Modularity that requires zero knowledge can assist in scaling web3

Web3 developers struggled for years to make systems scaleable. In the beginning, new technologies tend to be launched as monolithic stacks, which include everything. As technologies evolve, they become more specific, and companies specialize different parts of the stack for scalability. 

Blockchains are now a part of this. Web3 developers adopt these modular solutions in order to lower costs, improve efficiency and maintainability and reduce the cost of the system. 

Arbitrum and Optimism are two L2s that handle execution. These L2s offer a higher level of throughput, and charge lower fees, than Ethereum’s original L1. Celestia, EigenDA and other modular projects are optimizing the data accessibility layer.

The web3 ecosystem is maturing and it’s becoming clearer that specialization at every layer will be the way to go. It is possible to achieve a level of cost efficiency and scalability that was not previously achievable with monolithic design by having specialized teams perfect the different components.

ZK-rollups are the answer to blockchain scaling

When you factor in ZK technologies such as zero-knowledge rollups. 

ZK rollups, which use ZKPs to verify transactions, are the ideal scaling solution for Blockchains. Not only can they do this without divulging sensitive information but they also have the ability to validate the transactions quickly and with low gas fees if the tools used in their construction are correct. This is exactly what we did with zkVerify. 

With ZK rollup L2 chains, multiple transactions can be batched on the L2 before being sent to L1 in a single transaction. The aggregated transaction contains a cryptographic proof that can be used to verify the whole batch. 

ZKPs cost a lot and are computationally intense

One of the greatest challenges facing ZK-systems today is verifying and settling ZKPs. “Proof verification” This step is essential to ensuring that the ZKPs have cryptographic validity. It’s also required in order for ZK rollups on L1 to settle transactions. 

The proof is not needed for the optimistic rollups as they are based on another proof system, called fraudproofs. The assumption is that all transactions will be accepted by default. However, to maintain security, there’s a period of time during which any user can prove fraud in the event they find invalid transactions. The period of challenge can extend up to 7 days and slow down finality. Even with this disadvantage, optimism rollups are the most common scaling solution for blockchains today. 

ZK-rollups, on the other hand send the batch of transactions along with the state data for verification to the L1. The L1 updates the state of the rollup and verifies that the proof is valid on chain. The L1 approach increases the transactional throughput while maintaining stronger security without a long challenge period.

Modular ZKP is the solution

The modular approach can be extended beyond the basic layer. This modular approach, which has improved L1 chains like Ethereum in a significant way, can be used to ZK-rollups. 

In practice, how does this work? A standalone chain, just like Celestia, can manage the verification of proofs for ZK rollups and, in general, any system that relies on ZKPs. However, the L1 main chain will still settle the batch transactions. 

ZK rollups will be able to concentrate on their execution and the user’s experience by outsourcing proof verification. This proof-verification chain runs in parallel, but is still an independent chain. 

The cost reduction is more than 90 percent and the costs are more stable. In order to avoid a price structure that is dependent on Ethereum, this approach uses a more stable cost structure.ETH) gas prices—which can be volatile and unpredictable—ZK-rollups can offload the proof verification to another layer without those fluctuations. 

In addition, the modular proof layer is capable of being updated outside of Ethereum L1’s current limitations. Ethereum L1 has restrictions on what types of precompilations you can use. It means in simple terms that the modular proof service will be able to integrate new cryptographic technologies within a matter of weeks. Ethereum, on the other hand, may take several years before these updates are available.

The modular proof-verification can also be used for other ZK technology, such as any dApp which relies on proofs of zero knowledge. This is the beauty of a modular solution—it can be harnessed in any system that needs it. 

All blockchains will benefit from standardizing this most costly step of building systems using ZKPs. This brings us closer to an interoperable and scalable future.  

What happens if we don’t have modularity?

When we examine the projected growth in web3 for the coming years, it is predicted that the costs of ZK-rollups will skyrocket. 

Horizen Labs estimates that in 2023 $47,000,000 was spent by ZK-rollups for proof verification on Ethereum. It is estimated that proof verification will reach $1.5 billion, or even more, by 2028. It is estimated that decentralized apps will generate 90 billion verifications in 2030.

Proof verification is the most expensive part of a ZK Rollup. If it’s not innovated then ZK will have a difficult time scaling to 1 billion users. ZK rollups or ZK applications shouldn’t be so expensive, nor should we place unreasonable demands on the blockchain that slow down their development. 

The cost of verifying one proof with modular verification drops from about $20 to approximately $1.80 (using a Groth16 proofing scheme at 30 gwei and Ethereum at $3000). The massive savings in cost will open up new innovation frontiers for web3, such as new ZK apps, Bitcoin ZK rollups, proofing systems and others. Offloading proof verification from a ZK chain or application to a modular system can have a positive impact on any ZK-based chains and applications. 

The verification of zero-knowledgeproofs in web3 will increase as the number of proofs increases. ZKPs should be treated the same way as web3 as it becomes increasingly modular.