose-built VMs designed for zero-knowledge proofs from the ground up.
01
The Problem: EVM Opcode Proving is Inefficient
Proving legacy EVM opcodes like KECCAK256 and SHA3 is computationally expensive, creating a ~100-1000x overhead versus native execution. This is the primary bottleneck for proving time and cost.
- Key Benefit 1: A new VM can replace heavy cryptographic primitives with ZK-friendly alternatives (e.g., Poseidon hash).
- Key Benefit 2: Enables ~10x faster proving times and -80% cost reduction for common operations, making L1 settlement viable.
~1000x
Overhead
-80%
Cost Target
02
The Solution: zkVM-as-a-State-Transition-Engine
Frameworks like RISC Zero, SP1, and Jolt are decoupling the VM from Ethereum compatibility. They treat the EVM as just one possible guest program, proving the correctness of any computation defined in their instruction set.
- Key Benefit 1: Unlocks parallel proving and specialized accelerators (GPUs, FPGAs) for massive scalability.
- Key Benefit 2: Enables a multi-VM future where a single zkVM can verify execution from CosmWasm, Move, or EVM, becoming the universal settlement layer.
Multi-VM
Settlement
Parallel
Proving
03
The Outcome: Specialized Rollups & Appchains Win
General-purpose ZK-rollups will face competition from hyper-optimized, application-specific chains. A zkVM-native architecture allows developers to design a VM perfectly suited for their logic (e.g., a gaming VM, DEX VM).
- Key Benefit 1: Enables sub-second finality and <$0.001 fees for targeted use cases by eliminating unnecessary opcodes.
- Key Benefit 2: Creates a new design space for sovereign rollups and validiums that prioritize performance over maximal decentralization, leveraging ecosystems like EigenLayer and Celestia.
<$0.001
Target Fees
Sub-Second
Finality
ARCHITECTURAL TRADEOFFS
The Proof Generation Tax: EVM vs. ZK-Native
Comparing the core design choices for building a ZK-rollup, focusing on the overhead of generating validity proofs for the Ethereum Virtual Machine.
| Architectural Feature | ZK-EVM (EVM Equivalence) | ZK-Native VM (e.g., Cairo, zkWASM) | ZK-Native App-Specific (e.g., zkSync Era) |
|---|---|---|---|
Proof Generation Overhead | ~10-100x native execution | ~2-10x native execution | ~1-5x native execution |
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | Partial (via transpiler) | ||
Developer Experience | Solidity/Vyper, no changes | New language (Cairo, Noir) | Modified Solidity (zkSync) |
Prover Hardware Requirements | High (complex circuits) | Optimized (regular arithmetic) | Highly Optimized (custom ops) |
Gas Cost for On-Chain Verification | ~500k - 2M gas | ~200k - 800k gas | ~100k - 500k gas |
Time to Generate Proof (Tx Batch) | Minutes to hours | Seconds to minutes | < 60 seconds |
Trustless Bridge to Ethereum L1 | |||
Native Integration with L1 DeFi (e.g., Uniswap, Aave) | Direct | Via message passing | Via message passing |
deep-dive
THE MISMATCH
Architectural Debt: Why the EVM Fights ZK
The EVM's architectural legacy creates inherent friction with zero-knowledge proof systems, necessitating a new virtual machine paradigm.
EVM's stateful design directly conflicts with ZK's stateless verification. The EVM's global mutable state requires proving every storage slot touched, while ZK circuits demand static, predetermined logic. This mismatch forces ZK-EVM teams like Polygon zkEVM and Scroll to build complex, expensive provers.
Bytecode compatibility is a trap. Projects like Taiko that prioritize full equivalence inherit the EVM's worst inefficiencies for proving. The optimal path, demonstrated by zkSync Era and Starknet's Cairo, is a ZK-native instruction set designed for efficient arithmetic and constraint generation from the start.
The proving cost ceiling is the ultimate bottleneck. Even with aggressive optimizations, a direct EVM proof costs orders of magnitude more than a proof for a ZK-optimized VM. This economic reality makes the current generation of ZK-EVMs transitional infrastructure.
Evidence: Starknet's Cairo VM executes ~0.5M TPS on its prover, while a bytecode-compatible ZK-EVM like Polygon's struggles to reach 10% of that throughput for the same cost, highlighting the architectural tax of EVM legacy.
counter-argument
THE NETWORK EFFECT FALLACY
The Liquidity Counter-Argument (And Why It's Short-Sighted)
The belief that EVM compatibility is required for liquidity is a misunderstanding of how capital and execution migrate in a modular stack.
Liquidity follows execution, not bytecode. The dominant narrative assumes users and assets are locked to the EVM. In reality, intent-based architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract the settlement layer, routing orders to wherever execution is cheapest and fastest.
Shared sequencers and shared L2s like Espresso and Lumi decouple liquidity pools from a single chain. A new VM with superior performance will attract modular liquidity through these systems, making monolithic EVM liquidity a legacy concern.
The precedent is cross-chain DeFi. Protocols like Circle's CCTP and LayerZero enable native USDC and messaging across heterogeneous chains. This infrastructure proves asset abstraction is solved; the next bottleneck is virtual machine efficiency, not Solidity compatibility.
Evidence: Arbitrum and Optimism captured billions in TVL without being bytecode-identical to Ethereum. Their success was based on lower cost and better UX, a formula a more efficient ZK-VM will replicate by an order of magnitude.
protocol-spotlight
BEYOND EVM EQUIVALENCE
Protocol Spotlight: The ZK-Native Vanguard
The next evolution isn't about perfectly mimicking the EVM; it's about building new virtual machines where zero-knowledge proofs are a first-class primitive.
01
The Problem: EVM Opcodes Are ZK-Unfriendly
Forcing ZK circuits to emulate legacy EVM opcodes like KECCAK256 and SSTORE creates massive overhead. This is the core inefficiency plaguing Type 2 ZK-EVMs like zkSync Era and Scroll.
- Prover cost dominated by simulating storage and hashing.
- Circuit size bloated by unnecessary opcode translation logic.
- Innovation ceiling is limited by 10-year-old EVM design decisions.
~80%
Prover Cost
10x+
Circuit Bloat
02
The Solution: ZK-Native VMs (RISC Zero, SP1)
Start with a ZK-friendly instruction set (e.g., RISC-V) and build the VM for proving, not compatibility. This flips the performance paradigm.
- Proving speed: General-purpose VM can be ~100x faster for specific computations vs. EVM emulation.
- Developer flexibility: Enables proven AI inference, gaming logic, and novel cryptography.
- Parallel proving: Native architecture unlocks efficient multi-core proof generation.
100x
Speed Potential
RISC-V
ISA
03
The Trade-off: The Liquidity Fragmentation Cliff
A new VM breaks bytecode compatibility. You sacrifice the $100B+ of existing EVM liquidity and tooling for architectural freedom. This is the existential gamble.
- No forkability: Can't deploy Uniswap V3 without a full rewrite.
- New toolchains: Requires building compilers (e.g., from Solidity/Yul) and new indexers.
- Ecosystem risk: Success depends on attracting net-new developer mindshare, not capturing incumbents.
$100B+
TVL Lockout
0
Forkable DApps
04
The Hybrid Path: zkWASM (Polygon Miden, Delphinus Lab)
Use WebAssembly as a compromise target. It's more ZK-friendly than EVM and has a burgeoning multi-language ecosystem (Rust, C++, Go).
- Balanced trade: Better prover efficiency than EVM, broader language support than custom ISA.
- Existing tooling: Leverages WASI and LLVM compiler infrastructure.
- Strategic positioning: Catches developers fleeing Ethereum's Solidity monoculture.
WASM
Target
LLVM
Toolchain
05
The Endgame: Application-Specific VMs (Avail, Espresso)
The most extreme optimization: design a VM for one task. Avail's VM is for data availability proofs. Espresso's is for sequencing. This achieves maximum performance.
- Unmatched throughput: ~100k TPS for the specific application domain.
- Minimal overhead: No general-purpose opcode baggage.
- Vertical integration: The VM, proof system, and app logic are co-designed.
100k+
Specialized TPS
~0
General Bloat
06
The Verdict: A Cambrian Explosion of Architectures
The future is multi-VM. The EVM will remain the liquidity layer, but high-throughput, provable logic will run on ZK-native VMs, connected via interoperability hubs like Polygon AggLayer and Avail Nexus.
- EVM Layer: Holds state and liquidity (L2s, L3s).
- ZK-Native Layer: Executes complex logic (AI, games, order books).
- Sovereign Rollups: Will be the first major adopters, unshackled from Ethereum's tooling.
Multi-VM
Future
Sovereign
First Adopters
future-outlook
THE ARCHITECTURAL SHIFT
The 5-Year Trajectory: From Emulation to Native Dominance
The future of ZK-EVMs is a new, purpose-built virtual machine, not a more efficient EVM emulator.
ZK-EVMs are a dead end. They are a transitional technology that sacrifices performance for compatibility. The final state is a ZK-VM, a machine designed from first principles for zero-knowledge proving. This is analogous to the shift from emulating x86 on ARM to designing native ARM chips.
EVM opcodes are provably inefficient. Operations like KECCAK and storage writes dominate proof costs in circuits for Scroll or Polygon zkEVM. A native ZK-VM uses proof-friendly primitives like SNARK-friendly hashes and vector operations, reducing proof time and cost by orders of magnitude.
The ecosystem will bifurcate. High-value, composite applications like Uniswap and Aave will remain on EVM L2s for liquidity. New native applications on ZK-VMs will emerge for use cases where ultra-low cost and privacy are non-negotiable, creating entirely new design spaces.
Evidence: zkSync Era's LLVM compiler. It already bypasses the EVM's stack model for a register-based VM, a stepping stone. The next step is replacing the EVM execution environment entirely, a move that projects like RISC Zero's zkVM and Aztec's Noir are pioneering.
takeaways
THE ZK-VM SHIFT
TL;DR for CTOs and Architects
The current ZK-EVM race is a dead-end; the real innovation is a new virtual machine architecture designed for zero-knowledge proofs.
01
The Problem: EVM Opcode Proving is Inefficient
Proving legacy EVM opcodes like SHA3 or KECCAK is computationally insane. The mismatch creates ~100-1000x overhead vs. native ZK circuits.
- Key Benefit 1: ZK-VMs use custom, ZK-friendly instructions (e.g., RISC-V, MIPS) for ~10-100x faster proving.
- Key Benefit 2: Eliminates the need for complex, bug-prone EVM equivalence proofs, reducing audit surface.
-90%
Proving Cost
100x
Efficiency Gain
02
The Solution: Parallelizable VM Architectures
EVM is inherently sequential; ZK-VMs like zkVM (RISC Zero) and SP1 are designed for parallel proof generation from the start.
- Key Benefit 1: Enables horizontal scaling of provers, turning ~30 sec proofs into ~3 sec proofs with more hardware.
- Key Benefit 2: Unlocks new design space for high-throughput DeFi and gaming applications impossible on serial EVMs.
10x
Throughput
~3s
Proof Target
03
The Consequence: Fragmentation is Inevitable
ZK-VMs won't be bytecode-compatible. The future is a multi-VM ecosystem connected via shared settlement layers (EigenLayer, Celestia) and universal bridges (LayerZero, Wormhole).
- Key Benefit 1: Specialized VMs for gaming, DeFi, and AI can coexist, each optimized for its domain.
- Key Benefit 2: Breaks the 'EVM monopoly', forcing developers to think in terms of state proofs, not bytecode.
Multi-VM
Ecosystem
$1B+
Bridge Volume
04
The Entity: RISC Zero's zkVM
A concrete example using the RISC-V instruction set. It proves general-purpose computation, making any Rust program a ZK-rollup.
- Key Benefit 1: Developer familiarity with RISC-V toolchain lowers adoption barrier vs. custom DSLs.
- Key Benefit 2: Serves as a universal coprocessor for other chains, enabling trustless off-chain computation (like a decentralized AWS Lambda).
RISC-V
ISA
Universal
Use Case
05
The Trade-off: You Lose Native Composability
A ZK-VM app cannot directly call an EVM contract. All cross-VM communication must go through a message passing layer with economic security.
- Key Benefit 1: Forces cleaner, modular architecture with explicit security assumptions (see Cosmos IBC).
- Key Benefit 2: Reduces systemic risk by isolating VM failures, preventing contagion.
Explicit
Security
Isolated
Failure
06
The Action: Build for the Multi-VM Future
CTOs must architect applications as state machines, not EVM contracts. Your stack should be VM-agnostic, with proofs as the universal language.
- Key Benefit 1: Future-proofs your application for the highest-performance proving environment available.
- Key Benefit 2: Positions you to leverage specialized VMs for compute-heavy tasks (AI inference, physics engines) without rewriting core logic.
State Machine
Architecture
VM-Agnostic
Strategy
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