Perfect equivalence is a liability. Type 1 ZK-EVMs, like Taiko, prioritize byte-for-byte compatibility with Ethereum L1, which forces them to inherit its inefficiencies. This creates a prover performance bottleneck that makes scaling prohibitively expensive, a problem solved by pragmatic Type 2s like Scroll or Type 3s like zkSync Era.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Why Type 1 ZK-EVMs Are a Strategic Mirage
The quest for perfect Ethereum equivalence in ZK-Rollups is a resource trap. We analyze the unsustainable proof overhead of Type 1 ZK-EVMs and why pragmatic Type 2/3 solutions are capturing developer mindshare and market share.
introduction
THE STRATEGIC TRAP
Introduction
Type 1 ZK-EVMs promise perfect Ethereum equivalence but create a fatal misalignment between technical purity and market reality.
The market demands performance, not purity. Developers choose rollups for lower costs and higher throughput, not ideological alignment. The success of optimistic rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism proves that users trade minor compatibility gaps for orders-of-magnitude better economics.
Evidence: Taiko's mainnet processes ~3 TPS, while Arbitrum One handles ~40 TPS. The proving overhead for full equivalence consumes resources better spent on user experience, creating a strategic mirage where the 'best' tech loses.
thesis-statement
THE STRATEGIC TRAP
The Core Argument: Equivalence at Any Cost is a Cost Too High
Pursuing perfect EVM equivalence sacrifices the performance and innovation that make ZK-rollups valuable.
Perfect equivalence is a performance tax. A Type 1 ZK-EVM must prove every EVM opcode, including legacy, gas-inefficient ones. This creates massive proving overhead for marginal compatibility gains that few applications require.
The market prioritizes execution, not emulation. Developers choose rollups like zkSync Era and Starknet for lower costs and higher throughput, not for byte-for-byte parity. The success of Arbitrum and Optimism proves pragmatic compatibility is sufficient.
The proving bottleneck is permanent. Even with hardware acceleration, proving every single EVM state change is fundamentally slower than proving optimized, purpose-built VMs like Polygon zkEVM's or a Cairo VM. This creates a permanent scalability ceiling.
Evidence: Scroll's Type 1 zkEVM requires ~5 minutes to generate a proof for a 5M gas block, while a Type 4 zkEVM like dYdX v4 (StarkEx) on Starknet settles in seconds. The trade-off is explicit.
key-trends
THE REALITY CHECK
The Pragmatic Shift: How the Market is Voting
The market's capital and developer activity reveal a clear preference for pragmatic, incremental ZK-EVM implementations over the theoretical purity of Type 1.
01
The Problem: Type 1's Existential Latency
Mathematical purity is irrelevant if you can't use it. A Type 1 ZK-EVM must prove the entire Ethereum state, leading to prohibitively slow finality.
- Proof generation times measured in hours, not seconds.
- Creates a liquidity black hole where assets are locked and unusable.
- Market makers and arbitrageurs, the lifeblood of DeFi, cannot operate in this environment.
5-10h
Proof Time
0
Mainstream Viability
02
The Solution: Type 2/3's Pragmatic Dominance
Protocols like zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM, and Scroll sacrifice minor EVM equivalence for real-world performance.
- Achieve ~10 minute finality by proving only execution, not Ethereum's consensus.
- Capture ~$1.5B+ TVL by being usable today.
- Developers get 99% EVM compatibility without the 100% purity tax, enabling immediate migration from L1.
$1.5B+
Captured TVL
~10 min
Finality
03
The Problem: The Cost of Perfect Fidelity
Type 1's promise of perfect equivalence requires proving every historical Ethereum quirk and precompile, which are computationally toxic for ZK circuits.
- Gas cost explosion for users, negating the L2 value proposition.
- No competitive edge versus cheaper, faster Type 3s or even optimistic rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism.
- Engineering effort is spent on backward compatibility, not forward innovation.
10-100x
Cost Premium
0
Unique Advantage
04
The Solution: Parallelized zkEVMs Win
Networks like Polygon's Miden or Starknet (with its Cairo VM) abandon EVM equivalence entirely to build ZK-native architectures.
- Enable massive parallelization and custom precompiles for specific applications (e.g., gaming, DeFi).
- Achieve sub-second proofs for isolated state transitions.
- This is where true scalability and novel use-cases are being built, not in replicating the past.
<1s
Proof Time*
ZK-Native
Architecture
05
The Problem: Ecosystem Fragmentation is a Feature
The Type 1 dream of a seamless, unified L1/L2 state is antithetical to crypto's modular future. Celestia, EigenLayer, and alt-DA layers thrive on specialization.
- Developers choose chains for specific trade-offs (cost, speed, privacy).
- Interoperability protocols like LayerZero and Axelar solve bridging, making perfect equivalence less critical.
- The market has voted for a multi-chain, multi-VM future.
100+
Active L2/L3s
$30B+
Bridge Volume
06
The Verdict: Follow the Capital
VCs and builders are allocating billions to pragmatic Type 2/3 zkEVMs and ZK-native VMs, not Type 1 moonshots.
- a16z's investment in Optimism/Base and Paradigm's in Arbitrum show where smart money bets on adoption.
- Ethereum's own roadmap (Verkle trees, EIP-4844) optimizes for modular rollups, not a monolithic Type 1.
- The strategic mirage distracts from the real battle: which pragmatic stack captures the next 10 million users.
>90%
Market Share
$10B+
VC Deployment
IMPLEMENTATION ARCHETYPES
ZK-EVMs: The Strategic Trade-Offs
A quantitative comparison of ZK-EVM types, focusing on the operational and economic realities for a protocol's core infrastructure.
| Core Metric | Type 1 (Fully Equivalent) | Type 2 (Fully EVM Equivalent) | Type 3 (Almost EVM Equivalent) | Type 4 (High-Level Language Equivalent) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Development Timeline | 24+ months | 12-18 months | 6-12 months | 3-6 months |
Prover Cost per Tx (Est.) | $2.00 - $5.00 | $0.50 - $1.50 | $0.10 - $0.50 | < $0.10 |
EVM Opcode Coverage | 100% | 100% |
| < 90% |
Requires Client Modification | ||||
Time to First Proof (TTFP) |
| 2 - 5 minutes | < 60 seconds | < 10 seconds |
Gas Cost Delta vs Native EVM | +15% to +30% | +5% to +15% | ± 5% | N/A (Different Gas Model) |
Native Precompiles Supported | ||||
Strategic Viability for L1s |
deep-dive
THE COST
The Proof Overhead Trap: Why Bytecode Identity Breaks
Type 1 ZK-EVMs prioritize perfect EVM equivalence, but the cryptographic proof overhead for bytecode-level fidelity makes them commercially non-viable for scaling.
Bytecode-level equivalence demands proving every EVM opcode, including precompiles and edge cases. This creates a massive, fixed proof generation overhead that scales with transaction complexity, not user demand.
The strategic mirage is believing this overhead is a solvable engineering problem. It is a fundamental cryptographic cost that makes Type 1 chains like Taiko inherently more expensive per transaction than Type 2/3 chains like Scroll or Polygon zkEVM.
Proof generation latency becomes the bottleneck, not the virtual machine. A chain proving every SLOAD and KECCAK256 opcode cannot compete with chains that optimize or replace these expensive components.
Evidence: The gas cost for a simple transfer on a Type 1 prover is orders of magnitude higher than on an optimistic rollup like Arbitrum. This overhead is permanent, making Type 1s a niche for verification, not execution.
counter-argument
THE IDEOLOGICAL TRAP
Steelman: The Case for Purity (And Why It's Wrong)
The pursuit of perfect EVM equivalence is a strategic misallocation that sacrifices real user adoption for theoretical perfection.
Type 1 ZK-EVMs are a distraction. They prioritize Ethereum Mainnet equivalence over solving the core user experience bottlenecks of today. The goal is not to replicate the EVM perfectly, but to create a superior execution environment.
Purity creates a performance tax. A strict Type 1 design inherits Ethereum's gas inefficiencies and precompile bottlenecks. This directly impacts prover costs and finality times, making the chain less competitive versus Arbitrum Nitro or Optimism's Bedrock.
The market votes for pragmatism. Developers and users migrate to chains that are fast and cheap, not perfectly equivalent. Scroll's Type 3 evolution and Polygon zkEVM's pragmatic approach demonstrate that shipping a usable product beats waiting for an ideal one.
Evidence: Adoption metrics. Arbitrum and Optimism, which use optimized, non-equivalent VMs, command over 80% of the L2 market share. No production Type 1 ZK-EVM exists because the engineering cost-benefit is negative.
takeaways
THE ARCHITECTURAL TRAP
TL;DR for CTOs and Architects
Type 1 ZK-EVMs promise perfect compatibility but create a strategic dead-end for protocol builders. Here's why you should think twice.
01
The Performance Mirage
Type 1s (e.g., Taiko) aim for bytecode-level equivalence, forcing them to prove every EVM opcode. This creates a fundamental performance ceiling.
- Proving Overhead: Proving a simple
SLOADcosts ~1M constraints vs. ~100 in a custom circuit. - Latency Reality: Finality times are minutes, not seconds, making them unsuitable for high-frequency DeFi.
- Throughput Cap: Even with hardware acceleration, they cannot compete with Type 2/3 ZK-EVMs or Parallel EVMs like Monad.
10-100x
Slower Proving
Minutes
Time to Finality
02
The Cost Fallacy
The 'no-fork' promise ignores the true economic cost of proving, which is passed to users and developers.
- Prover Costs: Generating a proof for a full block can cost $50-$100+ in compute, a cost that must be subsidized or socialized.
- L1 Data Fees: Type 1s still post calldata to Ethereum, inheriting the same ~$100k per month base security cost as Optimistic Rollups.
- No Cost Edge: For most apps, a Type 2 ZK-EVM (zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM) or a high-throughput Alt-L1 offers better economics.
$50-$100+
Per Block Cost
0
Gas Savings vs L1
03
Strategic Lock-in for No Gain
You trade architectural sovereignty for a compatibility guarantee that matters less than you think.
- Innovation Ceiling: You cannot leverage custom precompiles or state models that EigenLayer AVSs or FuelVM use for radical scaling.
- Dependency Risk: Your chain's security and upgrades are tied to the Type 1 prover team, a centralization vector.
- False Need: >95% of dApps work flawlessly on Type 2 ZK-EVMs; the edge cases aren't worth the trade-offs.
0
Architectural Control
>95%
App Compatibility
04
The Competitive Reality: Scroll
Even the leading Type 1 project, Scroll, is pivoting strategically, proving the model's limitations.
- The Pivot: Scroll is building a Type 2-based 'Layer 3' ecosystem for performance, admitting the base layer is for security, not speed.
- Developer Exodus: Builders seeking scale are choosing Arbitrum Orbit, OP Stack, or zkSync Hyperchains for better tooling and roadmaps.
- VC Narrative vs. Usage: Despite $80M+ in funding, its TVL and developer activity lag far behind its Type 2 and Optimistic competitors.
L3 Focus
Scroll's Pivot
$80M+
Funding vs. Traction
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