Fraud Proofs, as implemented by Optimistic Rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism), prioritize capital efficiency and EVM compatibility by assuming transactions are valid and only running computation to prove fraud if challenged. This results in a 7-day challenge window for withdrawals, a trade-off for lower on-chain data costs. For example, Arbitrum One's ~$0.10 average transaction fee is a direct benefit of this model, which batches thousands of transactions before a single state root is posted to Ethereum L1.
LABS
Comparisons
Fraud Proofs vs Validity Proofs: Security
A technical comparison of the security models underpinning Optimistic and Zero-Knowledge Rollups. We analyze trust assumptions, finality, and economic security for protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Security Trade-Off
Understanding the fundamental security models of fraud proofs and validity proofs is critical for architecting scalable, secure L2 solutions.
Validity Proofs, the foundation of ZK-Rollups (zkSync Era, Starknet, Polygon zkEVM), provide cryptographic certainty for every state transition. By generating a SNARK or STARK proof verified on-chain, they enable near-instant, trustless withdrawals. This comes at the cost of higher prover complexity and computational overhead, often requiring specialized virtual machines. Starknet's Cairo VM is a prime example of this trade-off, enabling powerful proving but creating a distinct developer environment.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum capital efficiency, lower immediate costs, and seamless EVM tooling for existing dApps, choose Fraud Proofs. If you prioritize instant finality, superior censorship resistance, and are building a new application where proving overhead can be optimized, choose Validity Proofs.
tldr-summary
FRAUD PROOFS VS VALIDITY PROOPS
TL;DR: Security at a Glance
A side-by-side breakdown of the two dominant security models for optimistic and ZK rollups. Choose based on your protocol's risk tolerance and withdrawal finality requirements.
02
Fraud Proofs: EVM Equivalence
Full compatibility: Enables near-perfect emulation of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). This matters for protocols migrating from L1 that require complex, unmodified smart contracts, a key reason for Arbitrum's DeFi dominance.
100%
EVM Opcode Support
03
Validity Proofs: Instant Finality
No challenge period: State updates are cryptographically verified in minutes, not days. This matters for exchanges and payment apps requiring fast, trustless withdrawals, a core advantage of zkSync Era and StarkNet.
< 10 min
Withdrawal Time
04
Validity Proofs: Active Security
Cryptographic guarantees: Each batch includes a proof of correct execution, removing trust assumptions. This matters for high-value financial applications where the 7-day fraud proof window is an unacceptable risk.
05
Fraud Proofs: The Weakness - Window of Risk
7-day challenge period: Creates capital lock-up and UX friction for users. This matters for CEX integrations and traders who cannot wait a week for funds, limiting liquidity efficiency.
7 Days
Standard Challenge Period
06
Validity Proofs: The Weakness - Proving Complexity
High proving overhead: Requires specialized circuits and hardware, increasing centralization risk and developer friction. This matters for smaller teams who find it harder to build custom ZK apps versus Solidity.
HEAD-TO-HEAD SECURITY COMPARISON
Security Feature Matrix: Fraud Proofs vs Validity Proofs
Direct comparison of security models for optimistic vs. ZK rollups, focusing on trust assumptions and operational characteristics.
| Security Metric | Fraud Proofs (Optimistic Rollups) | Validity Proofs (ZK-Rollups) |
|---|---|---|
Inherent Trust Assumption | 7-day challenge window | Cryptographic proof (ZK-SNARK/STARK) |
Time to Finality (L1) | ~7 days (for full trustlessness) | ~20 minutes (proof generation + verification) |
Withdrawal Delay (to L1) | 7 days (standard) | < 1 hour |
Capital Efficiency for Provers | High (bond required for challenges) | Medium (compute cost for proof generation) |
Data Availability Requirement | Full transaction data on L1 (calldata) | Only validity proof + state diff on L1 |
Prover Centralization Risk | Medium (requires at least one honest actor) | Low (trustless verification of proof) |
EVM Compatibility | Full (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Partial (zkEVMs like zkSync, Scroll) |
pros-cons-a
OPTIMISTIC ROLLUPS VS ZK-ROLLUPS
Fraud Proofs vs Validity Proofs: Security
A direct comparison of the security models underpinning the two dominant scaling architectures. Optimistic rollups rely on economic incentives and a challenge period, while ZK-rollups use cryptographic proofs for instant finality.
01
Optimistic Rollups: Lower Computational Cost
Prover simplicity: No need to generate complex ZK-SNARK/STARK proofs, reducing hardware requirements for sequencers. This matters for rapid deployment and cost-effective scaling of general-purpose EVM chains like Arbitrum One and Optimism. The security burden is shifted to verifiers.
02
Optimistic Rollups: EVM Equivalence
Developer familiarity: Full compatibility with Ethereum tooling (Solidity, Hardhat) and complex smart contracts without circuit constraints. This matters for protocols migrating from L1 (e.g., Uniswap, Aave) seeking minimal code changes. Security audits can leverage existing Ethereum expertise.
03
Optimistic Rollups: The Challenge Window Risk
Withdrawal delay: Assets are locked for 7 days (standard) while awaiting fraud proofs. This matters for CEX integrations and high-frequency trading where capital efficiency is critical. It introduces a liveness assumption that honest watchers are always monitoring.
04
Optimistic Rollups: Censorship & Data Availability
Sequencer centralization risk: If a sequencer censors a fraud proof transaction, the challenge fails. Security depends on data being posted to L1. This matters for maximalists prioritizing Ethereum's base layer security over individual chain liveness.
05
Validity Proofs: Instant Cryptographic Finality
Trustless withdrawals: A validity proof (ZK-SNARK) verified on L1 guarantees state correctness, enabling ~10 minute finality vs. 7-day delays. This matters for bridges and exchanges (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet integrations) requiring strong, fast guarantees.
06
Validity Proofs: Superior Privacy & Compression
Data efficiency: Proofs verify computation without revealing all data, reducing L1 calldata costs. This matters for privacy-focused applications and high-throughput dApps where minimizing on-chain footprint is a security and economic advantage.
07
Validity Proofs: Prover Complexity & Cost
High hardware overhead: Generating ZK proofs requires specialized, expensive provers (e.g., GPUs/ASICs), creating centralization pressure. This matters for smaller chains where proving costs can be prohibitive, potentially reducing the number of independent validators.
08
Validity Proofs: EVM Compatibility Hurdles
Circuit constraints: Supporting arbitrary EVM opcodes in ZK circuits is complex, leading to custom VMs (e.g., zkEVM). This matters for developers who may face unfamiliar tooling and subtle differences in behavior, increasing audit scope and risk.
pros-cons-b
SECURITY SHOWDOWN
Validity Proofs (ZK Rollups): Pros & Cons
A technical breakdown of the security guarantees and trade-offs between Optimistic and Zero-Knowledge rollups. Choose based on your protocol's threat model and trust assumptions.
01
Validity Proofs: Cryptographic Security
Mathematically guaranteed correctness: Every state transition is verified by a ZK-SNARK or ZK-STARK proof (e.g., zkSync Era, StarkNet). Invalid blocks are impossible to commit to L1. This eliminates the need for a fraud proof window and provides instant finality for the L1, making it ideal for high-value DeFi protocols like Aave and Uniswap V3 deployments.
0
Challenge Period
03
Fraud Proofs: Economic Security
Security through incentives and game theory: Optimistic Rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism) assume all transactions are valid but allow anyone to submit a fraud proof during a 7-day challenge window. Security relies on the presence of at least one honest validator. This model is battle-tested, securing over $15B in TVL, but introduces a fundamental trust assumption for fast withdrawals.
7 Days
Standard Challenge Window
FRAUD PROOFS VS VALIDITY PROOFS
Technical Deep Dive: Attack Vectors & Assumptions
This section dissects the core security models of optimistic and ZK rollups, analyzing their fundamental trust assumptions, unique attack vectors, and the practical implications for protocol architects and security teams.
Validity proofs provide stronger, cryptographically guaranteed security. A ZK rollup (like zkSync Era or StarkNet) mathematically proves every state transition is correct, making it secure as long as the underlying cryptography holds. Fraud proofs (used by Optimism, Arbitrum) rely on a challenge period where a single honest actor must detect and contest invalid state, introducing a weaker, game-theoretic security assumption.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Security Recommendations by Use Case
Fraud Proofs for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic, battle-tested choice for high-value, complex applications. Strengths:
- Proven Security Model: The interactive challenge period (e.g., 7 days on Optimism, Arbitrum) provides a robust economic safety net for high-value TVL. Billions have been secured this way.
- EVM-Equivalence: Enables direct porting of complex, composable DeFi smart contracts (like Uniswap, Aave, Compound) with minimal refactoring.
- Transparent Dispute Process: The entire fraud proof and challenge mechanism is executed on-chain, providing verifiable censorship resistance. Considerations: The week-long withdrawal delay for native bridge exits is a UX trade-off for this security model. Use canonical bridges from established projects like Hop Protocol or Across for better UX.
Validity Proofs for DeFi
Verdict: The superior technical choice for new, performance-sensitive primitives where instant finality is critical. Strengths:
- Instant, Cryptographic Finality: Withdrawals are immediate upon proof verification (e.g., zkSync Era, StarkNet), enabling capital efficiency for arbitrage and margin trading.
- Data Availability Focus: Security is tied to Ethereum's data availability (via calldata or blobs). Using a Data Availability Committee (DAC) adds a trust assumption.
- Inherent Privacy Potential: ZK-circuits can enable private transactions or shielded pools as a native feature. Considerations: EVM-compatibility (zkEVMs) is newer and may have subtle differences. Audit your contracts specifically for the target ZK-rollup (zkSync, Polygon zkEVM, Scroll).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict: Choosing Your Security Model
A data-driven breakdown of the security, performance, and cost trade-offs between fraud proofs and validity proofs for blockchain scaling.
Fraud Proofs (as used by Optimism, Arbitrum) excel at cost-effective security because they only run computation when a challenge is raised. This model leverages Ethereum's L1 security for finality, resulting in extremely low operational costs for validators. For example, Optimism's Bedrock upgrade reduced L1 data publishing costs by ~40%, directly benefiting users with lower transaction fees. The trade-off is a 7-day challenge window for withdrawals, introducing latency for finality.
Validity Proofs (as used by zkSync Era, StarkNet, Polygon zkEVM) take a different approach by cryptographically proving every state transition is correct. This results in near-instant finality (minutes vs. days) and stronger security assumptions, as the L1 only needs to verify a proof, not re-execute transactions. The trade-off is higher computational overhead for provers, often reflected in higher proving costs and more complex engineering for EVM compatibility, as seen in the development cycles for zkEVMs.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing user transaction costs and maximizing EVM equivalence today, choose a Fraud Proof system like Arbitrum Nitro. If you prioritize instant finality, maximal cryptographic security, and are building a new application willing to handle proving complexity, choose a Validity Proof system like StarkNet. For protocols like Uniswap, the choice hinges on whether capital efficiency (fast withdrawals) outweighs the current fee premium of ZK-Rollups.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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