Single Proof Submission, as implemented by zkSync Era and Scroll, excels at minimizing finality latency for individual transactions. Each batch is proven and settled on Ethereum independently, providing users with rapid, verifiable confirmation. For example, zkSync Era achieves finality in under 10 minutes, a key metric for user-facing applications like DEXs and NFT marketplaces where immediate feedback is critical. This direct approach ensures the security of each batch is anchored to Ethereum's consensus without dependencies on other proofs.
LABS
Comparisons
Proof Aggregation vs Single Proof Submission
A technical analysis for CTOs and architects on the core trade-offs between recursive proof aggregation (e.g., zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM) and single proof submission for zkRollup efficiency, L1 costs, and decentralization.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The L1 Cost Bottleneck in zkRollups
A data-driven comparison of proof aggregation versus single proof submission strategies for optimizing Ethereum L1 settlement costs.
Proof Aggregation, championed by protocols like Polygon zkEVM and StarkNet, takes a different approach by batching multiple validity proofs into a single aggregated proof for L1 submission. This strategy results in a significant trade-off: dramatically lower amortized L1 gas costs per transaction—often reducing fees by 50-80% for high-throughput applications—at the expense of increased finality latency. The aggregation window introduces a delay, as transactions wait for a sufficient batch size to maximize cost efficiency before the aggregated proof is submitted and verified on-chain.
The key trade-off: If your priority is low per-transaction cost and high scalability for backend processes or mass user onboarding, choose Proof Aggregation. If you prioritize predictable, low-latency finality for interactive dApps where user experience is paramount, Single Proof Submission is the superior choice. The decision hinges on whether your protocol's economics are more sensitive to gas fees or to confirmation speed.
tldr-summary
Proof Aggregation vs. Single Proof Submission
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of architectural trade-offs for scaling zero-knowledge applications.
01
Proof Aggregation: Cost Efficiency at Scale
Batched verification: Aggregates hundreds of proofs (e.g., from zkRollups like zkSync Era) into a single on-chain verification. This reduces L1 gas costs per transaction by 90-99%. This matters for high-throughput dApps like DEXs (Uniswap) and gaming where micro-transactions are essential.
90-99%
Gas Cost Reduction
02
Proof Aggregation: Latency & Complexity
Added latency: Requires waiting to collect multiple proofs before finalizing, adding seconds to minutes of delay. Increased proving complexity: Relies on specialized infrastructure like Risc Zero or Succinct for aggregation. This matters for real-time applications like payments or per-trade settlement where finality speed is critical.
Secs-Mins
Added Latency
03
Single Proof: Predictable Finality
Immediate on-chain verification: Each transaction or state update (e.g., a Tornado Cash withdrawal) is finalized as soon as its proof is submitted and verified. Provides sub-5 minute finality and simpler state management. This matters for protocols requiring instant, atomic settlement like privacy-preserving bridges or oracle updates.
< 5 min
Typical Finality
04
Single Proof: Prohibitive L1 Costs
High per-proof gas overhead: Each verification consumes significant L1 gas (e.g., 500K+ gas per Groth16 proof on Ethereum). This makes small transactions economically unviable. This matters for startups or applications with low transaction values where gas can exceed the principal amount.
500K+ Gas
Per-Proof Cost
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Proof Aggregation vs Single Proof Submission
Direct comparison of key technical and economic metrics for L2 scaling strategies.
| Metric | Proof Aggregation (e.g., zkSync, Polygon zkEVM) | Single Proof Submission (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Proof Cost per Batch | $0.02 - $0.10 | $200 - $500 |
Time to L1 Finality | ~30 min | ~1 week |
Inherent Trust Assumption | ||
Native ZK Proof Support | ||
Gas Fee Reduction for Users | 70-90% | 50-80% |
Prover Infrastructure Complexity | High (Specialized hardware) | Low (Standard nodes) |
EVM Opcode Compatibility | ~95% | 100% |
pros-cons-a
A Technical Comparison
Proof Aggregation: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for high-throughput rollup architectures at a glance.
01
Proof Aggregation: Cost Efficiency
Bundles multiple proofs into one: Aggregators like EigenDA or Avail can batch proofs from dozens of rollups (e.g., zkSync, StarkNet) into a single L1 verification. This reduces per-transaction L1 settlement costs by 70-90%, crucial for micro-transactions and high-frequency DeFi on L2s.
70-90%
Cost Reduction
02
Proof Aggregation: Scalability
Decouples execution from verification: By separating proof generation from final settlement, systems like Celestia and Polygon Avail enable near-linear scaling. This allows for 10,000+ TPS across the aggregated layer, supporting massive parallel execution for gaming and social apps without congesting the base layer.
10,000+
Theoretical TPS
03
Single Proof: Simplicity & Security
Direct, verifiable state transitions: Each rollup (e.g., Arbitrum One, Optimism) posts its own fraud or validity proof directly to Ethereum L1. This provides strong, atomic security guarantees and simpler engineering, reducing the trusted components and audit surface—critical for protocols managing >$1B in TVL.
> $1B
Typical TVL Threshold
04
Single Proof: Predictable Latency
Deterministic finality timeline: With no intermediate aggregation layer, proofs have a fixed path to L1 finality (e.g., ~20 min for Optimism fraud proofs, ~10 min for zkSync validity proofs). This predictability is essential for arbitrage bots, oracle updates, and cross-chain bridges requiring precise settlement windows.
10-20 min
Finality Window
pros-cons-b
Architectural Trade-offs
Single Proof Submission: Pros and Cons
Direct submission to L1 vs. aggregating proofs off-chain. Key strengths and trade-offs for protocol architects.
01
Proof Aggregation: Key Strength
Radical Cost Reduction: Batching proofs from multiple rollups (e.g., using zkSync's Boojum or Polygon zkEVM) can reduce L1 verification costs by 90%+. This matters for high-throughput dApps like perpetual DEXs (dYdX v4, ApeX) needing frequent state updates.
90%+
Cost Reduction
03
Proof Aggregation: Key Weakness
Increased Latency & Complexity: Adding an aggregation layer (e.g., using AltLayer or Espresso) adds latency (often 10-30 minutes) and introduces new trust assumptions or governance overhead. This matters for protocols like payment networks (e.g., Sablier) needing near-instant finality.
10-30 min
Added Latency
04
Single Proof Submission: Key Strength
Maximum Security & Simplicity: Submitting directly to Ethereum L1 (like Arbitrum One or Base) inherits Ethereum's full security with minimal additional trust assumptions. The architecture is simpler to audit. This matters for DeFi protocols with >$1B TVL (e.g., Aave, Uniswap) where security is paramount.
L1 Native
Security Model
05
Single Proof Submission: Key Strength
Predictable, Lower Latency: Finality is determined solely by L1 block time (~12 seconds for Ethereum) plus proof verification time, avoiding delays from batching windows. This matters for arbitrage bots, NFT minting contracts, or any application sensitive to confirmation time.
~12 sec
Base Latency
06
Single Proof Submission: Key Weakness
Prohibitive Cost at Scale: Each proof pays full L1 gas fees. At 100+ gwei, a single ZK proof verification can cost $500+, making frequent updates unsustainable. This matters for scaling social graphs (Lens Protocol) or enterprise micro-transactions.
$500+
Cost per Proof (High Gas)
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Proof Aggregation vs Single Proof Submission: L1 Gas Cost Breakdown
Direct comparison of gas cost and efficiency for ZK-Rollup proof verification on Ethereum L1.
| Metric | Proof Aggregation (e.g., zkSync Era, StarkNet) | Single Proof Submission (e.g., Base, Optimism) |
|---|---|---|
L1 Gas Cost per User Tx | ~$0.02 - $0.10 | ~$0.50 - $2.00 |
Proof Verification Frequency | Every ~10 min (batch) | Every transaction |
Gas Overhead per Proof | ~800K - 1.2M gas (shared) | ~200K gas (per tx) |
Cost Scaling with Users | Sub-linear (cost shared) | Linear (cost per user) |
Primary Cost Driver | Proof verification (ZK-SNARK/STARK) | L1 calldata & execution |
Supports Native L1 Composability | ||
Requires Trusted Setup (ZK) |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Strategy
Proof Aggregation for Cost & Scale
Verdict: The clear winner for high-volume, cost-sensitive applications. Strengths: Aggregating multiple user operations (e.g., zkRollup batches, StarkEx SHARP) into a single proof drastically reduces the per-transaction cost of on-chain verification. This is critical for protocols like dYdX or ImmutableX that process thousands of swaps or NFT mints. The cost savings scale super-linearly with batch size. Trade-offs: Introduces latency (batching time) and requires a sophisticated proving infrastructure (e.g., a sequencer with a prover node).
Single Proof Submission for Cost & Scale
Verdict: Prohibitively expensive at scale; only for low-frequency, high-value operations. Weaknesses: Submitting a new ZK-SNARK or STARK proof for every single state update (like a private transaction on Aztec) incurs massive, non-amortized L1 gas costs. This model does not scale for consumer apps.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between proof aggregation and single proof submission is a strategic decision balancing cost, security, and throughput.
Proof Aggregation excels at scaling throughput and reducing on-chain verification costs by batching multiple proofs into a single, succinct verification. For example, platforms like EigenDA and Avail leverage aggregation to achieve thousands of transactions per second (TPS) with finality costs measured in cents, not dollars. This model is ideal for high-frequency applications like rollup sequencers, gaming micro-transactions, and decentralized social feeds where per-transaction cost is the primary bottleneck.
Single Proof Submission takes a different approach by submitting each validity proof (e.g., a ZK-SNARK) directly to the L1. This results in superior, isolated security and deterministic finality for each transaction, as seen with zkSync Era and Starknet L2s. The trade-off is higher, less predictable gas fees per proof and lower theoretical TPS ceilings, making it a robust choice for high-value, security-critical operations like large asset transfers or protocol governance.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing operational cost at scale and maximizing throughput, choose proof aggregation. If you prioritize maximizing per-transaction security guarantees and deterministic finality, choose single proof submission. For most dApps, the decision maps to user experience: aggregation for consumer-facing, high-volume apps; single submission for institutional-grade DeFi or custody solutions.
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