EVM compatibility is a tax. Every ZK rollup that compiles to EVM bytecode inherits its inefficiencies, forcing expensive ZK circuits to prove legacy opcodes like SLOAD and CALL that were never designed for zero-knowledge proofs.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
The Hidden Cost of EVM Compatibility in a ZK World
EVM compatibility is a strategic trap for ZK-Rollups. Legacy opcodes create massive proving overhead, imposing a permanent 'ZK tax' that caps scalability and inflates costs. The true endgame requires ZK-optimized execution environments.
introduction
THE COMPATIBILITY TRAP
Introduction
EVM compatibility, the industry's default scaling strategy, creates a hidden tax on performance and innovation in a ZK-centric future.
The market chose convenience over optimality. Chains like Arbitrum and Optimism scaled adoption by copying the EVM, but their technical debt now manifests as high proving costs and limited throughput versus native ZK-VMs like zkSync Era and Starknet.
Evidence: Proving an EVM opcode like KECCAK256 requires ~20,000 constraints in a ZK circuit, while a custom ZK-friendly hash like Rescue or Poseidon needs only ~300. This 60x overhead is the hidden cost of compatibility.
key-insights
THE ZK TAX
Executive Summary
EVM compatibility, the bedrock of L2 scaling, introduces a massive performance tax on ZK-Rollups that is often ignored in favor of developer convenience.
01
The ZK Prover's Burden
EVM opcodes are not ZK-friendly. Proving a simple SLOAD costs ~100k constraints vs. native ZK operations. This computational overhead translates directly to slower finality and higher costs for users.
- Core Issue: EVM's sequential, stateful design is antithetical to ZK's parallel, stateless nature.
- Result: Proving times balloon to ~10 minutes for complex blocks, creating a latency vs. decentralization trade-off.
100k
Constraints per SLOAD
~10 min
Prove Time
02
The L1 Data Availability Bottleneck
EVM-compatible ZKRs must post full calldata to Ethereum, inheriting its ~$50 per MB cost structure. This dwarfs proof generation costs and makes micro-transactions economically impossible.
- Hidden Cost: >80% of a user's fee often pays for L1 data, not ZK proof security.
- Contrast: Native ZK-VMs (e.g., Starknet's Cairo) can use validity proofs for state diffs, slashing DA costs.
>80%
Fee is DA
$50/MB
L1 Cost
03
The zkEVM Trilemma: Pick Two
You cannot have full EVM equivalence, high performance, and strong security simultaneously. Projects like Scroll (bytecode-compatible) and Polygon zkEVM (language-compatible) make different trade-offs, sacrificing optimal proving or developer reach.
- Trade-off: Type 1 zkEVMs (e.g., Taiko) mirror Ethereum but have prover lag. Type 4 (e.g., zkSync) are fast but require compiler changes.
- Future: The market will segment between high-performance app-chains (using custom VMs) and general-purpose but slower EVM clones.
3 Types
zkEVM Spectrum
Pick 2
Trade-Off
04
The Solidity Anchor
$30B+ in Solidity TVL creates a powerful inertia field, forcing ZK teams to prioritize compatibility over innovation. This delays the adoption of ZK-native languages (Cairo, Noir, Leo) that offer 10-100x better prover efficiency.
- Consequence: The ecosystem is optimizing for yesterday's developers, not tomorrow's performance.
- Path Forward: Intermediate solutions like Ethereum's EIP-7212 (secp256r1 precompile) show that targeted, high-impact EVM extensions can reduce the tax.
$30B+
Solidity TVL
10-100x
Efficiency Gain
thesis-statement
THE HIDDEN COST
The Core Argument: EVM is a ZK-Anitpattern
EVM compatibility imposes severe performance and design constraints that undermine the fundamental advantages of zero-knowledge proof systems.
EVM bytecode is ZK-hostile. The stack-based architecture and unlimited opcode set create massive proving overhead. ZK-unfriendly operations like KECCAK and storage opcodes dominate prover costs, making native execution proofs inefficient compared to purpose-built VMs like Cairo or Miden.
Compatibility sacrifices optimization. Chains like Polygon zkEVM and Scroll must map EVM opcodes to ZK circuits, a complex transpilation layer that bloats proof generation time. This contrasts with zkSync Era's custom LLVM-based compiler, which demonstrates the performance gains from abandoning strict equivalence.
The ecosystem tax is real. Every dApp inherits this inefficiency. Projects like Starknet's native dApps bypass this by building for a ZK-optimal VM from inception, avoiding the technical debt of emulating a 2015 machine design for a 2030 proving system.
Evidence: A simple ETH transfer in a zkEVM requires ~10x more constraints than in a native ZK-VM. This overhead scales non-linearly with contract complexity, making high-throughput DeFi on zkEVMs economically unviable at scale compared to AltLayer or Avail's dedicated data availability layers.
EVM COMPATIBILITY TRADE-OFFS
The ZK Tax: Opcode Proving Cost Analysis
Benchmarking the proving overhead of common EVM opcodes in a ZK-EVM context, measured in constraints per operation.
| EVM Opcode / Operation | zkSync Era (ZK Stack) | Polygon zkEVM | Scroll | Starknet (Cairo VM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Keccak256 (SHA3) Hash | ~18,000 constraints | ~20,000 constraints | ~22,000 constraints | Native (0 constraints) |
ECRECOVER (Signature Verify) | ~450,000 constraints | ~500,000 constraints | ~480,000 constraints | Native (0 constraints) |
SSTORE (Cold Storage Write) | ~5,000 constraints | ~5,500 constraints | ~6,200 constraints | N/A |
CALL (External Contract) | ~3,000 constraints + calldata | ~3,500 constraints + calldata | ~3,200 constraints + calldata | ~1,200 constraints (L1 Handler) |
SHA256 Hash | Emulated (~25k constraints) | Emulated (~28k constraints) | Emulated (~30k constraints) | Native (0 constraints) |
ModExp (Precompile) | ~2M+ constraints (emulated) | ~2.2M+ constraints (emulated) | ~2.1M+ constraints (emulated) | Native (0 constraints) |
Proof Generation Time Impact | +15-25% vs. base | +20-30% vs. base | +18-28% vs. base | Deterministic (Cairo-native) |
Primary Optimization Method | LLVM-based circuit compiler | Direct circuit mapping | Hardware-accelerated provers | Cairo-native VM design |
deep-dive
THE COST OF ABSTRACTION
Deconstructing the Overhead: Where the Cycles Go
EVM compatibility imposes a significant and often overlooked computational tax on ZK rollups, directly impacting their scalability and cost.
The EVM is a terrible ZK target. Its 256-bit architecture and complex opcodes create massive proving overhead compared to purpose-built zkVMs like zkSync's LLVM-based compiler or StarkWare's Cairo. Proving a simple arithmetic operation costs 100-1000x more in an EVM environment.
Storage proofs dominate the cost. The Merkle Patricia Trie structure forces ZK provers to hash and validate entire storage paths for simple SLOAD/SSTORE operations. This is the primary reason proving costs remain high despite faster proving hardware like Risc Zero or Succinct's SP1.
Bytecode verification is a silent killer. Every contract deployment requires the ZK circuit to validate EVM bytecode correctness, a process absent in native zkVMs. This adds a fixed, non-trivial overhead to every rollup batch, limiting the practical TPS gains from ZK technology.
protocol-spotlight
BEYOND THE EVM TAX
The Escape Routes: ZK-Optimized Execution Environments
EVM compatibility forces ZK circuits to prove inefficient opcodes, creating a massive overhead tax. These environments escape the EVM's legacy to unlock ZK's true potential.
01
The Problem: The EVM's Opcode Tax
ZK-proving EVM opcodes like SLOAD, CALL, and SHA3 is astronomically expensive. The EVM's 256-bit word size and complex state model force circuits to prove irrelevant data, wasting compute.
- Gas cost for ZK-proving a basic swap is ~10-100x the L1 gas cost.
- ~80% of circuit constraints are spent on state management, not application logic.
10-100x
Cost Multiplier
80%
Wasted Constraints
02
The Solution: Starknet's Cairo VM
Cairo is a ZK-native VM with a register-based architecture and field elements natively compatible with STARK proofs. It eliminates the EVM abstraction layer, compiling directly to provable constraints.
- Enables parallel proof generation for massive throughput.
- Cairo 1.0 introduces a Rust-like syntax, bridging the developer gap while maintaining ZK-optimal design.
~500 TPS
Theoretical Peak
~90%
Efficiency Gain
03
The Solution: zkSync's zkEVM
zkSync Era takes a pragmatic, bytecode-compatible approach. It uses a custom LLVM compiler to translate EVM bytecode into its own ZK-friendly instruction set (ZKsync Object Format). This preserves developer tooling while optimizing for the prover.
- Achieves ~99% EVM bytecode compatibility.
- Uses Boojum proof system for GPU-based proving, targeting ~$0.01 per transaction.
99%
EVM Compatible
$0.01
Target Cost/Tx
04
The Solution: Polygon zkEVM's Unified Proof
Polygon zkEVM implements a full Ethereum-equivalent ZK rollup. Its key innovation is a unified proof (SNARK) that batches multiple transactions, amortizing the high fixed cost of proving the EVM's execution trace.
- Leverages existing Ethereum clients (Geth) with minimal modification.
- Proof aggregation reduces finality time and L1 settlement costs significantly.
< 10 min
Time to Finality
~5-10x
Cheaper than L1
05
The Trade-Off: Compatibility vs. Performance
A stark continuum exists: Full EVM Equivalence (Polygon zkEVM) maximizes compatibility at a performance cost, while ZK-Native VMs (Cairo) maximize performance by breaking compatibility. Bytecode-Compatible VMs (zkSync) sit in the middle.
- Developer onboarding speed is inversely proportional to prover efficiency.
- The market will segment: dApps needing max security/compatibility vs. those needing max scale.
Fast<->Slow
Onboarding
Low<->High
Efficiency
06
The Future: The L2 OS & App-Specific Chains
The endgame is not one winner. ZK-optimized environments will become the operating system for L2s, with app-specific chains (like Starknet's Appchains) and hyper-optimized VMs (like RISC Zero) emerging. The EVM becomes just one optional compatibility layer.
- ZK-ASICs will accelerate custom instruction sets.
- Interoperability protocols (LayerZero, Hyperlane) will connect these optimized silos.
App-Specific
Future Focus
ZK-ASIC
Hardware Boost
counter-argument
THE NETWORK EFFECT FALLACY
Counterpoint: The Liquidity Trap Argument (And Why It's Short-Sighted)
EVM compatibility is a temporary scaffold, not a permanent moat, in the transition to ZK-based execution.
The EVM is a legacy abstraction that sacrifices ZK efficiency for developer familiarity. Its 256-bit word size and opcode design create massive proof overhead compared to purpose-built ZK-VMs like zkSync's LLVM-based architecture or StarkWare's Cairo.
Liquidity follows execution, not compatibility. The dominant liquidity layer is the Ethereum L1 and its rollups, not the EVM bytecode itself. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave deploy natively to performant environments, as seen with their expansion to Arbitrum and Optimism.
Interoperability standards supersede monoliths. The future is ZK-proof bridges and shared sequencers, not a single virtual machine. Cross-chain intent protocols like Across and LayerZero demonstrate that value flows through secure messaging, not bytecode parity.
Evidence: Polygon zkEVM's TVL is a fraction of Arbitrum's, despite full EVM equivalence. This proves that developer tools and ecosystem maturity, not raw compatibility, drive long-term adoption and liquidity capture.
future-outlook
THE PERFORMANCE TRAP
The Inevitable Fork: Specialized ZK VMs and the End of Universal EVM
EVM compatibility forces ZK rollups to pay a massive performance tax, making specialized virtual machines a competitive necessity.
EVM compatibility is a performance tax. The EVM's 256-bit architecture and complex opcodes create massive proving overhead. ZK circuits for EVM operations are inherently inefficient compared to purpose-built instruction sets.
Specialized VMs unlock order-of-magnitude gains. StarkWare's Cairo VM and Polygon's zkEVM Miden use custom architectures optimized for ZK proving. This reduces proof generation time and cost by avoiding unnecessary cryptographic constraints.
The fork creates a new interoperability layer. Universal EVM compatibility fragments. The new standard becomes the ZK proof itself, with bridges like LayerZero and Axelar verifying state transitions between disparate VMs, not bytecode.
Evidence: A Cairo VM proof for a complex dApp is generated 100x faster than an equivalent EVM proof. This gap defines the new performance frontier.
takeaways
THE ZK-EVM TRADEOFF
TL;DR: Key Takeaways for Builders
EVM compatibility is a powerful adoption lever, but its architectural legacy introduces critical bottlenecks in a ZK-rollup future.
01
The Problem: The 256-bit Word Tax
EVM's 256-bit architecture is a relic from a pre-ZK era, forcing ZK circuits to prove massively wasteful operations. This is the single largest source of proving overhead.
- ZK-proving cost is dominated by non-essential bitwise operations.
- Native 32/64-bit VMs (e.g., RISC-V, MIPS) can achieve ~10-100x faster proving times.
- Every EVM opcode carries a hidden ZK tax.
~80%
Proving Overhead
10-100x
Inefficiency
02
The Solution: Parallelize or Perish
EVM's strict sequential execution is antithetical to ZK proving, which is inherently parallelizable. Architectures must be rethought from first principles.
- Async execution models (like Fuel, Sei) unlock parallel proving pipelines.
- This reduces end-to-end proof generation time from minutes to seconds.
- Without parallelism, ZK-rollups hit a hard scalability ceiling.
~500ms
Target Latency
100x+
Throughput Gain
03
The Reality: Type-2 ZK-EVMs Are a Bridge
Projects like Scroll, Polygon zkEVM, and zkSync Era prioritize bytecode-level equivalence, paying the performance tax for maximal compatibility. This is a strategic, not technical, optimum.
- They accept ~5-10x higher proving costs vs. Type-1 (e.g., zkSync Lite) or Type-4 (e.g., StarkNet with Cairo).
- The trade-off is immediate access to the $50B+ EVM ecosystem and tooling.
- Long-term, expect a migration to more efficient, EVM-equivalent (not identical) VMs.
$50B+
EVM TVL
5-10x
Cost Premium
04
The Frontier: Custom Precompiles Are Your Lever
The most pragmatic path to ZK efficiency is augmenting your EVM chain with custom precompiles for ZK-native operations. This is the model pioneered by Polygon zkEVM and others.
- Offload expensive operations (e.g., Poseidon hashes, signature verification) to a single, optimized circuit.
- Can reduce application-specific proving costs by over 90%.
- This is how you build a ZK-optimized dApp on an EVM chain today.
-90%
Op Cost
Key Lever
For Builders
05
The Warning: Storage Proofs Break the Model
EVM's state model (massive, mutable Merkle-Patricia tries) is a proving nightmare. Cross-chain interoperability via storage proofs (like Succinct, Lagrange) exposes this fundamental flaw.
- Proving a simple storage slot update can be 1000x more expensive than the computation itself.
- This forces a re-architecture towards stateless clients and verkle trees, breaking compatibility.
- Your bridge's security and cost model depends on this unresolved bottleneck.
1000x
Cost Spike
Fundamental
Bottleneck
06
The Strategic Bet: The L2 is the New Appchain
The endgame isn't a one-size-fits-all ZK-EVM. It's purpose-built ZK-rollup appchains with minimal, optimized VMs, sharing a settlement layer (like Ethereum or Celestia).
- dYdX and Immutable X have already validated this model for orderbooks/NFTs.
- Use Ethereum for security/cash, but execute on a VM designed for your logic.
- The OP Stack and Polygon CDK are early infrastructure for this shift.
App-Specific
Optimization
Settlement
Layer Focus
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