Succinctness is irrelevant. The promise of a 288-byte proof is a marketing relic. The real bottleneck is the prover's computational load, which scales with transaction volume, not proof size. For high-throughput chains like Arbitrum or zkSync, the cost to generate a proof for a block of 10,000 transactions dominates all other expenses.
layer-2-wars-arbitrum-optimism-base-and-beyond
Blog
The 'Succinctness' of SNARKs is a Moot Point for High-Throughput L2s
EIP-4844's data blobs have rendered the tiny proof size of SNARKs a marginal cost factor. For ZK-rollups like zkSync and StarkNet to compete with Optimistic rollups, the decisive battle is now proving throughput and hardware acceleration, not data compression.
introduction
THE REAL COST
Introduction: The Shifting Cost Basis of Validity
The primary economic constraint for SNARK-based L2s is not proof size, but the compute cost of proof generation.
The cost basis shifted. The industry's focus moved from on-chain verification cost to off-chain proving cost. This is why Ethereum's L1 gas for proof verification is now a secondary concern. The primary ledger is the prover's AWS bill, not the blockchain's state update.
Proof aggregation changes the game. Protocols like EigenLayer and Avail introduce a new economic layer for decentralized proving. The competition is no longer about the smallest proof, but the cheapest, fastest proving market, turning validity into a commodity.
thesis-statement
THE BOTTLENECK
Thesis: Proving Speed is the New Frontier
For high-throughput L2s, the theoretical 'succinctness' of SNARKs is irrelevant; proving latency and cost per proof are the only metrics that matter.
Succinctness is a solved problem. Modern zkEVMs like Polygon zkEVM and zkSync Era already produce proofs small enough to verify cheaply on Ethereum. The frontier has shifted from proof size to proving time and cost, which directly impact L2 finality and user experience.
Throughput demands real-time proving. An L2 processing 1000 TPS must generate a proof for that block before the next one is ready. Systems like StarkWare's SHARP prover and RISC Zero's Bonsai network are architectures built for this continuous proving workload, not one-off verification.
The bottleneck is hardware, not math. The race is now about optimizing parallel proving architectures (e.g., Ulvetanna's FPGA clusters) and specialized instruction sets to minimize the time and dollar cost per transaction proven. This is an infrastructure war.
Evidence: A zkRollup's economic viability hinges on its prover's amortized cost per transaction. If proving a 10M gas block takes 10 minutes and costs $500, the L2 cannot scale. Projects like Espresso Systems are tackling this with decentralized proving markets to commoditize this cost.
key-trends
THE NEW SCALING PRIMITIVE
The Post-Blob Landscape: 3 Key Shifts
Blobs have shifted the bottleneck from data availability to proof generation, making SNARK succinctness less relevant than proof throughput.
01
The Problem: Proof Generation is the New Bottleneck
With blob data costing ~$0.001 per transaction, the cost of generating a validity proof now dominates L2 operating expenses. For high-throughput chains like zkSync or Starknet, the critical metric is proofs-per-second, not proof size.
- Proof Cost > Data Cost: A single proof can cost $50-$200 in compute, dwarfing blob fees.
- Throughput Ceiling: Sequential proving creates a hard cap on TPS, regardless of how cheap data gets.
$50-$200
Proof Cost
~$0.001
Blob Cost/Tx
02
The Solution: Parallelized Proving & Recursion
The only viable path to 10k+ TPS is massive parallelization of proof generation, as pioneered by RiscZero and Succinct. This requires a shift from monolithic provers to distributed proving networks.
- Recursive SNARKs: Aggregating many proofs into one for final settlement, as used by Polygon zkEVM.
- Specialized Hardware: Moving towards GPU/FPGA provers to slash generation time from minutes to seconds.
10k+
Target TPS
Minutes→Seconds
Proof Time
03
The New Metric: Cost-Per-Proved-Transaction
Forget gas fees. The new KPI for L2 economic viability is the fully-loaded cost to prove a transaction, amortized across a batch. This aligns incentives with shared sequencers and proof marketplaces like Espresso Systems.
- Amortization is Key: Larger, more frequent batches drive cost toward the marginal cost of data.
- Market Structure: Provers become a commodity, with competition driving down the compute premium.
CPPT
Key Metric
→$0.01
Cost Target
THE REALITY OF L2 DATA COSTS
Cost Breakdown: Blob vs. Proof (Post-EIP-4844)
Compares the primary on-chain cost components for a high-throughput L2, demonstrating that SNARK proof verification is no longer the dominant expense.
| Cost Component | Data Availability (Blobs) | Proof Verification (SNARK) | L1 Execution (Settlement) |
|---|---|---|---|
Cost per Transaction (approx.) | $0.0002 - $0.001 | $0.00005 - $0.0002 | $0.001 - $0.005 |
Scalability Driver | Blob count per block (6 target) | Proof recursion & aggregation | Shared sequencer/prover efficiency |
EIP-4844 Impact | ~100x cost reduction vs. calldata | No direct impact | Enables cheaper, more frequent settlement |
Dominant Cost for 100+ TPS L2 | |||
Bottleneck for Scaling | Blob throughput (target 0.375 MB/block) | Prover hardware & time | L1 congestion & gas auctions |
Cost Volatility | Low (separate fee market) | Medium (depends on prover market) | High (tied to mainnet gas) |
Example Protocols | Arbitrum, Optimism, Base | zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM, Starknet | All L2s (via bridge interactions) |
deep-dive
THE COMPUTE
Deep Dive: The Real Bottleneck is in the Prover
The cryptographic 'succinctness' of SNARKs is irrelevant when the computational cost of generating them throttles L2 throughput.
Proving time dominates cost. The final proof size is trivial; the hours of CPU/GPU time to create it is the real expense. This compute cost scales linearly with transaction volume, creating a direct economic bottleneck for rollups like zkSync and Starknet.
SNARKs are not parallelizable. The proving algorithm's sequential nature prevents effective distribution across modern hardware. This contrasts with optimistic rollups like Arbitrum, where fraud proof generation is an asynchronous, parallelizable task.
Hardware is the new frontier. Projects like Ulvetanna and Ingonyama are building specialized zk-ASICs to accelerate FFTs and MSMs. Without this hardware evolution, proving costs will remain the primary constraint on zk-rollup scalability.
Evidence: A single Ethereum block's worth of transactions can require over 100GB of memory and 30 minutes of proving time on general hardware, making real-time finality impossible without massive, dedicated proving farms.
counter-argument
THE ON-CHAIN FOOTPRINT
Counterpoint: Succinctness Still Matters for...
The data compression of SNARKs is the primary economic lever for scaling L1 settlement and interoperability.
Succinctness is an economic primitive. A 1KB proof for 1M transactions reduces L1 calldata costs by 99.9% versus optimistic rollups, making high-throughput L2s financially viable. This cost structure is the foundation for protocols like zkSync and Scroll.
The alternative is data availability sprawl. Without succinct proofs, L2s must post all transaction data to an L1 or a Celestia/Avail DA layer. This creates a perpetual cost anchor and shifts, but does not eliminate, the scaling bottleneck.
Interoperability depends on compression. Cross-chain messaging via LayerZero or Hyperlane requires verifiable state proofs. A succinct SNARK proof is the only feasible on-chain attestation for a high-throughput chain's state, enabling trust-minimized bridges like Across.
Evidence: Starknet's Recursive Proofs. Starknet's SHARP prover aggregates proofs for millions of transactions into a single proof for Ethereum. This single proof, verified on-chain, settles the entire batch's state transition, demonstrating the non-negotiable data efficiency of SNARKs for L1 finality.
protocol-spotlight
THE PROOF-COMPUTE TRADEOFF
Protocol Strategies in the Proving Era
For high-throughput L2s, the theoretical 'succinctness' of a SNARK is irrelevant; the real bottleneck is the computational cost of generating the proof itself.
01
The Problem: Proving is the Bottleneck, Not Verification
While a SNARK verifies in ~10ms, generating it can take minutes to hours for a large block. This creates a fundamental latency vs. throughput tradeoff for L2 sequencers.
- Sequencer Stalling: Must wait for proof before finalizing state.
- Hardware Arms Race: Proving time dictates hardware investment, centralizing operators.
- Cost Dominance: Proving can be >80% of an L2's operational expense.
>80%
Of OpEx
Minutes
Prove Time
02
The Solution: Parallel & Incremental Proving
Protocols like zkSync Era and StarkNet architect their provers to break computation into parallelizable chunks, pipelining proof generation with block production.
- Parallel Circuits: Split state updates across multiple proving machines.
- Incremental Finality: Use recursive proofs to aggregate work, finalizing state in ~1-2 hours while providing soft confirmations.
- Hardware Specialization: Leverage GPUs and ASICs (e.g., Cysic, Ingonyama) to accelerate specific proof operations.
~1-2h
Finality
10-100x
Parallel Speedup
03
The Solution: Validity Proofs as a Data Availability Guard
L2s like Polygon zkEVM and Scroll treat proofs as a final security audit, not a real-time consensus mechanism. They rely on Ethereum's data availability for immediate liveness.
- L1 as Bulletin Board: State diffs are posted immediately; proofs catch fraud later.
- Economic Finality: Users get Ethereum-level security within ~30 min, not milliseconds.
- Cost Optimization: Batch proofs for multiple blocks, amortizing high proving costs over >100k transactions.
~30 min
Security Finality
>100k
Txs per Proof
04
The Solution: Specialized Proving Networks (The Shared Sequencer Play)
Emerging infra like Espresso Systems and Astria decouple execution from proving, creating a market for specialized proving services. This turns a cost center into a competitive marketplace.
- Prover-as-a-Service: L2s outsource to the fastest/cheapest prover network.
- Proof Spot Markets: Provers bid on blocks, driving efficiency via competition.
- Unified Liquidity: A shared proving layer could serve multiple L2s, increasing hardware utilization and reducing costs.
-50%+
Cost Potential
Market
Driven Speed
takeaways
SNARK SCALING REALITY CHECK
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The theoretical 'succinctness' of SNARK proofs is irrelevant for L2s; the real bottlenecks are proof generation cost, latency, and data availability.
01
The Problem: Proof Generation is the Bottleneck
Succinctness refers to verification speed, not creation. Generating a SNARK for a large state transition (e.g., 10M gas block) is computationally intensive and slow.\n- Key Constraint: Proving time scales with computation, creating a ~10-60 second latency floor for block production.\n- Key Cost: High-end hardware (AWS c6i.32xlarge) costs $10-$30+ per proof, dominating operational expenses.
10-60s
Proving Latency
$10-$30+
Proof Cost
02
The Solution: Parallel Provers & Recursion
Throughput is decoupled from single-proof latency via parallel proof generation and recursive aggregation.\n- Key Benefit: Chains like zkSync Era and Starknet use this to achieve 100+ TPS despite slow individual proofs.\n- Key Benefit: Recursive proofs (e.g., Nova, Plonky2) aggregate work, allowing final settlement proofs to be small and cheap, preserving the 'succinct' end-user experience.
100+
Sustained TPS
~1 KB
Final Proof Size
03
The Real Battle: Data Availability (DA)
The largest cost and scalability constraint for any L2 is not proof size, but ensuring transaction data is available.\n- Key Constraint: Posting calldata to Ethereum L1 can cost ~80% of total L2 fees.\n- Key Trend: The competitive edge is using alternative DA layers like Celestia, EigenDA, or Avail to reduce fees by 10x-100x, making proof costs a secondary concern.
80%
L1 DA Cost Share
10-100x
DA Cost Reduction
04
Investor Takeaway: Evaluate the Stack, Not the Sizzle
Due diligence must move beyond 'zk' marketing to audit the full technical stack.\n- Key Metric: Prover Economics - Can the system generate proofs profitably at scale?\n- Key Metric: DA Strategy - Is there a credible path to cheap, secure data availability? The winning L2s will be those that optimize this entire pipeline, not just proof verification.
Prover Economics
Key Metric 1
DA Strategy
Key Metric 2
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