ZK-Proofs on L1 excel at providing maximum security and finality because they inherit the full, battle-tested consensus of the base chain like Ethereum. For example, a zkSNARK verifying a private transaction directly on Ethereum Mainnet benefits from the network's ~$50B+ in staked ETH securing its validity, making it the gold standard for high-value, trust-minimized state transitions. This direct settlement is ideal for protocols like Aztec Network, which require the strongest possible security guarantees for private DeFi.
LABS
Comparisons
ZK-Proofs on L1 vs ZK-Proofs on L2: Deployment Layer
A technical analysis for CTOs and architects comparing the security, cost, and performance trade-offs of implementing zero-knowledge privacy solutions directly on a base layer versus on a dedicated execution layer.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Privacy Scaling Dilemma
Choosing where to deploy ZK-proofs—directly on an L1 or within an L2 rollup—is a foundational decision that dictates your application's security, cost, and performance profile.
ZK-Proofs on L2 take a different approach by batching thousands of proofs off-chain and posting a single validity proof to the L1. This results in a fundamental trade-off: you accept a slightly delayed finality (relying on the L2's prover and the L1's challenge period) in exchange for radically lower costs and higher throughput. Networks like zkSync Era and Starknet demonstrate this, achieving 100+ TPS and reducing user transaction fees by 10-100x compared to equivalent L1 operations, enabling scalable private applications.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute security, censorship resistance, and sovereign finality for high-value assets, choose ZK on L1. If you prioritize user experience, low-cost transactions, and high throughput for mass adoption, choose ZK on L2. The decision hinges on whether your application's threat model values the ironclad security of Ethereum's base layer or the scalable efficiency of its rollup ecosystem.
tldr-summary
ZK-Proofs on L1 vs L2: Deployment Layer
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. The choice isn't about ZK tech itself, but the settlement layer's properties.
01
ZK-Proofs on L1 (e.g., Mina, Celo)
Inherent Security & Finality: Proofs settle directly on the base layer, inheriting Ethereum's (~$100B) or its own L1's full security. This is critical for sovereign assets and cross-chain bridges where trust minimization is paramount.
L1 Finality
Settlement Guarantee
02
ZK-Proofs on L1 (e.g., Mina, Celo)
Protocol-Level Integration: ZK primitives are a native part of the chain's consensus (e.g., Mina's recursive proofs, Celo's light client). Enables unique on-chain privacy features and client-side verification models not possible with add-on L2s.
Native Feature
Architecture
03
ZK-Proofs on L2 (e.g., zkSync, Starknet, Polygon zkEVM)
Massive Scalability & Low Cost: Batches thousands of transactions into a single L1 proof. Achieves 10,000+ TPS with user fees <$0.01. Essential for high-frequency DeFi, gaming, and consumer dApps requiring mainstream UX.
<$0.01
Avg. User Fee
10K+ TPS
Throughput
04
ZK-Proofs on L2 (e.g., zkSync, Starknet, Polygon zkEVM)
EVM/Ecosystem Compatibility: Leverages Ethereum's tooling (MetaMask, Hardhat) and liquidity ($50B+ DeFi TVL). Faster iteration using Solidity/Vyper and existing standards (ERC-20, ERC-721). The pragmatic choice for protocols migrating from L1.
Ethereum
Tooling & Liquidity
DEPLOYMENT LAYER COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: ZK-Proofs on L1 vs L2
Direct comparison of deploying and verifying ZK-Proofs on Layer 1 blockchains versus Layer 2 rollups.
| Metric / Feature | ZK-Proofs on L1 (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet) | ZK-Proofs on L2 (e.g., zkSync, StarkNet) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Verification Gas Cost | $50 - $500+ | $0.10 - $2.00 |
Proof Generation Speed | ~10-30 minutes | < 5 minutes |
Inherited Security Model | ||
Data Availability Cost | ~$1,000 per MB | ~$10 - $100 per MB |
Native Composability | ||
Developer Tooling Maturity | High (Solidity, Hardhat) | Evolving (Cairo, Zinc, zkEVM) |
Primary Use Case | Sovereign chains, Settlement | High-throughput dApps, Payments |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
ZK-Proofs on L1 vs ZK-Proofs on L2: Deployment Layer
Key strengths and trade-offs for deploying ZK-proof systems directly on Layer 1 blockchains versus leveraging specialized Layer 2 scaling solutions.
01
ZK-Proofs on L1: Pros
Maximum Security & Finality: Inherits the full, battle-tested security of the underlying L1 (e.g., Ethereum's ~$50B+ staked consensus). Proof verification is a canonical part of the chain's state. This is critical for high-value, low-frequency settlements like cross-chain bridges (e.g., Polygon zkEVM bridge) or institutional asset issuance.
02
ZK-Proofs on L1: Cons
Prohibitive Cost & Latency: On-chain verification gas costs are high (e.g., 500k+ gas for a Groth16 verification on Ethereum). Batching is inefficient, leading to >$10 per proof costs unsuitable for user-facing dApps. Latency is tied to L1 block times (~12 sec), making real-time proofs impractical.
03
ZK-Proofs on L2: Pros
Scalability & Low-Cost UX: Specialized ZK-Rollups (zkSync Era, Starknet, Polygon zkEVM) amortize proof costs across thousands of transactions. Enables <$0.01 fees and high TPS (1000+) for applications like DeFi (zkSync's SyncSwap) and gaming. Native support for recursive proofs (e.g., StarkEx) allows for massive scaling.
04
ZK-Proofs on L2: Cons
Added Complexity & Fragmentation: Introduces a new trust layer (validators/provers) and liquidity fragmentation across rollups. Withdrawal delays to L1 (several hours for fraud-proof windows) create capital inefficiency. Requires developers to manage new toolchains (e.g., Cairo for Starknet) and bridge dependencies.
pros-cons-b
Deployment Layer Comparison
ZK-Proofs on L2: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for deploying ZK-proof systems on Layer 1 vs. Layer 2, based on security, cost, and performance metrics.
01
L1 Deployment: Ultimate Security
Direct State Finality: Proofs settle directly on Ethereum's base layer (e.g., using contracts like Verifier.sol). This provides the highest security guarantee, inheriting Ethereum's ~$100B+ consensus security. This is non-negotiable for high-value, low-frequency settlements like cross-chain bridges (e.g., zkBridge) or institutional asset issuance.
02
L1 Deployment: Prohibitive Cost
High On-Chain Verification Gas: Verifying a ZK-SNARK proof on Ethereum Mainnet can cost 50,000 - 1,000,000+ gas, translating to $50-$500+ per proof at moderate gas prices. This makes frequent proof generation (e.g., for per-transaction privacy) economically infeasible. Use cases are limited to batched, high-value operations.
03
L2 Deployment: Scalable & Cost-Effective
Sub-Cent Proof Verification: L2s like zkSync Era, StarkNet, and Polygon zkEVM amortize proof verification costs across thousands of transactions. This enables < $0.01 verification costs, making ZK-proofs viable for high-throughput dApps like decentralized exchanges (zkSync's ZigZag), gaming, and social feeds.
04
L2 Deployment: Inherited Security & Complexity
Security is a Function of L1 Finality: While secure, trust is placed in the L2's sequencer and prover network (e.g., StarkEx's SHARP). Downtime or censorship risks exist before proofs are posted to L1. This adds operational complexity and is a trade-off for applications requiring continuous, real-time finality.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
ZK-Proofs on L1 (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet)
Verdict: Choose for maximal security and composability with existing DeFi. Strengths:
- Sovereign Security: Inherits Ethereum's battle-tested, decentralized consensus. No additional trust assumptions for state validity.
- Native Composability: Seamless interaction with the entire L1 ecosystem (Uniswap, Aave, MakerDAO) without bridges.
- Data Availability: All data is on-chain, enabling permissionless verification by anyone. Trade-offs: Prohibitively high gas costs for frequent proof generation and verification limit use to high-value, low-frequency operations (e.g., on-chain voting proofs, large batch settlements).
ZK-Proofs on L2 (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet, Polygon zkEVM)
Verdict: Choose for scalable, low-cost applications requiring frequent user interactions. Strengths:
- Ultra-Low Fees: Users pay minimal fees for proof-verified transactions, enabling micro-transactions and complex logic.
- High Throughput: Dedicated sequencers and compressed proofs enable 1000+ TPS for DeFi swaps, perps, and lending.
- EVM Compatibility: Tools like zkSync's zkEVM and Polygon zkEVM allow easy porting of Solidity contracts. Trade-offs: Introduces a light-client trust assumption for state updates and relies on the L2's data availability solution (often a mix of on-chain and off-chain).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between deploying ZK-proofs on L1 or L2 is a foundational architectural decision with major implications for security, cost, and scalability.
ZK-Proofs on L1 excel at maximizing security and finality because they inherit the full, battle-tested security of the base layer like Ethereum. For example, a zk-SNARK proof verified on Ethereum Mainnet is secured by over 1 million ETH in staked value, making it ideal for high-value, low-frequency state transitions such as cross-chain bridges (e.g., zkBridge) or canonical settlement layers.
ZK-Proofs on L2 take a different approach by optimizing for cost and throughput. By batching thousands of transactions into a single proof submitted to L1, they achieve dramatic cost amortization and high TPS. This results in a trade-off: you gain scalability (e.g., zkSync Era's 100+ TPS vs. Ethereum's ~15) and sub-cent fees, but you introduce a dependency on the L2's prover network and a soft finality delay before the proof is posted to L1.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereign security, censorship resistance, and serving as a trust-minimized settlement layer, choose L1 deployment. This is the path for protocols like Polygon zkEVM's 'Type 1' proving or applications requiring the strongest possible guarantees. If you prioritize user experience, low transaction costs, and high throughput for consumer dApps—such as gaming, social, or high-frequency DeFi on StarkNet or Scroll—choose L2 deployment. Your application's threat model and economic model should dictate the layer.
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