Why zkEVMs Are Just a Stepping Stone

zkEVMs are a tactical solution for a strategic problem. They prioritize bytecode-level equivalence with the EVM, which simplifies developer onboarding but inherits its fundamental constraints. This focus on Ethereum's execution model is a distraction from the more critical challenge of designing scalable, intent-driven systems.

The real bottleneck is state growth, not just cheap computation. Projects like Starknet and zkSync demonstrate that zk-proven execution is viable, but their long-term success depends on state management solutions that zkEVMs alone do not provide. The industry's obsession with EVM equivalence delays innovation in state models.

The endgame is zk-rollups for specific applications, not general-purpose clones. Protocols like dYdX (moving to Cosmos) and Immutable X show that application-specific chains with custom VMs and data availability layers outperform monolithic, EVM-compatible ones. The future belongs to zk-rollup frameworks, not zkEVM implementations.

EVM equivalence is a constraint. It forces zkEVMs like Scroll, Polygon zkEVM, and Linea to inherit the EVM's architectural inefficiencies, including its single-threaded execution and expensive storage model. This compatibility layer adds overhead that pure zkVMs like Starknet's Cairo avoid.

The tax is paid in gas and latency. Proving EVM opcodes is computationally intensive, leading to higher proving costs and longer finality times versus purpose-built VMs. This creates a direct trade-off between developer convenience and chain performance.

The endgame is specialized execution layers. zkEVMs are a bridge for existing Solidity liquidity, but the ultimate scaling solution is application-specific zkRollups using custom VMs (e.g., dYdX on StarkEx, Immutable zkEVM). These chains optimize for their use case, abandoning full EVM equivalence.

Evidence: Starknet, with its non-EVM Cairo VM, achieves sub-dollar transaction costs during low congestion, while EVM-equivalent zkRollups often struggle to consistently stay below $0.50. The proving cost differential is the tax.

zkEVMs are liquidity bridges. They solve the immediate problem of moving assets and users from Ethereum by offering cheap, compatible execution. This is a capital formation tool, not a scaling breakthrough. Projects like Polygon zkEVM and Scroll succeed by attracting TVL, not by architectural superiority.

The sunset begins with fragmentation. Each zkEVM creates its own isolated liquidity pool and state. This recreates the multi-chain problem it aimed to solve, forcing users to rely on canonical bridges and third-party aggregators like Across and Socket for cross-rollup movement.

The end-state is a unified settlement layer. The final architecture uses Ethereum as a verification and data availability layer, not an execution target. Execution migrates to specialized, interoperable environments like L3s and app-chains, connected via shared proving systems (e.g., Risc Zero) and intents.

Evidence: The capital efficiency delta is the proof. A canonical bridge locking $1B in TVL is $1B not deployed in DeFi. Intent-based architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract this away, routing orders to the best execution venue without requiring users to pre-fund destination chains.

EVM equivalence is insufficient. A perfect zkEVM like Polygon zkEVM or Scroll offers a frictionless porting experience, but this is a commodity. The real moat is application-layer liquidity and the developer ecosystem that tools like Foundry and Hardhat are optimized for.

Liquidity migrates slowly. Even with superior technology, moving billions in TVL from Arbitrum or Optimism requires a compelling cost-benefit that doesn't exist. Protocols like Uniswap V3 deploy where the users are, not where the proofs are fastest.

The tooling gap is permanent. Established L2s have years of battle-tested integrations with oracles like Chainlink, indexers like The Graph, and wallets. A new zkEVM chain must rebuild this integration surface area from zero.

Evidence: Arbitrum processes over 1 million daily transactions with a TVL exceeding $18B. No zkEVM, including zkSync Era, has matched this liquidity-density to activity ratio, proving that technical purity loses to entrenched network effects.

zkEVMs are a bridge technology. They provide compatibility with the existing Ethereum developer ecosystem, but their design inherits the inefficiencies of the EVM. The overhead of proving EVM opcodes creates a performance ceiling that dedicated zkVMs like RISC Zero or SP1 avoid.

Specialized execution layers will dominate. The future is not a monolithic L2 but a constellation of app-chains and rollups optimized for specific tasks—like a dYdX for trading or an Immutable for gaming. General-purpose zkEVMs like Scroll or Polygon zkEVM become settlement hubs for these specialized chains.

The data proves the trend. The most successful L2s, Arbitrum and Optimism, already fragment into Orbit and Superchain models for customization. zkEVMs are the final step in proving general compute is viable, not optimal.