zk-SNARKs with a trusted setup excel at performance and scalability because the initial ceremony generates a compact, reusable proving key. This results in significantly faster proof generation and smaller proof sizes, directly impacting user costs and throughput. For example, Zcash's original Sprout protocol, using the Powers of Tau ceremony, achieves sub-second verification with proofs under 200 bytes, enabling practical private transactions on-chain. This model is favored by protocols like Aztec Network and Loopring where computational efficiency is paramount.
LABS
Comparisons
zk-SNARKs with Trusted Setup vs Without Trusted Setup
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects, analyzing the core trade-off between the performance of trusted setups (Groth16, PLONK) and the cryptographic trustlessness of transparent setups (STARKs, Halo).
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Foundational Trust Assumption
The choice between zk-SNARKs with and without trusted setup defines your protocol's security model and long-term operational overhead.
zk-SNARKs without a trusted setup (transparent/universal) take a different approach by eliminating the need for a confidential multi-party ceremony. Systems like Halo2 (used by zkSync Era) and STARKs (used by StarkNet) rely on publicly verifiable randomness or larger cryptographic assumptions. This results in a stronger trust model—no risk of a compromised 'toxic waste'—but often at the trade-off of larger proof sizes and higher verification gas costs, which can be a constraint for certain Ethereum L1 applications.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum performance, low gas costs, and mature tooling for applications like private payments or high-frequency DEXs, choose a trusted setup system. If you prioritize cryptographic trust minimization, long-term security guarantees, and avoiding ceremonial complexity for a foundational L2 or new protocol, choose a transparent system like Halo2 or a STARK-based proof.
tldr-summary
zk-SNARKs: Trusted Setup vs. Trustless
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
A technical breakdown of the primary trade-offs between classic zk-SNARKs requiring a trusted setup and newer trustless alternatives like zk-STARKs or recursive proofs.
01
zk-SNARKs (Trusted Setup)
Pro: Superior Performance: Smaller proof sizes (~200 bytes) and faster verification (~5 ms). This is critical for high-throughput L2s like zkSync Era and private transactions on Zcash, where on-chain costs dominate. Con: Trust Assumption: Requires a ceremony (MPC) to generate proving/verifying keys. If compromised, false proofs can be created. This introduces a protocol-level security risk that must be managed.
02
zk-SNARKs (Trusted Setup)
Pro: Mature Tooling: Supported by battle-tested libraries like libsnark and bellman. Integrated into major protocols (Zcash, Aztec) for years. This matters for production systems where developer familiarity and audit history reduce implementation risk. Con: Centralization Pressure: The setup ceremony, while decentralized (e.g., Powers of Tau), still creates a coordination bottleneck and perceived vulnerability, which can be a barrier for permissionless, credibly neutral protocols.
03
zk-SNARKs (Trustless)
Pro: Enhanced Trust Minimization: No toxic waste or trusted ceremony. Security relies solely on cryptographic assumptions (collision-resistant hashes). This is the gold standard for sovereign rollups and bridges where no single entity should be trusted. Con: Higher Computational Cost: Verification is more expensive (e.g., zk-STARKs proofs are ~45 KB). This matters for mainnet Ethereum verification, where calldata costs can be prohibitive for high-frequency applications.
04
zk-SNARKs (Trustless)
Pro: Post-Quantum Resilience: Schemes like zk-STARKs are believed to be quantum-resistant, relying on hash functions rather than elliptic curves. This future-proofs protocols with long-lived state or high-value assets. Con: Nascent Ecosystem: Tooling (e.g., StarkWare's Cairo) is newer and less diversified. This matters for CTOs evaluating long-term vendor risk and needing a broad range of auditing firms and developer tools.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
zk-SNARKs with Trusted Setup vs. Without Trusted Setup
Direct comparison of cryptographic assumptions, performance, and ecosystem adoption.
| Metric | zk-SNARKs (Trusted Setup) | zk-SNARKs (Trustless) |
|---|---|---|
Trust Assumption | Requires a trusted ceremony (e.g., Groth16) | No trusted setup required (e.g., STARKs, Halo2) |
Proof Size | ~288 bytes (Groth16) | ~45-200 KB (STARKs) |
Verification Time | < 10 ms | ~10-100 ms |
Proving Time | ~3-10 seconds | ~1-5 seconds |
Post-Quantum Security | ||
Ecosystem Examples | Zcash, Tornado Cash, zkSync Era | Starknet, Polygon Miden, RISC Zero |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
zk-SNARKs: Trusted Setup vs. Trustless (zk-STARKs)
Direct comparison of cryptographic proof systems based on setup requirements and operational characteristics.
| Metric | zk-SNARKs (Trusted Setup) | zk-STARKs (Trustless) |
|---|---|---|
Trusted Setup Ceremony Required | ||
Proof Generation Time (approx.) | ~1-3 seconds | ~5-10 seconds |
Proof Verification Time | < 10 ms | < 100 ms |
Proof Size | ~288 bytes | ~45-200 KB |
Quantum-Resistant Security | ||
Gas Cost for On-Chain Verification (ETH) | ~500K gas | ~2-5M gas |
Primary Use Case | Private Payments (Zcash), Rollups | High-Value, Compliance-Needing Apps |
pros-cons-a
TRUSTED SETUP (Groth16, PLONK) VS. TRUSTLESS (STARKs, Halo2)
Pros and Cons: Trusted Setup zk-SNARKs (Groth16, PLONK)
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs choosing a proving system foundation.
01
Pro: Unmatched Performance
Specific advantage: Groth16 proofs are ~200-300 bytes with sub-second verification on-chain. PLONK offers ~600 byte proofs with universal, updatable setups. This matters for high-frequency DeFi (e.g., zkSync's zkRollup) and privacy-preserving payments (e.g., Zcash's original Sapling protocol) where gas costs and latency are critical.
< 1 sec
Verify Time
~200B
Gas Cost
03
Con: Trusted Setup Ceremony Risk
Specific disadvantage: Requires a Multi-Party Computation (MPC) ceremony (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau). If compromised, all subsequent proofs are forgeable. This matters for long-lived, high-value systems like central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) or foundational L1s where a single point of failure is unacceptable.
04
Con: Inflexible Circuit Design
Specific disadvantage: Groth16 requires a new trusted setup for each unique circuit. PLONK is universal but still less agile than trustless alternatives. This matters for rapidly evolving protocols (e.g., novel DEX mechanisms) or general-purpose zkEVMs where circuit logic must change frequently without security re-audits.
06
Con (Trustless): Larger Proofs, Higher Cost
Specific disadvantage: STARK proofs are larger (~45-200 KB), leading to higher on-chain verification costs. This matters for mainnet Ethereum L1 settlement where calldata costs dominate, or for light clients on mobile devices with limited bandwidth.
~45-200KB
Proof Size
Higher L1 Cost
Trade-off
pros-cons-b
TRUSTED SETUP (SNARKs) vs. TRUSTLESS SETUP (STARKs, HALO2)
Pros and Cons: Trustless/Transparent zk-SNARKs (STARKs, Halo)
The core trade-off between cryptographic security assumptions and computational performance for zero-knowledge proofs.
01
Trusted Setup (e.g., Groth16, Plonk)
Pro: Superior Performance: Groth16 proofs are ~200 bytes with sub-second verification, making them ideal for high-throughput L2s like zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM. This matters for applications requiring low on-chain verification costs.
Con: Ceremony Risk: Requires a secure multi-party computation (MPC) ceremony (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau). If compromised, false proofs can be generated. This adds a layer of procedural trust and complexity.
02
Transparent Setup (e.g., STARKs)
Pro: Post-Quantum Security & Trustlessness: Uses hash functions (like SHA) resistant to quantum attacks. No trusted setup required, as seen in StarkNet and Polygon Miden. This matters for long-term, sovereign applications where ceremony maintenance is a liability.
Con: Larger Proof Sizes: STARK proofs are larger (~45-200 KB), leading to higher on-chain data availability costs. This is a key trade-off for scaling solutions focused purely on L1 verification overhead.
03
Transparent Setup (e.g., Halo2, Nova)
Pro: Recursive Proof Composition: Enables efficient proof aggregation without trusted setup, a technique used by zkSync's Boojum and Scroll. This matters for building succinct blockchain clients and parallelizing proof generation.
Con: Emerging Tooling: Ecosystem and developer tools (SDKs, debuggers) are less mature than for established SNARK backends like circom. This increases initial integration complexity for new teams.
04
Decision Framework
Choose Trusted Setup SNARKs if: Your priority is minimizing on-chain gas costs for verification (e.g., a high-frequency DEX) and you can accept the operational overhead of trusting/auditing a ceremony.
Choose Trustless STARKs/Halo2 if: Your application demands maximum cryptographic trust assumptions (e.g., a bridge or rollup for institutional assets) or requires post-quantum safety, and you can design around larger proof sizes.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: Decision Framework by Use Case
zk-SNARKs with Trusted Setup for DeFi & Payments
Verdict: Choose for high-value, production-grade applications where the security model is well-understood and accepted. Strengths:
- Proven Security: Mature implementations like Zcash (Sprout) and early zkSync 1.0 have secured billions in value for years, providing a battle-tested track record.
- Performance: Often achieves faster proof generation and smaller proof sizes, leading to lower on-chain verification gas costs on L1s like Ethereum. This is critical for high-frequency DeFi operations.
- Ecosystem Tooling: Established frameworks like libsnark and bellman offer extensive documentation and community support. Key Trade-off: You must accept and manage the ceremony risk. For large-scale DeFi (e.g., a new DEX or lending protocol), the operational overhead of trusting or participating in a multi-party ceremony (MPC) may be justified by the performance gains.
zk-SNARKs without Trusted Setup for DeFi & Payments
Verdict: Choose for protocols where trust minimization is the paramount marketing and security feature, especially for novel assets or privacy-focused payments. Strengths:
- Strongest Trust Assumption: Eliminates the ceremony risk and potential for backdoors, a powerful narrative for decentralized money protocols.
- Future-Proof: Aligns with the cryptographic ideal of transparent setups, as seen in Zcash (Halo 2) and Mina Protocol. Key Trade-off: Be prepared for potentially higher computational overhead and larger proofs, which can translate to higher costs or slower performance. This may be acceptable for settlement layers or less frequent, high-value transactions.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A strategic breakdown of the critical trade-offs between zk-SNARKs with and without trusted setup to guide infrastructure decisions.
zk-SNARKs with a trusted setup (e.g., Zcash's original ceremony, Polygon zkEVM) excel at performance and efficiency because the pre-generated parameters allow for smaller proof sizes and faster verification. For example, proofs in systems like Zcash are typically under 1KB, enabling verification in milliseconds on-chain, which translates to lower gas costs for end-users. This mature approach has secured billions in TVL and is the backbone of major privacy and scaling protocols.
zk-SNARKs without a trusted setup (e.g., Halo2, Nova, Plonky2) take a different approach by using recursive proof composition or other cryptographic innovations to eliminate the need for a one-time ceremony. This results in a superior trust model and long-term security but often incurs a trade-off in initial proof generation time or circuit complexity. Protocols like Mina Protocol leverage this for its constant-sized blockchain.
The key trade-off is trust minimization versus optimized performance. If your priority is maximum security assurance, regulatory clarity, and future-proofing for a long-lived protocol (e.g., a foundational L1 or a sovereign rollup), choose a trustless setup. If you prioritize immediate production readiness, minimal gas fees, and proven scalability for a high-throughput application (e.g., a payments-focused L2 or a DeFi rollup), a trusted setup with a well-audited ceremony is the pragmatic choice.
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