Trusted Setup Ceremonies, as used by zk-SNARKs in Zcash and Aztec, excel at delivering high-performance, succinct proofs by relying on a one-time, secure generation of public parameters (e.g., the Powers of Tau). This ceremony, when conducted correctly by a diverse set of participants, creates a strong cryptographic foundation. The 2016 Zcash ceremony involved over 200 participants, aiming to decentralize trust. The result is a system where the security of every subsequent transaction depends on the assumption that at least one participant was honest and destroyed their toxic waste.
LABS
Comparisons
Trusted Setup Ceremonies vs Transparent Setups: Security Assumptions
A technical comparison of the foundational security models for privacy protocols, analyzing the trade-offs between trusted multi-party computation ceremonies and transparent, no-trust-required cryptographic setups.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Foundational Trust Dilemma in Privacy
Choosing a privacy infrastructure forces a fundamental decision between cryptographic trust assumptions with profound security and operational implications.
Transparent Setups, the model for zk-STARKs (StarkNet) and Bulletproofs (Monero), take a different approach by requiring no trusted ceremony. They rely solely on publicly verifiable, post-quantum secure cryptographic assumptions. This eliminates the single point of failure and ongoing trust risk inherent in a ceremony. The trade-off is often seen in larger proof sizes (e.g., STARK proofs can be 45-200KB vs. ~288 bytes for a Groth16 SNARK) and higher on-chain verification costs, though innovations like recursive proofs and Cairo on StarkNet are mitigating this.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute minimization of trust assumptions and long-term cryptographic resilience, choose a transparent setup like zk-STARKs. If you prioritize maximizing throughput and minimizing on-chain gas costs for complex private DeFi logic, a well-executed trusted setup for zk-SNARKs may be the pragmatic choice, accepting the ceremonial risk for superior performance.
tldr-summary
Trusted Setup vs. Transparent Setup
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
The foundational security trade-off: cryptographically assured trust vs. verifiable, open trustlessness.
02
Trusted Setup: The 'Cursed' Assumption
Relies on a one-time ceremony: Security assumes at least one participant destroyed their toxic waste. A successful compromise creates undetectable counterfeit proofs. This matters for high-value, long-lived systems where the risk of a single point of failure, even if mitigated by MPC, is unacceptable.
1
Critical Point of Failure
04
Transparent Setup: Performance Trade-off
Higher computational/bandwidth cost: Systems like STARKs or Bulletproofs generate larger proofs or require more verification work. This matters for mainnet L1 settlement or resource-constrained environments where proof size or verification gas costs are a critical bottleneck.
10-100x
Larger Proof Size (vs. SNARKs)
SECURITY ASSUMPTIONS COMPARISON
Head-to-Head: Trusted Setup vs Transparent Setup
Direct comparison of cryptographic security models for zero-knowledge proof systems.
| Metric / Feature | Trusted Setup (e.g., Zcash, Polygon zkEVM) | Transparent Setup (e.g., Mina, StarkNet) |
|---|---|---|
Cryptographic Assumption | Requires secure generation of toxic waste | No trusted ceremony required |
Security Failure Mode | If compromised, all proofs are insecure | Security rests solely on math (e.g., FRI, Bulletproofs) |
Ceremony Complexity | High (multi-party computation, participant coordination) | None |
Recurring Ceremony Needed | Per circuit / major upgrade | |
Auditability | Ceremony transcripts must be audited for trust | All parameters are public and verifiable |
Adoption Examples | Zcash (Sprout), Tornado Cash, Polygon zkEVM | Mina Protocol, StarkEx, Filecoin |
pros-cons-a
SECURITY ASSUMPTIONS
Trusted Setup Ceremonies vs. Transparent Setups
A critical comparison of the foundational trust models for zero-knowledge proof systems. Choose based on your protocol's security posture and operational constraints.
01
Trusted Setup: Performance & Efficiency
Specific advantage: Enables smaller proof sizes and faster verification, critical for high-throughput applications. Systems like zk-SNARKs (e.g., Zcash's original Sprout ceremony, Aztec) leverage this for sub-second verification on-chain.
This matters for L2 rollups (zkSync, Polygon zkEVM) and private payment systems where gas costs and finality speed are paramount.
02
Trusted Setup: Ceremony Integrity
Specific advantage: A well-executed multi-party ceremony (MPC) can provide strong practical security. The Perpetual Powers of Tau ceremony has over 10,000 contributions, making coordinated subversion astronomically difficult.
This matters for protocols that prioritize battle-tested, efficient zk-SNARK circuits and are comfortable with the "one honest participant" assumption, trusting the rigor of the ceremony process itself.
03
Transparent Setup: Trust Minimization
Specific advantage: Eliminates the trusted setup requirement entirely, relying only on cryptographic hardness assumptions. zk-STARKs (StarkNet) and Bulletproofs (Monero) use publicly verifiable randomness, providing post-quantum safety for the setup phase.
This matters for maximally decentralized protocols, long-lived systems (e.g., store-of-value), and teams wanting to avoid the complexity and perception risk of running ceremonies.
04
Transparent Setup: Simplicity & Auditability
Specific advantage: No need to manage complex MPC ceremonies or rely on historical participant honesty. The security is contained in the public code and verifier logic. This simplifies audits and reduces launch overhead.
This matters for new projects without extensive cryptographer resources, or applications where the marginal performance gain of a trusted setup does not justify its operational and reputational complexity.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Trusted Setup Ceremonies vs Transparent Setups: Security Assumptions
A foundational choice between cryptographic trust models. Compare the operational security and long-term guarantees of each approach.
01
Trusted Setup: Pro - Initial Efficiency & Complexity
Enables advanced cryptography: Powers zk-SNARKs (e.g., Zcash's Sapling, Tornado Cash) with high performance and small proof sizes. This matters for privacy-focused L1s and scaling rollups needing succinct verification.
02
Trusted Setup: Con - Persistent Trust Assumption
Relies on ceremony integrity: If a single participant in the multi-party computation (MPC) is compromised, the entire system's security fails. This creates a persistent, non-removable risk for protocols like Polygon zkEVM and Scroll, requiring extreme operational security during the ceremony.
03
Transparent Setup: Pro - Trust Minimization
No secret parameters: Uses publicly verifiable cryptography like STARKs (Starknet) or Bulletproofs. Security depends only on cryptographic hardness, eliminating trusted third parties. This is critical for maximally decentralized protocols and long-term system resilience.
04
Transparent Setup: Con - Performance & Cost Trade-off
Higher computational overhead: STARK proofs are larger (~45-200 KB) than SNARK proofs (~288 bytes), leading to increased L1 verification gas costs. This matters for cost-sensitive applications on Ethereum and can impact end-user fees for rollups like Starknet.
TRUSTED SETUP VS. TRANSPARENT SETUP
Technical Deep Dive: Assumptions and Attack Vectors
A critical analysis of the foundational security models for zero-knowledge proof systems, comparing the ceremony-based approach of zk-SNARKs with the transparent, post-quantum secure model of zk-STARKs.
Transparent setups are considered more secure from a trust minimization perspective. A trusted setup (e.g., Groth16, Plonk) requires a one-time ceremony where participants generate a common reference string (CRS). If any single participant is compromised and destroys their 'toxic waste', the entire system's security is broken. A transparent setup (e.g., zk-STARKs) requires no such ceremony, eliminating this trust assumption and associated single point of failure. However, a well-executed multi-party ceremony (like Tornado Cash's or Zcash's Powers of Tau) can achieve high practical security through decentralization of trust.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Model
Trusted Setup Ceremonies for Architects
Verdict: Choose for applications requiring maximal computational efficiency and succinct proofs, where a defined, auditable committee is acceptable. Strengths: Enables highly efficient zk-SNARKs (e.g., Groth16) with small proof sizes (~200 bytes) and fast verification. This is critical for on-chain verification in high-throughput environments like Ethereum L1 DeFi (e.g., Tornado Cash, zkSync Era's early circuits). The security model is clear: compromise requires collusion of a majority of ceremony participants, which can be mitigated using MPC and public audits. Trade-offs: You inherit a trust assumption. While ceremonies like Perpetual Powers of Tau are considered secure due to widespread participation, they introduce a systemic risk that transparent setups avoid. Requires rigorous ceremony design and auditing.
Transparent Setups (STARKs, Bulletproofs) for Architects
Verdict: Choose for protocols where trust minimization and long-term security are paramount, and larger proof sizes are acceptable. Strengths: No trusted setup required. The security relies solely on cryptographic hardness assumptions (e.g., collision-resistant hashes). This provides superior long-term assurance and is ideal for foundational infrastructure or protocols holding extreme value (e.g., Starknet's L2, Mina Protocol). STARK proofs offer post-quantum safety. Trade-offs: Proofs are larger (~45-200KB for STARKs) leading to higher on-chain verification costs. Verification can be more computationally intensive than SNARKs, though recursive proofs can mitigate this.
verdict
SECURITY ASSUMPTIONS
Verdict: Selecting Your Foundation
The choice between trusted and transparent setups is a foundational decision between cryptographic agility and verifiable trust.
Trusted Setup Ceremonies excel at enabling advanced cryptographic primitives like zk-SNARKs, which offer superior scalability and privacy. This is because they generate a common reference string (CRS) that underpins succinct proofs. For example, Zcash's original Sprout ceremony and Aztec's PLONK setup enabled private transactions and high-throughput rollups, but require the assumption that at least one participant in the multi-party computation (MPC) was honest and destroyed their toxic waste. The security model hinges on this one-time, auditable event.
Transparent Setups take a different approach by requiring no secret parameters, relying instead on publicly verifiable cryptography like zk-STARKs or Bulletproofs. This results in a stronger trust model—there is no single point of failure or need to trust ceremony participants—but often at the cost of larger proof sizes and higher verification gas costs on-chain. For instance, StarkWare's StarkEx and Immutable zkEVM leverage STARKs, trading off slightly higher L1 data costs for perpetual, trust-minimized security.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum cryptographic performance and lower operational costs for a high-throughput application (e.g., a private DEX or gaming rollup), and you can accept the audited, one-time risk of a ceremony, choose a Trusted Setup. If you prioritize verifiable, perpetual trust-minimization and censorship resistance for a long-lived, high-value protocol (e.g., a decentralized stablecoin or core L1), and can handle larger proof sizes, choose a Transparent Setup.
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