ZK proofs are expensive. Every verified transaction pays for two computations: the execution itself and the cryptographic proof generation, creating a fundamental cost floor.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
The Cost of Proving: How ZK Economics Break at Scale
An analysis of the non-linear cost curves, hardware centralization, and economic pressures that threaten the decentralized promise of ZK-Rollups as transaction volume scales to mass adoption levels.
introduction
THE PROOF IS IN THE PAYMENT
Introduction
Zero-knowledge proofs are not a scaling panacea; their economic model introduces a new, dominant cost that breaks under transaction volume.
This cost is non-linear. Doubling a rollup's throughput more than doubles its proving costs, unlike the linear scaling of traditional compute in L1s like Ethereum.
Proving becomes the bottleneck. For high-throughput chains like zkSync Era or Starknet, the proving market, dominated by centralized services like Ulvetanna, dictates finality and cost.
Evidence: A single zkEVM proof for 1 million transactions can cost over $5,000 in hardware and electricity, a cost that scales super-linearly with complexity.
key-trends
THE SCALING BOTTLENECK
Executive Summary
Zero-knowledge proofs promise a secure, trust-minimized future, but their underlying economic models face catastrophic failure as adoption grows.
01
The Prover's Dilemma: Centralization vs. Cost
ZK-rollups like zkSync and StarkNet rely on a few powerful provers, creating a single point of failure. The capital and hardware requirements for proving are immense, leading to natural monopolies.
- Capital Lockup: Provers must stake $1M+ to participate, limiting the validator set.
- Hardware Arms Race: Specialized hardware (e.g., FPGAs, ASICs) creates unbeatable economies of scale for incumbents.
- Fee Extraction: Monopolistic provers can extract >30% of total transaction fees as rent.
>30%
Fee Rent
$1M+
Stake Required
02
Data Availability: The $100B+ Time Bomb
The cost of posting calldata to Ethereum L1 for data availability is the dominant expense for ZK-rollups. At scale, this model is economically unsustainable.
- Linear Scaling: 10x more TPS requires 10x more L1 gas, negating scaling benefits.
- Fee Volatility: User costs are hostage to Ethereum's base fee, which can spike 100x during congestion.
- Inefficient Resource Use: Paying for permanent storage for transient state is a fundamental misallocation.
10x
Cost Scaling
100x
Fee Volatility
03
The Solution: Modular Proving & Volition
The path forward decouples proof generation from execution and offers users a choice in data availability, as pioneered by zkSync, StarkNet, and Polygon zkEVM.
- Proof Markets: Decentralized networks of specialized provers compete on cost and speed, breaking monopolies.
- Volition Architecture: Users opt for secure L1 storage or low-cost L2 alternatives like Celestia or EigenDA.
- Recursive Proofs: Aggregating multiple proofs into one reduces the per-transaction verification load on L1 by 1000x.
1000x
Verification Efficiency
-90%
DA Cost
thesis-statement
THE COST CURVE
The Core Contradiction
Zero-knowledge proofs introduce a non-linear cost structure that inverts traditional scaling economics.
Prover costs are non-linear. The computational expense for a ZK prover, like those from Risc Zero or zkSync's Boojum, scales super-linearly with the complexity of the computation being proven. This creates a fundamental tension where scaling the system increases per-transaction costs, unlike the amortized cost reduction seen in monolithic or optimistic rollups.
Hardware dependency becomes a bottleneck. To manage these costs, high-throughput ZK rollups like StarkNet and Polygon zkEVM require specialized, expensive proving hardware (e.g., GPU/ASIC clusters). This recentralizes infrastructure around capital-intensive proving farms, contradicting the decentralized validator ideal. The proving market risks becoming an oligopoly controlled by entities like =nil; Foundation.
The data availability tax is permanent. Even with a valid ZK proof, every L2 like zkSync Era must post transaction data to Ethereum for verification and state reconstruction. This data availability cost, paid to Ethereum validators, is a fixed, irreducible per-byte fee that no proof optimization can eliminate. It is the hard floor for transaction cost reduction.
Evidence: A 2023 analysis by Ethereum Foundation researchers showed that generating a ZK-SNARK proof for a simple transfer costs ~3-5x the gas of executing the transfer itself on L1, with the gap widening for complex smart contract logic.
ECONOMICS
The Scaling Cost Cliff: ZK vs. Optimistic
A first-principles comparison of the fundamental cost drivers and scaling economics for ZK-Rollup and Optimistic Rollup architectures.
| Cost Driver / Metric | ZK-Rollup (e.g., zkSync, StarkNet) | Optimistic Rollup (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Monolithic L1 (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) |
|---|---|---|---|
On-Chain Cost per Tx (Gas) | ~5k-20k gas (proof verification) | ~21k gas (L1 calldata) | ~21k-100k+ gas (full execution) |
Off-Chain Cost per Tx | High (ZK proof generation: $0.01-$0.50) | Negligible (state execution only) | N/A |
Cost Scaling with TPS | Sub-linear (proof aggregation, recursion) | Linear (L1 calldata cost dominates) | Exponential (block space auction) |
Capital Efficiency (Finality) | ~10 minutes (ZK proof finality) | ~7 days (challenge period) | ~12-15 minutes (PoS finality) |
Trust Assumption | Cryptographic (ZK-SNARK/STARK) | Economic (fraud proofs, bonded validators) | Consensus (validator set) |
Prover Hardware Requirement | Specialized (GPU/ASIC for proof generation) | Commodity (standard servers) | Commodity (validator nodes) |
Data Availability Cost | Optional (Validium mode: $0) | Mandatory (100% on L1 or DAC) | Mandatory (100% on-chain) |
Cross-Rollup Messaging Cost | High (ZK proof for state transition) | Moderate (bridges rely on challenge period) | N/A |
deep-dive
THE ECONOMICS
Anatomy of a Breaking Point
Zero-knowledge proof generation creates a non-linear cost structure that becomes prohibitive for high-throughput applications.
Prover costs scale super-linearly. The computational work for a ZK-SNARK or STARK prover increases faster than the number of transactions. Doubling the workload more than doubles the proving time and cost.
The bottleneck is hardware, not consensus. Unlike Ethereum L1 gas, which scales with network demand, ZK proving is constrained by specialized GPU/ASIC availability. This creates a physical resource ceiling.
Evidence: A zkSync Era batch proving a few thousand transactions costs ~$0.01-$0.05. Scaling to Solana's 3,000 TPS would require a prover farm with a multi-million dollar capex, making micro-transactions uneconomic.
risk-analysis
THE COST OF PROVING
The Centralization Risk Matrix
Zero-Knowledge scaling promises decentralization, but its economic model creates new, pernicious centralization vectors at scale.
01
The Prover Monopoly Problem
ZK proof generation is computationally intensive, creating a massive capital and expertise moat. At scale, this leads to a handful of specialized prover services (e.g., zkSync's Boojum, Polygon zkEVM) dominating the market, reintroducing a single point of failure.\n- Capital Cost: A competitive prover setup requires $1M+ in hardware.\n- Oligopoly Risk: The network's security and liveness depend on ~3-5 major operators.
$1M+
Hardware Cost
3-5
Key Operators
02
Sequencer-Prover Collusion
In integrated L2 stacks (e.g., Starknet, Arbitrum Nova), the sequencer that orders transactions also selects the prover. This creates a vertical monopoly where a single entity controls both transaction censorship and state validity.\n- Censorship Vector: Malicious sequencer can delay or exclude transactions before they are proven.\n- MEV Extraction: Integrated control allows for maximal value extraction from the entire transaction pipeline.
1 Entity
Controls Both
100%
Censorship Power
03
Data Availability as a Choke Point
Validity proofs are useless without the data to reconstruct state. Relying on a centralized Data Availability Committee (DAC) or a single chain (e.g., Ethereum) creates a bottleneck and a fee market hostage situation.\n- Cost Driver: >80% of L2 transaction fees are often DA posting costs to Ethereum.\n- Single Point of Failure: A DAC failure or Ethereum congestion halts all L2 finality.
>80%
Fee is DA Cost
1 Chain
Primary Dependency
04
The Specialized Hardware Trap
The race for faster, cheaper proofs leads to ASIC/GPU prover farms, making the network dependent on proprietary hardware ecosystems (e.g., Ulvetanna, Ingonyama). This creates physical centralization and barriers to permissionless participation.\n- Access Barrier: Individual validators cannot compete with $10M+ ASIC clusters.\n- Geographic Risk: Prover farms concentrate in regions with cheap power and lax regulation.
$10M+
ASIC Cluster
3 Regions
Geographic Focus
05
Solution: Proof Market Decoupling
Decouple the sequencer, prover, and data availability layers into competitive markets. Projects like Espresso Systems (sequencer auction) and EigenDA (modular DA) enforce economic separation.\n- Prover Auctions: Sequencers buy proofs from an open market of competing provers.\n- Modular Slashing: Faults in one layer (e.g., bad proof) can slash bonds in another.
Open Market
For Proofs
Modular
Slashing
06
Solution: Succinct Proof Aggregation
Use recursive proofs (e.g., Nova, Plonky2) to allow many small provers to contribute work, which is then aggregated by a final prover. This creates a hierarchical, permissionless proving network akin to Bitcoin mining pools.\n- Pooled Security: 1000s of nodes can contribute proving work for rewards.\n- Cost Distribution: Aggregates ~1000 proofs into one, amortizing Ethereum calldata costs.
1000s
Contributing Nodes
1000:1
Proof Compression
counter-argument
THE COST OF PROVING
The Bull Case (And Why It's Fragile)
Zero-knowledge proofs promise infinite scalability but introduce a new, non-linear economic bottleneck at the prover layer.
Proving is the new bottleneck. ZK-rollups like zkSync and StarkNet shift the scaling constraint from on-chain execution to off-chain proving. The prover's computational cost grows super-linearly with transaction volume, creating a centralizing economic force.
Hardware dictates decentralization. Efficient proving requires specialized hardware (GPUs, ASICs). This creates a prover oligopoly where only well-capitalized entities like Ulvetanna can compete, mirroring Bitcoin's early mining centralization.
Recursive proofs are not free. While recursion (e.g., using Plonky2) aggregates proofs, the final succinct proof still requires a massive, single-threaded computation. This final step is the irreducible cost center that limits economic decentralization.
Evidence: A single Ethereum block's ZK-proof can cost over $10 in compute on current hardware. At 10,000 TPS, this creates a prover cost of millions daily, a fee market that only a few can profitably serve.
future-outlook
THE COST CURVE
The Path Forward (Or The Cliff Edge)
The economic model for ZK proofs collapses under the weight of mass adoption, forcing a fundamental architectural shift.
Proving costs are non-linear. The computational expense of generating a ZK proof scales super-linearly with transaction complexity. A simple transfer is cheap; a complex DeFi interaction on Uniswap V4 with hooks is exponentially more expensive to prove.
The fee market breaks. Users will not pay $10 to prove a $5 swap. This creates a prover subsidy death spiral where protocols like zkSync or Starknet must artificially suppress fees, making the network's long-term security budget unsustainable.
Hardware is the only exit. The path forward requires specialized ZK co-processors and ASIC provers. Projects like Risc Zero and Succinct Labs are building these dedicated proving layers, decoupling execution cost from verification cost.
Evidence: Today, proving a batch of 1000 simple transfers on a consumer GPU costs ~$0.01. Proving a batch of 1000 complex swaps costs over $5. The gap widens with adoption.
takeaways
THE COST OF PROVING
Architect's Checklist
ZK systems promise infinite scaling, but their economic models face fundamental bottlenecks. Here's where they break and how to fix them.
01
The Prover Monopoly Problem
Centralized proving pools (e.g., zkSync, Polygon zkEVM) create a single point of failure and rent extraction. The high cost of specialized hardware (GPUs/ASICs) and ~$0.01-$0.10 per transaction proving fees create a natural monopoly.
- Risk: Single prover failure halts the chain.
- Economic Drag: Fees become a tax, not a competitive market cost.
- Solution: Decentralized proving networks like RiscZero and Succinct.
~$0.10
Avg. Proving Cost
1-3
Dominant Provers
02
Data Availability is the Real Bottleneck
ZK validity proofs are cheap; publishing the data for others to reconstruct state is not. Ethereum calldata costs dominate L2 economics, making ~80-90% of an L2's operational expense.
- Blob Carry: EIP-4844 proto-danksharding reduces cost by ~10x.
- The Limit: Even with blobs, DA on Ethereum caps throughput.
- Architect's Choice: Off-chain DA solutions like Celestia, EigenDA, or Avail become mandatory for true scale.
80-90%
Cost is DA
10x
Blob Savings
03
Recursive Proof Aggregation or Bust
Proving a single block is linear. Proving a day's worth of blocks naively is impossible. Recursive proof aggregation (e.g., Nova, Plonky2) is the only path to sustainable cost curves, where proofs verify other proofs.
- Benefit: Final proof size and verification cost stay constant regardless of batch size.
- Challenge: Requires deep cryptographic innovation and hardware optimization.
- Leader: Scroll's architecture is built around this principle.
O(log n)
Cost Scaling
Constant
Final Verify Cost
04
Hardware is the New Mining Farm
ZK-proving is a physical compute problem. The race for GPU/FPGA/ASIC efficiency will define economic winners, mirroring PoW but for verification. zkVM providers like RiscZero compete on prover-seconds and $/proof.
- Metric: Prover Throughput (proofs/sec/kW) is the new hash rate.
- Risk: Centralization pressure from capital-intensive hardware.
- Opportunity: Proof markets that abstract hardware, like Georli.
Proofs/sec/kW
Key Metric
ASIC Era
Next Phase
05
The L1 Settlement Tax is Inevitable
All ZK L2s must pay Ethereum for security. This is a non-negotiable base cost layer. Architectures that minimize this tax (via optimal batching, proof aggregation, and DA alternatives) win. StarkNet's and zkSync's long-term fees are fundamentally gated by Ethereum's gas price.
- Reality: "Cheaper than Ethereum" has a hard floor.
- Strategy: Validiums (off-chain DA) for cost-sensitive apps, ZK Rollups for max security.
- Calculation: Fee = Proving Cost + DA Cost + L1 Verify Cost.
L1 Gas
Cost Floor
Validium
Cost Optimum
06
State Growth is a Silent Killer
A ZK system proving a growing state (like a full EVM) requires proving larger and larger circuits. Witness generation (creating the proof input) becomes the bottleneck, scaling with state size, not just transactions.
- Problem: Witness generation time can be 10-100x the proof computation time.
- Innovation: Incremental proving and stateless clients.
- Example: Polygon zkEVM's Boojum upgrade focuses on witness gen speed.
10-100x
Witness Overhead
State Bloat
Core Challenge
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