Proving is the bottleneck. ZK-Rollup throughput is limited by prover speed and cost, not by L1 data availability or sequencer latency. This constraint moves the scaling battle from network design to computational efficiency.
zk-rollups-the-endgame-for-scaling
Blog
The Future of ZK-Rollup Provers: Hardware, Software, and Specialization
ZK-Rollup proof generation is evolving from a monolithic bottleneck into a layered market. This analysis breaks down the coming specialization across hardware (GPUs, FPGAs, ASICs), software stacks (zkVM, zkEVM), and aggregation services.
introduction
THE PROVER BOTTLENECK
Introduction
ZK-Rollup scalability is now a hardware and software co-design problem, shifting the competitive landscape from L2 networks to prover infrastructure.
Hardware specialization is inevitable. The exponential cost of general-purpose proving forces a shift to application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and GPUs, mirroring Bitcoin mining's evolution. Companies like Ingonyama and Cysic are building this specialized hardware.
Software defines the hardware frontier. Prover performance depends on the underlying proof system. STARKs (StarkWare) and Halo2 (Scroll, Taiko) have different computational profiles, requiring tailored hardware acceleration strategies.
Evidence: A single ZK-SNARK proof on Ethereum today costs ~$0.20. To achieve 1000+ TPS, this cost must drop by 100x, a feat only possible with specialized hardware stacks.
key-trends
ZK-PROVER LANDSCAPE
Executive Summary: The Three-Layer Future
The monolithic ZK-prover is dead. The future is a disaggregated stack of specialized hardware, optimized software, and application-specific circuits.
01
The Problem: The Monolithic Bottleneck
General-purpose provers like zkEVM treat every computation identically, creating massive overhead. This leads to ~10-30 second proof times and costs that scale linearly with complexity, making micro-transactions and high-frequency DeFi (like Uniswap v4 hooks) economically unviable.
- Inefficient Resource Use: CPU/GPU cycles wasted on non-critical ops.
- Poor Cost Scaling: Proving cost becomes the dominant L2 expense at scale.
30s+
Proof Time
$0.50+
Per Tx Cost
02
The Solution: Specialized Hardware (Layer 1)
Dedicated ASICs (e.g., from Cysic, Ulvetanna) and FPGAs accelerate specific cryptographic operations (MSM, NTT) by 100-1000x. This creates a commodity base layer for raw proving power, decoupling security from software innovation.
- Commoditized Trust: Hardware becomes a verifiable, competitive market.
- Throughput Floor: Enables ~1000 TPS per rollup as a baseline.
1000x
MSM Speedup
~$0.01
Hardware Cost/Tx
03
The Solution: Optimized Middleware (Layer 2)
Software frameworks like RISC Zero, SP1, and Lasso abstract the hardware. They provide optimized provers for specific virtual machines and languages (WASM, EVM, Move), allowing developers to write circuits in familiar code. This is the "Proof-as-a-Service" layer.
- Developer UX: Write in Rust/Solidity, not R1CS.
- Aggregation Efficiency: Enables proof recursion for Starknet, zkSync.
10x
Dev Speed
-90%
Circuit Dev Time
04
The Solution: Application-Specific Circuits (Layer 3)
The final layer is custom circuits for specific intents: a Uniswap v4 hook, an AAVE liquidation, or a private transaction. These are ~100-1000x more efficient than general-purpose VMs, enabling sub-cent fees and ~500ms proof times for hyper-specialized logic.
- Intent-Based Design: Proves only the state transition, not the entire VM.
- Economic Viability: Makes micro-DCA trades and privacy pools possible.
500ms
Proof Time
<$0.001
Tx Cost
thesis-statement
THE HARDWARE REALITY
Thesis: Monolithic Provers Are Doomed
General-purpose ZK proving is a dead end; the future belongs to specialized, hardware-optimized prover networks.
Monolithic provers are economically unviable. A single prover handling all logic (EVM, CairoVM, WASM) requires a single, prohibitively expensive hardware setup. This creates a centralization bottleneck and fails to leverage task-specific optimizations.
Specialization unlocks hardware acceleration. Provers for specific operations (e.g., Keccak hashes, ECDSA signatures) can be optimized for FPGAs or ASICs. This mirrors the evolution from CPUs to GPUs for AI, delivering order-of-magnitude cost reductions.
The market will fragment into prover networks. Projects like RiscZero (general-purpose ZKVM) and Ulvetanna (specialized hardware) demonstrate the divergence. Rollups will route proofs to the cheapest, fastest specialized prover for each computational segment.
Evidence: A monolithic EVM prover on AWS c6i.metal costs ~$0.50 per proof. A specialized Keccak prover on FPGA cuts this cost by >90%. The economic pressure for this unbundling is absolute.
ZK-ROLLUP INFRASTRUCTURE
Prover Specialization Matrix: Who's Building What
A comparison of leading ZK proving system approaches, focusing on hardware acceleration, software specialization, and target markets.
| Core Metric / Feature | zkSync (ZK Stack) | StarkWare (StarkNet) | RiscZero | Espresso Systems (HotShot) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Proving Architecture | Boojum (Plonky2-based) | Cairo VM (STARKs) | zkVM (RISC-V ISA) | Nova-based Recursive Proofs |
Hardware Acceleration Target | GPU (NVIDIA) | FPGA / Custom ASIC | CPU (General-Purpose) | CPU (General-Purpose) |
Prover Throughput (est. proofs/sec) | ~1000 | ~5000 (with SHARP) | ~100 |
|
Recursive Proof Aggregation | ||||
Native EVM Bytecode Proving | ||||
Proof Time for 1M TX (Target) | < 10 min | < 5 min |
| < 2 min |
Primary Market Focus | General-Purpose L2s | High-Throughput dApps | zkVM & Coprocessors | Shared Sequencing & DA |
Key Ecosystem Project | Hyperchain | Appchain (Madara) | zkEVM Clients | Espresso Sequencer |
deep-dive
THE PROVER STACK
Deep Dive: The Three Layers of Specialization
ZK-Rollup performance is gated by a tripartite specialization stack: hardware acceleration, software optimization, and application-specific circuits.
Hardware is the new bottleneck. The computational intensity of ZK proofs shifts the scaling constraint from network bandwidth to raw compute. Provers now require specialized hardware like GPUs, FPGAs, and custom ASICs to achieve sub-second finality, creating a new infrastructure layer dominated by firms like Ulvetanna and Ingonyama.
Software orchestrates the hardware. Efficient proof systems like Plonky2 and Boojum are compiler targets, not end-user products. The real value is in the scheduler that optimally distributes proof tasks across heterogeneous hardware clusters, a problem being tackled by RiscZero and Succinct.
Application circuits dictate economics. A generic zkEVM prover is inefficient. Specialized circuits for specific applications—like a Uniswap swap or an Aave liquidation—reduce proof size and cost by orders of magnitude. This creates a market for domain-specific verifiable compute.
Evidence: The zkSync Era Boojum prover demonstrates this specialization, using a CPU-GPU hybrid architecture to cut proof costs by 5x compared to its predecessor, proving that software-hardware co-design is non-negotiable.
risk-analysis
THE FUTURE OF ZK-ROLLUP PROVERS
Critical Risks in the Prover Stack
The race for faster, cheaper ZK proofs is creating a fragile, hyper-specialized ecosystem with systemic risks.
01
The Hardware Lock-In Problem
ZK-Rollups are becoming dependent on proprietary hardware (GPUs, FPGAs, ASICs) for competitive proving times. This creates a centralization risk and a single point of failure for the entire L2's security liveness.
- Vendor Risk: A single hardware vendor outage (e.g., NVIDIA) could stall $10B+ TVL across multiple chains.
- Innovation Stagnation: Software prover innovation is deprioritized, creating a brittle monoculture.
1 Vendor
Dominant Risk
~0s
Downtime Tolerance
02
The Prover-as-a-Service Centralization Trap
Outsourcing proving to centralized services like RiscZero, =nil; Foundation, or Ulvetanna trades decentralization for performance. This reintroduces the trusted third-party problem ZK was meant to solve.
- Censorship Vector: A malicious or compromised prover can selectively delay or censor transactions.
- Economic Capture: Prover markets can become oligopolies, extracting rent from L2 sequencers.
3-5 Firms
Market Concentration
100%
Trust Assumption
03
The Fragmented Proof System Incompatibility
Every new ZK-VM (zkEVM, zkWASM, CairoVM) and proof system (Plonk, STARK, Nova) creates its own prover ecosystem. This fragments security audits and tooling, increasing systemic bug risk.
- Security Dilution: Auditing resources are spread thin across dozens of novel codebases.
- Interoperability Barrier: Bridging between rollups with different proof systems becomes a complex, trust-minimized nightmare.
10+
Active Systems
High
Audit Fatigue
04
The Economic Time Bomb of Proof Rebates
To attract sequencers, prover networks offer heavy subsidies, making proof generation artificially cheap. When subsidies end, L2 transaction fees must spike to cover real costs, threatening user adoption.
- Unsustainable Model: Current ~$0.01 proof costs are often 90% subsidized.
- User Shock: Fee increases of 10-100x are possible when market economics take over.
90%+
Subsidy Rate
10-100x
Fee Shock Risk
05
The Black Box Prover & Verifier Mismatch
Complex, optimized provers become 'black boxes'. If the verifier contract on L1 is not perfectly synchronized with prover logic, it can accept invalid proofs, breaking the entire security model.
- Subtle Bug Catastrophe: A single discrepancy can lead to unlimited minting on the L2.
- Verifier Lag: Provers innovate faster than verifier contracts can be safely upgraded on conservative L1s.
1 Bug
To Break All
Weeks/Months
Upgrade Lag
06
The Specialization vs. Generalization Trade-Off
Tailored provers for specific apps (e.g., zkRollups for DEXs) are efficient but sacrifice composability. General-purpose zkVMs (like Scroll, Taiko) enable composability but are slower and costlier, forcing a fundamental architectural risk choice.
- App-Chain Fragmentation: Leads to a landscape of isolated, high-performance silos.
- Monolithic Inefficiency: The 'one chain for everything' model may be economically non-viable.
100x
Performance Gap
2 Models
Diverging Future
future-outlook
THE HARDWARE-SOFTWARE SPLIT
Future Outlook: The Prover-as-a-Service Economy
ZK-Rollup proving will bifurcate into specialized hardware acceleration and generalized software stacks, creating a new market for Prover-as-a-Service (PaaS).
Proving becomes a commodity. The computational cost of generating ZK proofs is the primary bottleneck for rollup scalability and cost. This creates a direct market for the cheapest, fastest proving service, abstracted from the rollup's core logic.
Specialized hardware dominates high-throughput. For high-volume, general-purpose L2s like zkSync and StarkNet, proving will migrate to FPGA and ASIC clusters operated by services like Ulvetanna and Ingonyama. This mirrors the evolution from CPU to GPU mining.
Generalized software serves the long tail. For application-specific rollups (AppChains) and novel VMs, software provers like RISC Zero and SP1 will dominate. Their flexibility for custom circuits outweighs raw throughput needs for lower-volume chains.
The PaaS market consolidates. We will see a winner-take-most dynamic in PaaS, similar to AWS in cloud computing. The winning provider will offer the optimal blend of hardware acceleration, multi-chain support, and economic security via slashing mechanisms.
takeaways
ZK-PROVER LANDSCAPE
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
The proving layer is the new battleground for rollup performance and cost. Here's where the specialization is happening.
01
The GPU Prover Takeover
The CPU bottleneck is real. GPUs and FPGAs are becoming the standard for high-throughput proving, shifting the economics.\n- 10-100x faster proof generation for large circuits\n- Enables sub-second finality for high-frequency dApps\n- Creates a commoditized, competitive proving market
100x
Faster Proofs
~$0.01
Target Cost/Tx
02
Specialized Prover Networks (e.g., =nil;, RiscZero)
General-purpose zkVMs are inefficient. Dedicated provers for specific languages (Cairo, Solidity, Move) optimize for developer adoption.\n- ~90% reduction in circuit overhead for targeted languages\n- Direct compilation from high-level code to ZK proofs\n- Critical for bringing existing devs into the ZK ecosystem
-90%
Circuit Overhead
1-Click
Dev Onboarding
03
Proof Aggregation as a Service
Submitting individual proofs to L1 is wasteful. Services like Espresso Systems and Astria batch proofs from multiple rollups, amortizing cost.\n- ~50-80% reduction in net L1 data fees\n- Enables viable micro-rollups and app-chains\n- Turns finality into a shared, liquid resource
-80%
L1 Fees
Shared
Finality Layer
04
The End of the Monolithic Stack
Rollups won't run their own provers. The future is modular: a rollup's execution, settlement, data availability, and proving will be separate, competitive markets.\n- Provers compete on cost and latency, not loyalty\n- Rollup security depends on proof market liveness, not a single actor\n- Enables proof-of-concept to production in weeks, not years
Weeks
Time to Prod
Modular
By Default
05
ASICs: The Inevitable Endgame
For maximum-scale, homogeneous workloads (e.g., EVM opcode proving), custom silicon (ASICs) will deliver unbeatable efficiency. This is a ~3-5 year horizon.\n- 1000x+ efficiency gains over general hardware\n- Creates extreme economies of scale and potential centralization risk\n- Will be controlled by a few specialized firms (e.g., Ingonyama)
1000x
Efficiency Gain
3-5 Yrs
Horizon
06
The Privacy Pivot: zk-Coprocessors
Provers aren't just for rollups. Systems like Axiom and Brevis use ZK proofs to compute over historical blockchain data off-chain, enabling on-chain verification of complex logic.\n- Enables trustless historical data feeds and decentralized compliance\n- Turns the blockchain into a verifiable database\n- New design space for intent-based systems and on-chain AI
Trustless
Data Compute
New Primitive
For Apps
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