Prover marketplaces commoditize compute, but the underlying proof generation is a natural monopoly. High fixed costs for specialized hardware (e.g., GPUs, ASICs) and software optimization create massive economies of scale, mirroring the centralization pressures in Bitcoin mining pools like Foundry USA.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Why Prover Marketplaces Will Be Riddled with Cartels
The economic design of ZK-rollup prover markets creates a natural oligopoly. High hardware costs and winner-take-most dynamics will lead to collusion, replicating the centralization flaws of Proof-of-Work mining. This is the scaling endgame's dirty secret.
introduction
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
Introduction
The economic design of prover marketplaces creates a natural path to cartelization, undermining their core promise of decentralized trust.
The auction mechanism is flawed. Protocols like Succinct and Risc Zero rely on a first-price sealed-bid model where the lowest-cost prover wins. This incentivizes provers to form bidding cartels, similar to validator cartels on Cosmos, to avoid profit-crushing competition and set a price floor.
Cartelization is the rational equilibrium. Without explicit collusion, repeated game theory in a small, identifiable participant pool leads to tacit coordination. The resulting prover cartels extract rent from rollups like Arbitrum and zkSync, making decentralized proving a fiction.
key-trends
PROVER MARKET DYNAMICS
The Inevitable Cartel: Three Economic Forces
Decentralized prover networks are structurally prone to centralization, not through conspiracy, but through predictable economic incentives.
01
The Capital Lock-Up Problem
Proof generation requires specialized hardware (e.g., GPUs, ASICs) and staked collateral, creating massive barriers to entry. This favors large, well-funded entities who can achieve economies of scale, squeezing out smaller participants.\n- Capital Requirement: $1M+ for competitive hardware clusters\n- Winner-Take-Most: High fixed costs lead to consolidation for efficiency\n- Collateral Saturation: Staking requirements concentrate power in top validators
$1M+
Entry Cost
>60%
Top 3 Share
02
The Data Availability Moat
Provers need low-latency, high-bandwidth access to blockchain state data. Entities that control or are adjacent to data availability layers (like Celestia, EigenDA, Avail) or full node infrastructure gain an insurmountable speed advantage.\n- Latency Edge: ~100ms access vs. seconds for public RPCs\n- Vertical Integration: Provers who also run DA nodes internalize profits\n- Exclusionary Access: Private mempools and data streams create a two-tier market
~100ms
Data Latency
2-5x
Proof Lead
03
The MEV-Proof Relationship
Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) creates a natural alliance between block builders and provers. Builders will route proving work to cartel members who offer priority ordering or kickbacks, replicating the PBS (Proposer-Builder Separation) cartel problem in a new layer.\n- Opaque Order Flow: Proving bids become a form of payment for MEV rights\n- Cross-Layer Collusion: Builder cartels (e.g., from Flashbots) extend to proving\n- Reputation Lock-In: Builders cannot risk slow proofs, favoring established cartels
>80%
Builder Overlap
Private
Bid Markets
deep-dive
THE INCENTIVE TRAP
From Mining Pools to Proving Pools: A Playbook for Collusion
The economic design of permissionless proving markets inherently incentivizes centralization and cartel formation, replicating the failures of Bitcoin mining.
Permissionless proving markets centralize. The winning prover in a competitive auction earns the entire proving fee, creating a winner-take-all dynamic. This forces provers to form proving pools to amortize hardware costs and guarantee revenue, exactly as Bitcoin mining pools formed.
Cartels maximize extractable value. A dominant proving pool controls block production sequencing. This allows for proposer-extractable value (PEV) strategies like frontrunning user transactions, mirroring the MEV strategies of validators in Ethereum or Solana.
The protocol is the cartel's weapon. A cartel can censor transactions or launch 51% liveness attacks by withholding proofs. This threat forces rollups like Arbitrum or zkSync to negotiate with the cartel, not compete against it.
Evidence: Bitcoin's precedent. Three mining pools controlled over 51% of Bitcoin's hashrate for most of 2023. Proving markets like EigenLayer AVS or Espresso Systems face identical consolidation pressures from economies of scale in specialized hardware.
MARKET STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
Centralization Pressure Cooker: Prover Markets vs. Mining
Comparing the inherent centralization vectors in proof-of-work mining pools versus emerging decentralized prover marketplaces.
| Centralization Vector | Proof-of-Work Mining (Historical) | Decentralized Prover Marketplace (Projected) | Why It's Worse for Provers |
|---|---|---|---|
Minimum Viable Scale for Profit | ~$10M ASIC farm | Specialized GPU cluster + $0 R&D | R&D cost barrier removed; competition is purely on operational efficiency. |
Geographic Concentration Risk | High (e.g., Sichuan, Texas) | Extreme (Any Tier-1 DC with cheap power) | No physical resource constraints beyond electricity; clusters in optimal locations. |
Barrier to Entry: Hardware | Custom ASICs ($5k+/unit), 18-month ROI | Commodity GPUs (e.g., H100, A100), <12-month ROI | Hardware is liquid, re-deployable, and financed by traditional capital. |
Coordination Mechanism | Stratum protocol (Pool Operator) | MEV-aware order flow (e.g., SUAVE, Orderflow Auctions) | Financial coordination via MEV creates natural cartel incentives. |
Natural Number of Major Players | 3-5 pools control >51% hashpower | 2-3 syndicates control >66% proving capacity | Higher economies of scale and MEV extraction favor extreme consolidation. |
Regulatory Attack Surface | Power consumption, hardware import/export | Software export controls, KYC/AML on orderflow | Targets financial flows and software, not physical assets. |
Sybil Resistance for Node Operators | Hardware Capital (ASICs) | Staked Capital (Liquid Restaking Tokens) | Capital becomes fungible and can be pooled, enabling covert consolidation. |
counter-argument
THE INCENTIVE MISMATCH
The Hopium Copium: "Decentralized Prover Networks Will Save Us"
Decentralized prover networks are economically destined to centralize into cartels, replicating the mining pool problem with higher stakes.
Prover economics favor centralization. The capital and expertise required for high-performance proving creates a natural oligopoly. Small operators cannot compete with the economies of scale of large proving farms, mirroring the centralization of Bitcoin mining into pools like Foundry USA and Antpool.
Cartels maximize extractable value. A dominant prover group can orchestrate MEV strategies across chains, censor transactions, or strategically delay proofs for profit. This is not a bug but a rational, predictable outcome of permissionless participation with asymmetric rewards.
The "decentralized" label is performative. Networks like EigenLayer and AltLayer create a facade of decentralization by distributing proof verification, not proof generation. The actual proving work consolidates with a few specialized entities, creating a verifier-prover cartel.
Evidence: In existing networks, the top 3 Bitcoin mining pools control over 60% of hashrate. Prover networks with similar winner-take-all economics, such as those for zkEVMs like Polygon zkEVM or Scroll, will follow this exact consolidation curve.
takeaways
PROVER MARKET DYNAMICS
Takeaways for Protocol Architects
Decentralized proving is a myth; the economics of specialized hardware and stake will inevitably lead to centralization.
01
The Hardware Cartel
Proof generation is a commodity race to the bottom, but the capital barrier for high-performance provers (e.g., FPGAs, ASICs) creates an oligopoly. This mirrors the Bitcoin mining trajectory, where a few large players control the market and can collude on pricing and censorship.
>70%
Market Share
$1M+
Hardware Entry
02
Stake-Based Extortion
Proof-of-Stake slashing in prover networks like EigenLayer AVS creates a perverse incentive: large stakers can form a cartel to extort protocols by threatening to withdraw liquidity or increase fees. The cost of forking a prover set with $10B+ TVL is prohibitive.
$10B+
Captive TVL
5-10x
Fee Multiplier
03
The MEV Bridge to Provers
Provers that also operate sequencers or validators (e.g., Espresso Systems, Astria) will extract cross-layer MEV. This creates a vertical integration where the prover cartel controls transaction ordering and proof generation, capturing value that should accrue to users or dApps.
>90%
Order Flow
$100M+
Annual Extractable
04
Mitigation: Proof Auctions & Aggregation
Force cartel breakage via continuous sealed-bid auctions for proof jobs. Architectures like Succinct's SP1 enable proof aggregation, allowing smaller provers to bundle work and compete. This requires designing for proof heterogeneity from day one.
-40%
Cost via Auction
~10k
Prover Pool
05
The Polygon AggLayer Fallacy
Shared security pools like AggLayer or Avail DA centralize the prover role into a single, protocol-managed entity. This trades cartel risk for single-point-of-failure risk. If the canonical prover is compromised or censors, the entire ecosystem of chains is affected.
1
Canonical Prover
100%
Systemic Risk
06
Long-Term: ASIC-Resistant Proofs
The endgame is proof systems that are inherently parallelizable and run efficiently on commodity hardware (GPUs). Research into folding schemes (Nova), STARKs, and GPU-optimized VMs (RISC Zero) is critical to prevent hardware capture and preserve decentralization.
10-100x
GPU Advantage
<$10k
Node Cost
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