State growth is exponential. Every new user and application adds permanent data that every validator must store and process. This creates a hardware centralization pressure, forcing node requirements beyond consumer hardware.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Why Stateless Validation is the Only Path to Global Scale
Ethereum's current state model is unsustainable. We analyze the data, the architectural dead end of full-state nodes, and why stateless clients with ZK-proofs are the only viable path to global adoption and true decentralization.
introduction
THE STATE BOTTLENECK
The Decentralization Trap
Current scaling solutions sacrifice decentralization to handle global transaction volume, creating a fundamental security trade-off.
Rollups and shards are not solutions. They partition state but do not solve the core problem. L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism still require centralized sequencers to manage state, while sharding in Ethereum or Near simply moves the bottleneck.
Stateless validation is the only path. Clients verify blocks without storing full state, using cryptographic proofs like Verkle trees or zk-SNARKs. This decouples validation from state size, enabling global scale on consumer hardware.
The evidence is in the numbers. A stateless Ethereum client, using Portal Network prototypes, reduces storage needs from terabytes to megabytes. This is the prerequisite for a truly decentralized network processing Visa-scale throughput.
key-trends
WHY STATELESSNESS IS INEVITABLE
The State of the State: Three Inconvenient Truths
Current blockchain scaling hits a fundamental wall: the state. Here's why the status quo is unsustainable for global adoption.
01
The Data Avalanche
Full nodes must store and process the entire global state, which grows linearly with usage. This creates an impossible hardware burden for validators, centralizing network security.
- State size for Ethereum is ~1TB+ and growing
- Synchronization times can take days, a critical failure mode for liveness
- Hardware costs create prohibitive barriers to entry, leading to validator centralization
1TB+
State Size
Days
Sync Time
02
The Throughput Ceiling
Stateful execution is the primary bottleneck for transactions per second (TPS). Every transaction must read and write to a shared global database, creating contention and limiting parallelization.
- Monolithic architectures like Ethereum L1 are capped at ~15-30 TPS
- Even high-TPS chains like Solana face state bloat and hardware escalation
- True mass adoption requires >100k TPS, impossible with current paradigms
~30 TPS
Current Cap
>100k
Required TPS
03
The Verification Paradox
Light clients today trade security for scalability, relying on trust assumptions. Stateless verification, using cryptographic proofs like ZK-SNARKs or Verkle Trees, allows nodes to validate blocks without holding state.
- Enables ultra-light clients with full security guarantees
- Unlocks trust-minimized bridging for rollups and interoperability layers like LayerZero
- Makes running a validator node feasible on consumer hardware, radically decentralizing the network
Zero-Trust
Security Model
Mobile
Client Feasibility
thesis-statement
THE SCALING IMPERATIVE
The First-Principles Argument for Statelessness
Statelessness is the only viable path to global blockchain scale because it decouples state growth from validation cost.
State is the bottleneck. Every validator must download, store, and compute the entire blockchain state, creating a hard ceiling on throughput and decentralization.
Stateless clients break this link. Validators verify blocks using cryptographic proofs (e.g., Verkle proofs) of relevant state, eliminating the need to store it locally.
This enables horizontal scaling. Networks like Monad and Sui architect for parallel execution, but statelessness is the prerequisite for their validators to keep up.
Evidence: Ethereum's state is ~1TB and grows linearly. A stateless paradigm, as researched for the Verkle Trie transition, targets sub-1MB witness sizes per block.
INFRASTRUCTURE BREAKDOWN
The Hardware Arms Race: Full Node vs. Stateless Client
A first-principles comparison of the hardware and operational requirements for validating the Ethereum blockchain, highlighting the existential scaling bottleneck.
| Validation Metric | Full Node (Archive) | Full Node (Pruned) | Stateless Client (Verkle Proofs) |
|---|---|---|---|
Storage Requirement (Ethereum Mainnet) |
| ~ 800 GB | < 1 GB |
RAM Requirement for Sync | 32 GB | 16 GB | 2 GB |
Initial Sync Time (Home Internet) | 2-4 weeks | 5-7 days | < 1 hour |
Bandwidth for Continuous Operation |
|
| < 5 Mbps |
Hardware Cost (Approx.) | $2,000+ | $500 - $1,000 | $100 (Raspberry Pi) |
Validates State Transitions (Execution) | |||
Requires Full State for Validation | |||
Path to Global Scale (10M+ Nodes) |
deep-dive
THE STATE PROBLEM
Architectural Pillars: From Verkle Trees to Light Clients
Stateless validation, enabled by Verkle trees and light clients, is the only architecture that decouples transaction execution from global state storage.
Statelessness is non-negotiable. Current full nodes must store the entire blockchain state, which grows linearly with adoption, creating a centralizing force. Stateless clients verify blocks using cryptographic proofs, not local data.
Verkle trees enable this. They replace Merkle Patricia trees with vector commitments, shrinking witness sizes from gigabytes to kilobytes. This makes it feasible for a phone to verify an Ethereum block.
Light clients are the endpoint. Protocols like Helios and Suave's SGX-based co-processors leverage these proofs, allowing wallets and dApps to validate chain state independently of centralized RPC providers like Infura.
The metric is witness size. Ethereum's current state witness is ~1GB; a Verkle tree witness is ~150KB. This 6000x reduction is the difference between a data center requirement and a mobile app.
protocol-spotlight
THE INFRASTRUCTURE LAYER
Who's Building the Stateless Future?
Scaling to billions of users requires a fundamental shift from storing everything to verifying anything. These are the protocols re-architecting the base layer.
01
The Problem: State Explosion
Full nodes today must store the entire chain history, creating a ~1TB+ storage burden that centralizes validation and limits throughput. This is the primary bottleneck to global adoption.
- Resource Barrier: High hardware costs exclude individual validators.
- Throughput Ceiling: Processing every transaction sequentially caps TPS.
- Sync Time: New nodes take days to sync, harming network resilience.
1TB+
State Size
Days
Sync Time
02
The Solution: Stateless Clients
Clients verify blocks using cryptographic proofs of state changes (witnesses) instead of holding the full state. This decouples validation from storage.
- Constant Resource Footprint: Validators need only ~MBs of data, not TBs.
- Parallel Verification: Stateless design enables sharding and horizontal scaling.
- Instant Sync: New nodes can join the network in minutes.
~MBs
Client Load
Minutes
To Sync
03
Ethereum's Path: Verkle Trees & EIP-6800
Ethereum is transitioning its state tree from Merkle-Patricia to Verkle Trees, enabling efficient stateless clients. EIP-6800 formalizes the witness format.
- Smaller Proofs: Witness size reduced from ~MBs to ~KBs.
- Enables Proto-Danksharding: Essential data availability for EIP-4844 blobs.
- Paves way for Full Danksharding: The endgame for ~100k TPS scalability.
~KB
Witness Size
100k
Target TPS
04
Modular Execution: Fuel & RISC Zero
These projects implement statelessness at the execution layer. Fuel uses a UTXO-based parallel VM, while RISC Zero generates zkVM proofs of correct execution.
- Parallel Transaction Processing: Unlocks 10,000+ TPS on a single core.
- Verification, Not Execution: The base layer only verifies proofs, not re-runs logic.
- Sovereign Rollups: Enables truly scalable L2s with minimal L1 footprint.
10k+
Single Core TPS
zkVM
Proof System
05
The Data Availability Layer: Celestia & EigenDA
Stateless validators don't store data, so they need a guaranteed source of truth. Celestia and EigenDA provide cheap, scalable Data Availability (DA) for rollup blocks.
- Offloads State Growth: Historical data moves off the execution layer.
- Enables L2 Proliferation: Rollups post cheap data proofs, not full state.
- Security via Sampling: Light clients can verify data availability with ~KB downloads.
$0.01
Per MB DA Cost
~KB
Sampling Load
06
The Endgame: Stateless Blockchains
The convergence of stateless clients, modular DA, and zk-proofs creates blockchains where validators only verify, never store. This is the only viable architecture for a global financial system.
- Validator Decentralization: Low hardware reqs enable millions of nodes.
- User Sovereignty: Clients hold their own state proofs, enhancing privacy.
- Ultimate Scalability: The network scales with users, not hardware.
Millions
Potential Nodes
Global
Scale
counter-argument
THE DATA BOTTLENECK
The Steelman: But What About Data Availability?
Stateless validation's scaling promise is predicated on solving the data availability problem, which is the true bottleneck for global blockchain adoption.
Statelessness shifts the bottleneck from execution to data. A validator no longer needs the full state to verify a block, but it must still access the underlying transaction data. This makes data availability (DA) the new critical resource.
The cost of on-chain DA is prohibitive for global scale. Storing all transaction data on a base layer like Ethereum L1 creates a hard economic ceiling, as seen with Ethereum's 80 GB/year blob growth post-Dencun.
Modular DA layers like Celestia and EigenDA are the necessary infrastructure. They provide scalable, verifiable data publishing at a cost that scales with usage, not with the monolithic chain's full security budget.
Stateless clients require fraud proofs built on available data. Systems like Arbitrum Nitro demonstrate that with available data, a single honest validator can enforce correctness, enabling secure light clients.
The endgame is a separation of concerns: execution scales via stateless validation, consensus scales via proof-of-stake derivatives, and data scales via modular DA. This is the only architecture that supports Visa-scale throughput.
risk-analysis
THE PRACTICAL OBSTACLES
The Bear Case: Where Stateless Validation Could Fail
The theoretical elegance of statelessness meets the gritty reality of implementation. Here are the critical hurdles that could derail its path to global adoption.
01
The Witness Size Blowup
Stateless clients rely on cryptographic witnesses (Merkle proofs) to verify state. For complex transactions, these proofs can balloon, negating bandwidth savings.
- Bandwidth Overhead: A single Uniswap swap could require a ~10-15KB witness vs. a few hundred bytes for a stateful tx.
- Network Choke Point: At 10k+ TPS, this creates a ~150 MB/s witness traffic load per node, a non-trivial burden.
10-15KB
Per Tx Witness
150 MB/s
Network Load
02
Prover Centralization & MEV
Generating efficient witnesses requires significant compute. This creates a new centralization vector and MEV opportunity.
- Prover Oligopoly: Entities like Flashbots or Jito Labs could dominate witness generation, becoming mandatory intermediaries.
- Witness Censorship: Provers could reorder or exclude transactions, replicating today's validator-level MEV at the proving layer.
O(1)
Node Count Risk
New Vector
MEV Surface
03
The Client Diversity Trap
Statelessness demands perfect, standardized cryptographic implementations. This is the antithesis of the robust, multi-client ethos.
- Implementation Bugs: A flaw in a universal proving library (e.g., a zk-SNARK verifier) becomes a single point of catastrophic failure.
- Innovation Stagnation: Hard to experiment with new state models (like Fuel's UTXO or Celestia's data availability) if all clients must adhere to one stateless spec.
1 Bug
Network Failure
Monoculture
Ecosystem Risk
04
The Data Availability Death Spiral
Stateless validation is only as good as the available data. If DA layers like Celestia or EigenDA fail, the entire system halts.
- Liveness Assumption: Clients must trust that someone is publishing full state data. This recreates a trusted setup.
- Cross-Chain Fragility: A stateless Ethereum L2 suffering a DA outage becomes a bricked chain, unable to produce or verify proofs.
100%
DA Dependency
Bricked Chain
Failure Mode
05
Economic Model Collapse
Removing state storage from validators destroys a key revenue stream and security subsidy, potentially breaking crypto-economics.
- Lost Revenue: Validators no longer earn rent from state storage, a multi-billion dollar implicit subsidy on chains like Ethereum.
- Fee Market Distortion: Transaction fees must cover expensive proving costs, potentially pricing out small users and shifting burden to L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism.
$B+
Lost Subsidy
Fee Spike
User Impact
06
The Legacy Integration Wall
Existing DeFi giants like Aave and MakerDAO with complex, state-heavy logic may be incompatible or prohibitively expensive to port.
- Witness Explosion: A compound DeFi transaction touching 10+ contracts could generate a witness larger than the block itself.
- Migration Cost: The capital and coordination required to rebuild the $50B+ DeFi ecosystem in a stateless paradigm is a massive adoption barrier.
10+ Contracts
Complex Tx
$50B+ TVL
At Risk
future-outlook
THE ARCHITECTURAL IMPERATIVE
The Inevitable Convergence
Stateless validation is the only viable endgame for blockchains to achieve global transaction throughput without sacrificing decentralization.
State growth is the bottleneck. Every full node today must store and compute the entire chain state, a requirement that caps scalability and centralizes hardware. This model is fundamentally incompatible with a global-scale network.
Statelessness separates execution from verification. Clients verify blocks using cryptographic proofs of state changes, not by holding the state itself. This mirrors the separation of duties in zk-rollups like StarkNet, where provers compute and sequencers execute, but extends it to the base layer.
The industry is already converging. Ethereum's verkle trees and EIP-4444 are explicit steps toward a stateless future. Solana's light clients and projects like Celestia for data availability demonstrate the market's demand for leaner verification. The path is set.
Evidence: A stateless Ethereum client could theoretically verify the chain using proofs measured in kilobytes, not terabytes. This reduces the hardware requirement from a data center to a smartphone, enabling true global participation.
takeaways
THE STATE CRISIS
TL;DR for the Time-Poor CTO
Blockchain scaling is hitting a fundamental wall: state growth. Stateless validation is the only architecture that decouples execution from verification at a global scale.
01
The Problem: The State Bloat Tax
Every full node must store and process the entire chain state, creating a hard ceiling on scalability. This leads to:\n- Exponential hardware costs for validators (terabytes of SSD).\n- Centralization pressure as only large entities can participate.\n- ~$1B+ in annual infrastructure costs for major chains, passed to users.
TB+
State Size
$1B+
Annual Cost
02
The Solution: Stateless Clients
Verifiers only need a cryptographic commitment to the state (e.g., a Merkle/Verkle root), not the data itself. Execution proofs (like zk-SNARKs/STARKs) guarantee correctness. This enables:\n- Near-instant sync from genesis.\n- Constant verification cost regardless of state size.\n- Viable light clients with full security guarantees.
~500ms
Sync Time
MBs
Client Footprint
03
The Enabler: Verkle Trees
Traditional Merkle proofs are too large for statelessness. Verkle Trees use vector commitments to shrink proofs from ~1 KB to ~150 bytes. This is the core data structure for Ethereum's stateless roadmap and enables:\n- Practical witness sizes for block propagation.\n- Efficient proving systems for zk-rollups like zkSync and Starknet.\n- Single-round proof aggregation for L1.
-90%
Proof Size
150B
Witness Target
04
The Killer App: Massively Parallel L2s
Statelessness isn't just for L1. It allows L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zk-rollups to offload verification to a decentralized network of lightweight provers. This creates:\n- Uncapped throughput across thousands of parallel chains.\n- Trust-minimized bridging via shared settlement.\n- Global scale without sacrificing decentralization or security.
1000+
Parallel Chains
10k+
TPS Potential
05
The Trade-off: Prover Centralization
The verification becomes cheap and decentralized, but generating the execution proofs (zk or fraud) is computationally intensive. This risks centralizing the prover role. Mitigations include:\n- Proof marketplaces (e.g., RiscZero, Succinct).\n- ASIC-resistant proof systems (STARKs).\n- Economic incentives for decentralized prover pools.
High
Prover Cost
Low
Verifier Cost
06
The Bottom Line: The End-Game Stack
The final architecture is a stateless settlement layer (Ethereum) secured by millions of lightweight validators, coordinating thousands of stateless execution layers (L2s/L3s). This is the only credible path to:\n- Visa-scale throughput (>100k TPS).\n- Preserving credible neutrality and permissionlessness.\n- Enabling true global adoption.
>100k
Global TPS
Millions
Validators
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