ZK Stack vs Starknet's App Chains: ZK-Rollup Customization

Full control over the tech stack: Choose your own sequencer, prover, and data availability layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA). This is critical for protocols like dYdX v4 or Lumia that require bespoke performance and governance models.

Inherits Ethereum's finality via validity proofs posted directly to L1. This matters for high-value DeFi applications (e.g., zkSync Era's lending protocols) where the strongest possible settlement guarantee is non-negotiable.

Optimized for the Cairo VM: Built as a first-class citizen on Starknet's STARK-based stack, enabling seamless composability with existing Cairo smart contracts and tooling (e.g., Argent X wallet, Starknet.js). Ideal for teams already invested in the ecosystem.

Leverages Starknet's battle-tested prover network (e.g., SHARP), reducing operational overhead. This is a major advantage for projects like Sorare that want custom scaling without managing complex proving infrastructure.

You need maximum sovereignty and configurability, are building a high-throughput exchange or gaming chain, and have the engineering resources to manage a more complex stack. Think: Hyperchains for institutional finance.

You prioritize developer velocity and ecosystem integration, want to leverage existing Cairo tooling, and prefer a managed proving service. Think: SocialFi or gaming dApps that need to interoperate with Starknet mainnet assets.

Full ownership of the sequencer and data availability layer. Projects control 100% of transaction ordering and can choose any DA layer (Ethereum, Celestia, EigenDA). This is critical for high-frequency trading apps and enterprise chains requiring absolute operational control and predictable costs.

Access to a decentralized network of proof producers (Madara). Projects can outsource proof generation, reducing operational overhead and capital expenditure on specialized hardware. This is a major advantage for startups and smaller teams that want ZK scalability without managing complex proving infrastructure.

Requires assembling and securing core infrastructure components. Teams must actively manage their sequencer, data availability solution, and prover setup. This introduces significant devops overhead and security risk, making it less suitable for rapid prototyping or teams without deep infrastructure expertise.

Primarily tied to Ethereum for data availability (via Starknet L1 contracts). While custom DA is possible, it's a more complex, non-standard path compared to ZK Stack's first-class support. This can be a constraint for projects seeking ultra-low cost DA via alternatives like Celestia or EigenDA to minimize L1 gas dependencies.

Guaranteed throughput and latency: Your chain's performance is not shared with other apps on a shared L2. With dedicated blockspace, you can achieve sub-second finality for your users. This matters for high-frequency trading DEXs or real-time social apps where predictable performance is critical.

You are the infrastructure provider: Requires significant DevOps to run and secure sequencers, provers, and bridge validators. No native shared security from Ethereum for sequencing. This matters for teams with limited infra expertise or those who prioritize developer velocity over ultimate control.

Leverages Starknet's battle-tested prover network and sequencer logic: Reduces the validator attack surface and operational risk. You inherit the security of a live network processing 50+ TPS. This matters for enterprise applications and institutional DeFi where security audits and reliability are non-negotiable.

Architecture is opinionated: Must use the Starknet sequencer and SHARP prover network. Customization for data availability (e.g., using an external DA layer) is more limited. This matters for projects needing hyper-optimized cost structures or novel consensus mechanisms not supported by the base layer.