Proving time is the bottleneck. Data availability layers like Celestia and EigenDA solve for cheap data, but the cost of generating a zero-knowledge proof remains the primary constraint on throughput and finality.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
Why ZK-Optimized VMs Are the True Scaling Breakthrough
Everyone focuses on data availability as the scaling bottleneck. They're wrong. The fundamental constraint for ZK-Rollups is proving execution speed and cost. This analysis argues that ZK-Optimized Virtual Machine design, not data layers, is the decisive frontier for scaling Ethereum.
introduction
THE EXECUTION FLOOR
Introduction: The Misplaced Bottleneck
The industry's focus on data availability is a distraction from the real constraint: proving time.
The VM is the proving engine. The computational model of the virtual machine—be it EVM, SVM, or Move—dictates prover complexity. A ZK-unfriendly VM like the EVM creates an insurmountable proving overhead.
Execution is the new data. Just as rollups separated execution from consensus, ZK-optimized VMs separate fast proving from slow execution. This architectural shift enables parallel proving and sub-second finality.
Evidence: A single ZK-EVM STARK proof for an Ethereum block takes minutes, while a purpose-built VM like RISC Zero or SP1 generates proofs for complex computations in seconds.
thesis-statement
THE BOTTLENECK
Core Thesis: Execution Proving is the Hard Part
Zero-knowledge proofs for state transitions, not data availability, are the fundamental constraint for scaling decentralized computation.
Execution proving is the bottleneck. Optimistic rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism scale data posting, but their 7-day finality window is a market failure. ZK-rollups like zkSync and StarkNet solve this with cryptographic finality, but their throughput is gated by proving time.
Data availability is a commodity. Solutions like Celestia, EigenDA, and EIP-4844 blobs make posting data cheap and abundant. The competitive edge shifts to the speed and cost of generating validity proofs for complex, general-purpose computation.
ZK-optimized VMs are the breakthrough. Standard EVM opcodes are provably inefficient. VMs like zkEVM, Cairo VM (StarkNet), and SVM (Eclipse) are designed from first principles to minimize prover overhead, enabling high-throughput, instantly-finalized L2s.
Evidence: A zkEVM proving a simple transfer costs ~5 cents and takes seconds. A Cairo VM proving a complex DeFi batch proves it for ~1 cent in milliseconds. The proving system defines the economic ceiling.
key-trends
WHY ZK-VMS WIN
The Proof Generation Trilemma
Zero-knowledge proofs face a fundamental trade-off between proof generation speed, developer flexibility, and hardware cost. ZK-optimized virtual machines are the only architecture solving for all three.
01
The Problem: General-Purpose VMs Are Too Slow
Compiling EVM/Solidity code into ZK circuits is computationally explosive. The overhead of proving every opcode in a general-purpose VM like the EVM creates a massive bottleneck.
- Proving time for a simple Uniswap swap can be ~10-30 seconds on commodity hardware.
- This latency kills user experience and makes real-time proving (e.g., for rollups) economically impossible without massive, centralized proving farms.
10-30s
Prove Time
1000x
Overhead vs. Native
02
The Solution: ZK-Native Instruction Sets
ZK-optimized VMs like zkSync's zkEVM, Starknet's Cairo, and Polygon zkEVM use custom, ZK-friendly instruction sets (e.g., Cairo's AIR). They treat the VM itself as the circuit, not the application code.
- Proving is ~100x faster for complex logic vs. circuit compilation.
- Enables single-prover, real-time finality for rollups with ~1-5 second proof times.
- Developers write in high-level languages (Solidity, Cairo) that compile down to the efficient VM.
~100x
Faster Proofs
1-5s
Finality Target
03
The Problem: Hardware Lock-In & Centralization
Specialized hardware (ASICs, FPGAs) for fixed circuits creates centralization risks and stifles innovation. If a ZK-rollup's security depends on a single entity's custom silicon, it becomes a centralized bottleneck.
- Creates prover oligopolies and high barrier to entry for new networks.
- Fixed circuits cannot be upgraded without a hard fork, limiting protocol evolution.
1-2 Vendors
ASIC Supply
Months
Update Cycle
04
The Solution: VM Abstraction Enables Prover Competition
A standardized ZK-VM interface separates proof logic from hardware. Different provers (CPU, GPU, FPGA, ASIC) can compete to execute the same VM instruction set, creating a competitive proving market.
- Drives down proof costs through commoditization (see Ethereum's L1 gas market model).
- Ensures liveness and censorship resistance; no single hardware failure can halt the chain.
- Future-proofs the system; new hardware can plug in without protocol changes.
10x+
Prover Options
-90%
Cost Potential
05
The Problem: The EVM Compatibility Trap
Full EVM equivalence (bytecode-for-bytecode) forces extreme ZK-unfriendly operations (e.g., Keccak hashing, storage patterns) into the proof system, bloating costs. This is the Achilles' heel of "Type 1" zkEVMs.
- Proof costs can be 100-1000x the L1 execution cost, negating scaling benefits.
- Creates a permanent cost floor that L2s can never optimize below.
100-1000x
Cost Penalty
Fixed Floor
Scaling Limit
06
The Solution: Language-Level Equivalence (Type 4 zkEVM)
Networks like zkSync Era and Scroll use a Type 4 (language-level) zkEVM approach. They compile Solidity/Vyper to a custom ZK-VM intermediate representation, not EVM bytecode.
- Achieves ~95%+ EVM compatibility for developers while drastically simplifying the proving circuit.
- Cuts prover costs by ~10-50x compared to Type 1 equivalence.
- This is the pragmatic endgame: developer experience of Ethereum, with the performance of a ZK-native system.
10-50x
Cheaper Proofs
95%+
EVM Compat
ZK-ROLLUP BATTLEGROUND
VM Archetype Comparison: Proving Cost vs. Compatibility
Trade-offs between specialized ZK VMs for scaling and general-purpose EVM compatibility, measured by proving cost, throughput, and developer friction.
| Key Metric | ZK-Optimized VM (e.g., StarkNet, zkSync) | EVM-Equivalent ZKVM (e.g., Scroll, Polygon zkEVM) | Standard EVM (Baseline) |
|---|---|---|---|
Proving Cost per Tx (est.) | $0.01 - $0.05 | $0.10 - $0.50 | N/A (No proof) |
ZK Proof Generation Time | < 1 minute | 2 - 10 minutes | |
Native Throughput (TPS) | 1000 - 5000 | 100 - 500 | 10 - 30 |
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | |||
Requires Custom Compiler (e.g., Cairo, Zinc) | |||
Developer Friction | High (New Language) | Low (Solidity/Vyper) | None |
Trust Assumption | Validity Proofs | Validity Proofs | Economic/Social |
State Growth Cost | Logarithmic (Merkle) | Linear (Patricia Trie) | Linear (Patricia Trie) |
deep-dive
THE EXECUTION LAYER
The Architecture of a ZK-Optimized VM
ZK-optimized VMs are the scaling breakthrough because they shift the bottleneck from consensus to proof generation, enabling parallel execution and verifiable state transitions.
The bottleneck shifts from consensus to proving. Traditional L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism scale execution but still require a full sequencer to re-execute transactions for fraud proofs. A ZK-optimized VM, like those in zkSync Era or Starknet, only requires a single, succinct validity proof to be verified on-chain, decoupling transaction throughput from L1 block space.
Architecture is defined by proof-system constraints. Developers for Polygon zkEVM or Scroll do not target the EVM opcode-for-opcode; they design a custom intermediate representation (IR) like zkASM that is provably efficient. This creates a trade-off: perfect EVM equivalence increases proof costs, while a ZK-friendly design like Cairo sacrifices compatibility for an order-of-magnitude performance gain.
Parallel execution is the inherent advantage. Unlike monolithic chains constrained by single-threaded execution, ZK-VMs can process transactions in parallel and generate a single proof for the entire batch. This model, pioneered by projects like Sui and Aptos on L1, is native to ZK-rollups where the prover, not the chain, handles parallelization.
Evidence: Proving time dictates finality. The key metric is proof generation time, not TPS. A system like StarkEx demonstrates sub-minute proof generation for batches of 10k+ trades, providing economic finality orders of magnitude faster than waiting for a 7-day fraud-proof window.
protocol-spotlight
WHY ZK-VMS ARE THE TRUE SCALING BREAKTHROUGH
Protocol Spotlight: The New VM Frontier
General-purpose VMs are the bottleneck. ZK-optimized VMs are purpose-built to prove execution, not just run it, unlocking the next order of magnitude in scalability.
01
The Problem: EVM is a Terrible Proof Generator
The Ethereum Virtual Machine was designed for deterministic execution, not efficient proof generation. Its opcodes and state model create massive proving overhead.
- Proving an EVM opcode can be 1000x more expensive than executing it.
- This inefficiency caps practical TPS and keeps user costs high, even on L2s.
- Projects like zkSync Era and Scroll absorb this cost, but it's a fundamental tax.
1000x
Proving Cost
<100
Practical TPS Cap
02
The Solution: Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) for ZK
New VMs like zkVM (RISC Zero), SP1, and Miden VM use a RISC-like, ZK-friendly instruction set. They minimize non-deterministic operations and are designed from the ground up for proving.
- Proving time is dominated by cryptographic constraints, not program logic.
- Enables ~10k TPS for specific applications by removing the EVM abstraction tax.
- Unlocks verifiable compute for non-blockchain use cases (e.g., AI, gaming).
10k TPS
Potential Throughput
-90%
Proving Overhead
03
The Bridge: Parallel Proof Generation & Recursion
ZK-optimized VMs enable parallel proof generation and proof recursion, which are impractical with EVM's linear state model. This is the key to horizontal scaling.
- Proofs for different transactions or shards can be generated simultaneously.
- Recursion (proofs of proofs) allows settling millions of transactions in a single Ethereum block.
- This architecture is foundational for zkEVM L2s and zkRollup-centric L3s.
Parallel
Proof Gen
1 Block
Million Tx Settle
04
The Trade-Off: The Compatibility Trilemma
You can only optimize for two: ZK-efficiency, EVM compatibility, or developer experience. This creates distinct lanes for adoption.
- Full zkEVM (Scroll): Maximum compatibility, higher proving cost.
- zkVM (RISC Zero): Maximum ZK-efficiency, requires new tooling.
- Language-Level (Cairo): A middle path, offering a strong developer environment for provable programs.
Pick 2
Of 3
New Stack
Tooling Required
counter-argument
THE EXECUTION LAYER BOTTLENECK
Counter-Argument: The Developer Adoption Trap
Developer adoption is a lagging indicator, not a leading one, and is gated by the underlying execution environment's capabilities.
Developer adoption follows infrastructure. The current EVM dominance is a historical artifact of first-mover advantage, not a testament to its technical superiority. Developers flock to the chain with the most users and liquidity, creating a self-reinforcing loop that obscures underlying technical debt.
The EVM is a scaling ceiling. Its sequential processing and 256-bit architecture create inherent inefficiencies for ZK-proof generation. Projects like Polygon zkEVM and Scroll must perform complex EVM-bytecode-to-ZK-circuit transpilation, adding overhead that ZK-native VMs like zkSync's zkEVM or StarkWare's Cairo avoid entirely.
Adoption will pivot on performance. When a ZK-optimized VM demonstrably offers 10x lower proof costs and 100x higher throughput for complex dApps, developers will migrate. The shift from Solidity to Cairo or Zinc will mirror the move from JavaScript to Rust in high-frequency trading.
Evidence: StarkEx-powered dApps like dYdX and Sorare process millions of trades off-chain with instant settlement, a feat impossible for an EVM-equivalent rollup. The developer tooling follows the performance frontier.
takeaways
ZK-VM SCALING THESIS
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
ZK-rollups are table stakes; the next performance frontier is the execution environment itself.
01
The Problem: EVM Opcodes Are ZK-Hostile
The Ethereum Virtual Machine was designed for simple, deterministic execution, not for generating cryptographic proofs. Proving operations like Keccak hashes or storage reads is computationally explosive.
- Proving Keccak256 is ~1000x slower than a native CPU execution.
- This creates a massive bottleneck, limiting TPS and inflating prover costs.
1000x
Slower Proving
~$0.50
High Proof Cost
02
The Solution: ZK-Native Instruction Sets (RISC Zero, SP1, Jolt)
New virtual machines are built from first principles for efficient ZK proving, using simpler, arithmetic-friendly instructions.
- RISC-V-based ISAs replace complex EVM opcodes.
- Proving time is dominated by a few, optimized constraints, not thousands of disparate ones.
- Enables 10-100x faster proving for general-purpose computation.
50-100x
Faster Proving
RISC-V
Native ISA
03
The Architectural Pivot: From L2s to ZK Coprocessors
ZK-optimized VMs enable a new design pattern: dedicated coprocessors for complex off-chain computation (e.g., AI, games, DeFi simulations) with verifiable results posted on-chain.
- Projects like Axiom and Herodotus pioneered this for historical data.
- EVM cannot efficiently prove these workloads; ZK-VMs can.
- Unlocks trust-minimized off-chain compute as a new primitive.
New Primitive
ZK Coprocessor
Unlimited
Off-Chain Compute
04
The Investment Moat: Prover Hardware & Algorithmic Breakthroughs
The real value accrual is in the proving stack, not just another L2. This is a hardware and deep math race.
- Companies like Ingonyama and Ulvetanna are building ZK-specific ASICs/FPGAs.
- Plonk, STARK, and custom folding schemes (like Nova) are critical IP.
- Vertical integration of VM, prover, and hardware creates defensibility.
ASIC/FPGA
Hardware Race
Core IP
Proof Systems
05
The Interoperability Endgame: ZK-VMs as Universal Settlement
A sufficiently fast and cheap ZK-VM can become the canonical settlement layer for all rollups and app-chains, verifying state transitions from any execution environment.
- Eclipse is building a Solana VM settlement layer using RISC Zero.
- Polygon zkEVM, zkSync Era are first-gen; next-gen will be VM-agnostic.
- Converges towards a single verifiable global state root.
VM-Agnostic
Settlement
Universal
State Root
06
The Builder Mandate: Abstractions Over Raw Cryptography
Winning platforms will hide ZK complexity entirely. The SDK is the product.
- No developer should write circuit code. Frameworks like Lurk (Filecoin), Noir (Aztec) show the path.
- The killer app is one where users never know they're using ZK proofs.
- Success metrics: developer onboarding time and gas cost per proof.
<1 hr
Onboarding Goal
$0.001
Target Proof 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