Why We Must Decouple Execution from Consensus for ZK

Monolithic architectures are the bottleneck. ZK rollups like zkSync and Starknet bundle state execution, proving, and data availability into a single sequencer, creating a single point of failure and congestion.

Decoupling is the next evolution. Separating execution from consensus, as pioneered by EigenLayer and Avail, creates a modular stack where specialized networks handle specific tasks, mirroring the internet's transition from mainframes to cloud.

The data proves the need. A monolithic sequencer processing 1000 TPS spends over 80% of its cycle on proof generation, starving user transactions. Decoupled designs like Polygon's zkEVM chainlet model parallelize this work.

Monolithic ZK Rollups are Inefficient. Current designs like zkSync Era and StarkNet bundle execution, proving, and consensus into a single, synchronous process. This forces the entire system to wait for the slowest component—the ZK proof generation—creating a deterministic latency wall.

Decoupling Enables Specialization. Separating the execution layer (handled by sequencers) from the proving layer (handled by specialized provers) mirrors the modular architecture of Celestia and EigenDA. This allows each component to scale independently, optimizing for speed or cost-efficiency.

Proof Markets Emerge. A decoupled proving layer creates a competitive proof market where specialized hardware from RiscZero or Supranational competes on cost and speed. This commoditizes proof generation, driving down costs for rollups like Polygon zkEVM.

Evidence: The proving time for a zkEVM batch is ~10 minutes, while execution takes seconds. This 600x latency gap is the primary constraint decoupling solves.

Sequential processing is the bottleneck. In monolithic chains like Ethereum L1, a block is only finalized after its ZK-SNARK proof is generated. This creates a hard latency floor, capping throughput regardless of hardware improvements.

Decoupling enables parallelization. Separating execution and consensus allows specialized prover networks like RiscZero or Succinct to generate proofs asynchronously. Consensus, handled by chains like Celestia or EigenLayer, finalizes state based on verified proofs, not computation.

This mirrors cloud infrastructure evolution. Just as AWS decoupled compute and storage, ZK-rollups must decouple proving and consensus. The monolithic model of Polygon zkEVM or zkSync Era cannot achieve the 100k+ TPS target.

The evidence is in the numbers. A monolithic prover generates a proof in ~10 minutes. A decentralized prover network, by parallelizing circuit segments, reduces this to seconds. This architectural shift is not optional for scaling.

Standardization is a security feature. The EVM's dominance creates a unified security model where vulnerabilities in one client, like Geth, are instantly visible across thousands of nodes. This monoculture enables rapid, coordinated responses that a multi-VM ecosystem cannot replicate.

Fragmentation breeds systemic risk. Introducing new VMs like Move or SVM creates opaque attack surfaces. A bug in a novel execution environment, such as a custom state transition function, is a localized catastrophe that can bypass the scrutiny applied to the EVM.

Consensus is the only trust anchor. Decoupling execution forces users to trust the ZK proof system and its prover implementation, not the battle-tested Ethereum consensus. This shifts risk from the network's collective intelligence to a handful of auditing firms.

Evidence: The 2016 Shanghai DDoS and subsequent client diversity efforts proved that even within a single VM, client bugs are catastrophic. A landscape with dozens of unaudited, custom VMs like those in Polygon zkEVM or zkSync Era multiplies this threat surface exponentially.