ZK

Brilliant_Error5370

Are you living under a Rock? Here are some of the major advancement; Ethereum Smart Contracts, Rise of Decentralized Finance (DeFi), Layer 2 Scaling (2020–2024), Stablecoin Expansion, Proof-of-Stake Revolution (2020–2023), Cross-Chain & Interoperability (2020–2024), Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) (2020–2025), Institutional Adoption (ETFs), Real-World Asset Tokenization (2023–2025), Solana’s High-Performance Chain (2019–2025), Crypto Gaming Boom (2021–2025), Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZK tech), Regulatory Frameworks Worldwide

RefrigeratorLow1259

I think Midnight has the edge though on true regulatory risks with privacy coins : https://midnight.network/ tldr; Midnight is a Layer 1 blockchain developed by IOG (Cardano's core team), engineered for compliant, programmable privacy via its "Rational Privacy" model. It uses a dual-token system (NIGHT for governance/security, DUST for private, non-transferable transaction fees) to eliminate regulatory risks associated with standard privacy coins. The platform enables selective disclosure via ZKPs and utilizes Compact (a TypeScript-based language) for ZK smart contracts, making it the dedicated privacy backbone for the Cardano ecosystem and enterprise use cases.

whatwilly0ubuild

Stablecoin routing makes sense but implementation details matter more than the pitch. The core value is just token swapping with payment abstraction, which DEX aggregators already do. Question is whether enterprise packaging creates real differentiation. Privacy for B2B payments is actually useful. Companies don't want every payroll transaction or vendor payment publicly visible. Competitors can analyze transaction patterns and supplier relationships from on-chain data. ZK privacy solves a real problem for enterprise payments. Our clients doing cross-border stablecoin payments constantly hit token mismatches. Sender has USDC on Polygon, recipient wants USDT on Arbitrum. Current flow needs multiple swaps and bridges adding fees and failure points. Router abstraction fixes this. The middleware concern is valid though. Adding another layer creates new dependencies. If AnomaPay goes down or has liquidity issues, payments fail. Enterprises hate dependencies on unproven infrastructure for critical flows. Fee abstraction is table stakes for enterprise adoption. Non-crypto users don't understand gas tokens. Deducting everything from payment amount in stablecoin terms removes massive onboarding friction. Devnet status is concerning for serious evaluation. Until mainnet with real liquidity and proven reliability, it's vaporware. Lots of projects have great whitepapers and terrible execution. Practical barrier: most enterprises doing stablecoin payments are still figuring out basic treasury and compliance. Adding privacy layers complicates legal and accounting workflows. Market might be smaller than the pitch suggests. Honest take: routing concept is solid and privacy has enterprise value, but succeeding requires solving liquidity, reliability, and compliance challenges way harder than the technical implementation. Watch for mainnet usage and enterprise case studies, not devnet announcements.

MinimalGravitas

> layer 2 networks continue to expand The only 'real' Bitcoin L2 (as in a layer that is actually secured by the L1) is Lightning, and that has been reducing in capacity over time... the amount of Bitcoin that was using Lightning dropped by about 30% between August 2024 and August 2025: https://news.bitcoin.com/data-shows-sustained-slide-in-lightning-network-capacity-channels-through-2025/ It seems intentionally midleading to use a phrase like "continue to expand" when it is doing the opposite... There are of course other chains that claim to be 'L2s' and often use phrases that sound plausible like 'ZK rollup'... but as far as I can tell all of these are just variations of sidechains/commit chains... not actually using Bitcoin L1's security but instead they are just completely seperate networks that post commits to Bitcoin, presumably to trick non-technical Bitcoin maxis into supporting them! They are equivalent to the relationship between Gnosis or Polygon with Ethereum L1... tangentally linked but not in the ways which actually count. > I am not the delusional one here. I never used that term, and I wasn't replying to you.

MinimalGravitas

> Reliance on Layer-2s for scaling is still unhealthy. Why? Rollups settle to Ethereum L1 and use blobs on Ethereum L1 for their data availability. Are you maybe just thinking that 'L2' means sidechain? If so then you have very much misunderstood the term. As an example of the difference, a user with assets on a rollup can always exit directly back to the L1 just by making a transaction on the L1, a feature sometimes referred to as an escape hatch. This works even if the rollup operators turn evil and censor all transactions on the L2 or even shut it down completely... and this isn't just theoretical, an early ZK rollup called dYdX shut down and everyone who hadn't bridged back to Ethereum then had to use the escape hatch to withdraw. It's also silly to pretend that L2s have not been the plan and that they are just a stop-gap when sharding is what was intended... the Rollup Centric Roadmap was published over 5 years ago now and has been recognized as a better way to scale than the old ideas about L1 shards. Also, tonight's upgrade does include a type of sharding, Peer Data Availability Sharding (PeerDAS), which will allow up to 8x more throughput to be processed by rollups (so over 200,000 TPS)... the limit will be demand for transactions rather than network capacity. And finally: > The real TPS of Etheruem still remains 15 per second. Ethereum L1 is processing about 25 TPS at the moment and the peak today was 57 TPS... all time high was 136 TPS... so let's not pretend the limit is 15 huh? https://www.growthepie.com/chains/ethereum

HSuke

It's due to Lighter L2. I've never heard of it before. It's a ZK perpetuals DEX. That single L2 is producing as many transactions as the rest of the L2s combined. I have no idea how a DEX even uses 10k TPS, or even 1k TPS.

MakCapital

Meaningless statement. Want to see a decent degree of financial privacy for trading and balances across all the most used things in Web3. Leveraging ZK will help bring us there. Just need to move fast. Not asking for or asserting opinions on any sht coin or the idea that something is not private if someone like the DEA can make semi plausible assumptions while trying to track illicit funds. Any degree of privacy is better than the 0 privacy the majority of web3 runs on. An original goal of every major chain, but was pushed back due to regulatory fear.

Podsly

Yer there will be a lot more. It never made sense. Good tech, but there more utility out there with programmability and ZK proofs.

Burbucoin

The real gem on ZK proofs was always Hush's no-opt sapling chain. This whole absurd campaign promoting Zcash as a privacy savior has been utter nonsense.

MinimalGravitas

> I think privacy and compliance is going to be a huge factor in the choice Why do you think this? What kinds of privacy and/or compliance do you believe would be possible on a private L1 vs an L2? One of the biggest accountancy institutions in the world (EY) maintain the OS resources for Nightfall, a ZK based protocol designed and built specifically for financial institutions who want a 'plug-and-play' solution for privacy on rollups they deploy to Ethereum. https://www.ey.com/en_gl/newsroom/2025/04/ey-upgrades-nightfall-a-zero-knowledge-roll-up-enabling-private-transactions-on-the-ethereum-blockchain As far as regulatory compliance, are you aware of Project Guardian, the overarching group of which [Deutsche Bank's L2 (Memento)](https://gbaglobal.org/blog/2025/01/15/deutsche-bank-enters-l2-with-zksync-is-your-institution-ready-yet/) and a range of other Ethereum projects by [BNY](https://www.bny.com/corporate/global/en/about-us/newsroom/press-release/bny-expands-digital-asset-platform-with-launch-of-innovative-on-chain-offering.html), [Citi](https://www.lfdecentralizedtrust.org/case-studies/citi-transforms-transaction-banking-services-with-besu), [DBS](https://www.dbs.com/newsroom/DBS_expands_blockchain_capabilities_by_tokenising_and_distributing_structured_notes), [Fidelity](https://www.coindesk.com/business/2025/03/22/fidelity-files-for-onchain-u-s-treasury-fund-joining-the-asset-tokenization-race), [J.P. Morgan](https://archive.fo/IR99q) etc? As well as these financial services companies, there are also plenty of governmental regulators involved such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (who head the project), the UK's Financial Conduct Authority, Japan's Financial Services Agency, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank... https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/mas-media-library/news/media-releases/2024/annex-a--list-of-participants-in-project-guardian-industry-group.pdf So really I'm not sure there is a reality based argument that regulatory compliance or privacy requirements favours private L1s over Ethereum based L2s. Are there any other reasons you can think of that an entity could have for building and running their own L1 chain rather than tapping into the Ethereum ecosystem?

Decentralization-God

You are asking the right questions, but do not expect rational answers from Bitcoin maxies :) I also had some btc, I mean minor amount, it was already expensive back in 2021. I sold with 100% yield so it kind of worked for me. However it is like going to Las Vegas, win a poker or roulete game and say - it worked for me LOL In terms of technical aspects Bitcoin got obsolete technology and the fact that “tech folks” do not care about obsolete technology must be a red flag for everyone, a kind of paradox. How is that possible? It is like shipping Windows 1 and telling everyone it is great and does not need to evolve much, it is perfect piece of SW!! Obviously this is funny comparison, so what is that factor? Well, bitcoin as technology remains the same and impractical. All those usual arguments of bitcoiners are weak and false, as they use arguments of general crypto currency - they still argument as if there was only Bitcoin out there. Obviously you can send money to different country via dozens of other crypto currencies etc. But the ultimate factor for BTC is that some folks created funny anti-system narratives (later replaced with orthogonal digital gold narratives), and created sort of religion on top of technology. That is where faith comes from - it is pretty weird to me, as a tech guy, to see other tech guys who fall to worshipping a technology and making weird claims comparable to african shamans and disregarding other more advanced technology (sh*tcoins). I still respect Bitcoin as the first project, a referential and working implementation. But in sw you need to evolve and evolve fast. Where are smart contracts which are to be the future? Privacy and ZK stuff? Throughput? I highly recommend some books on this like “Hijacking Bitcoin” where it is explained in better terms. Also the fact that Satoshi does not want to be identified and linked with Bitcoin - comment it, explain it, evolve it, that speaks for itself. In my opinion he/they know(s) that they just ignited a whole new industry, layed those foundations and showed the path to follow … but there are already others who walk that path better and carry the decentralization ethos without fallbacking to stupid “digital gold” narratives and typical Wallstreet greed demonstrated by Saylor and others. While other platforms start offering the real use soon, from Bitcoin you hear only price speculations and narratives for newcomers - buy, buy, buy (we need you to buy!) 🤑

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Vitalik Buterin advocates for implementing Zero Knowledge (ZK) proofs on Ethereum to enable private account abstraction, allowing users to control funds without revealing wallet addresses. He emphasizes privacy as a mandatory feature for Ethereum, aiming to meet regulatory constraints and enhance competitiveness. This privacy-centric approach could drive mainstream adoption, increase liquidity, and make Ethereum more competitive against emerging blockchain networks. Institutions are already exploring private Ethereum Virtual Machines for compliance. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

rayQuGR

this is exactly why ecosystems like Oasis have been investing early in advanced cryptography (TEE, ZK, FHE) and researching post-quantum–resistant designs. The shift he’s calling for is already underway there — privacy + security as a first-class priority, not an afterthought.

Numerous_Ruin_4947

>Bitcoin >u/Bitcoin >Bitcoin is an open source censorship-resistant peer-to-peer immutable network. Trackable digital gold. Don't trust; verify. Not your keys; not your coins. >[https://x.com/Bitcoin](https://x.com/Bitcoin) So Bitcoin's strength now is that it can be traced by the government?! Meanwhile Vitalik is pursuing more privacy options for Ethereum. [https://www.theblock.co/post/379149/vitalik-buterin-unveils-kohaku-privacy-focused-framework-ethereum](https://www.theblock.co/post/379149/vitalik-buterin-unveils-kohaku-privacy-focused-framework-ethereum) >***Vitalik Buterin unveils Kohaku, a privacy-focused framework for Ethereum*** >*Kohaku is an open-source initiative to enhance onchain privacy and security. It offers a modular framework of primitives to allow developers to build secure, privacy-focused wallets without relying on centralized third parties, and may evolve to include tools like mixnets for network-level anonymity and ZK-powered browsers.*  And then there’s the quantum-computing risk. Bitcoin is ossified, but even it will eventually have to change - and that’s when people will realize the protocol isn’t some untouchable monolith, but a codebase updated by a handful of developers. On top of that, the block reward keeps halving every four years. You don’t control miners, and you can’t force them to keep securing the network if the economics stop making sense. A lot of them have already pivoted to AI data-centers because Bitcoin mining no longer pays their bills. Power and infrastructure costs keep rising, while transaction fees still contribute less than 1% of their revenue. BTC was about $58.6k four years ago. It isn’t even 2× that today - and that’s before factoring in inflation, which has eaten into miner margins even further. For miners to stay ahead of rising costs and shrinking block rewards, Bitcoin’s price has to keep more than doubling every cycle. That’s a tall order. [https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/bitfarms-dumps-bitcoin-mining-all-in-ai-as-profitability-drops/](https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/bitfarms-dumps-bitcoin-mining-all-in-ai-as-profitability-drops/) >***Bitfarms Dumps Bitcoin To Go All-In on AI as Crypto Mining Profitability Drops*** >*Bitfarms Ltd., one of North America’s long-standing* [*Bitcoin (BTC) mining firms*](https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/bitcoin-mining-crisis-major-firms-abandon-crypto-for-ai-and-hpc/)*, is officially exiting the business that built it.* >*The Toronto-based company announced it will wind down Bitcoin mining operations over the next two years and convert its facilities into* [*infrastructure for artificial intelligence (AI) a*](https://www.ccn.com/opinion/technology/data-center-capacity-continued-growth-ai/)*nd high-performance computing (HPC).* [https://coincentral.com/bitcoin-mining-faces-growing-challenges-warns-mara-ceo-fred-thiel/](https://coincentral.com/bitcoin-mining-faces-growing-challenges-warns-mara-ceo-fred-thiel/) >***Bitcoin Mining Faces Growing Challenges, Warns MARA CEO Fred Thiel*** >*The Bitcoin mining industry is entering a tough phase, with increasing competition and shrinking profit margins. Fred Thiel, CEO of MARA Holdings (MARA), highlighted these issues in an interview with CoinDesk, emphasizing the intensifying difficulties miners are facing. Thiel warned that as more participants enter the market, profitability for many will continue to decline, with energy costs determining the threshold for survival.*

Still_Theory179

I think it's likely Zooko IS Satashi, I mean he's on record trying to make a decentralized money much earlier and was the first to blog about BTC. Way too much of a coincidence, I respect him leaving it behind and starting fresh without exposing who he is and using it as marketing for zec  But alas, people know and that coupled with zec pioneering and now integrating ZK in. Battle tested way helps explain the recent explosion. 

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Uniswap has introduced Continuous Clearing Auctions (CCA) on Ethereum's Uniswap v4, enabling transparent, on-chain token sales with market-driven pricing and automatic liquidity bootstrapping. CCA eliminates off-chain deals, ensuring equitable access and fair allocation. The inaugural sale is for Aztec Network's AZTEC token, featuring privacy-focused tools like ZK Passport for compliance. CCA aims to revive the inclusive spirit of 2017 ICOs while addressing their flaws, offering a new standard for token launches in DeFi. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Podsly

We’re starting to get industry and government waking up. When the solutions can both be decentralised and abide by KYC, industry will come to crypto. You can only do that with ZK, which is starting to get traction. But what you need is selective disclosure and programmability for privacy. Enter Midnight. They want to be the privacy layer for dApps. Under and government will only get on board in a big way if ZK is done properly. Take for instance, being able to verify a wallet is owned by 1. A voter who is registered to vote. 2. In country X. If you can have certainty about that. Then you can also do other verification required for commerce.

MaximumStudent1839

From timing wise, the ZEC pump coincided with its Tachyon upgrade. Most of the market seems extremely confused on what is what. Some ZEC advocates are saying it is because of anticipating of “upcoming” ZEC halving - an event happened last year, rofl. Some are saying it is because of ZEC is seeing a surge of adoption - very weird argument when you realize it processes fewer tx than the fading away Cosmos hub. The gist of the Tachyon upgrade is scaling its ZK txs tps in the shielded pool. But I have never seen the market pump a tech upgrade like this without the follow up metric to show real adoption. It is seems like a very weird outlier.

Saffuran

The money that is exiting BTC, ETH, SOL, Major Alts, and Shitcoins but not landing back in USDC/USDT is going into the ZK/Privacy infrastructure. Zero Knowledge like ZCash, ZKsnarks (ETH), STARK, Monero e.t.c. It is a macro trend and I think the liquidity heading there isn't moving back into BTC or the "surface market" anytime soon - they're expecting the bear market which may make the ZK assets ones that will rise as BTC bleeds.

Original-Side7370

I get what you mean — in cryptography, privacy is defined in binary terms: either data is revealed, or it is perfectly hidden. From a protocol-design perspective, that’s absolutely correct. But what I’m pointing at isn’t the cryptographic layer. It’s the user-facing visibility layer — the part that sits above the math. In real economic life, humans already operate with different levels of visibility: • transparent to the counterparty • opaque to outsiders • selectively revealable under legal or social context • locally visible but not permanently recorded Those are not “grey zones” in cryptography — they’re interaction models that sit on top of cryptographic primitives. Selective privacy is not a weakening of privacy. It’s a way of mapping real human use-cases onto digital systems, while still allowing strong auditability when necessary. Crypto tends to jump from physical cash → ZK systems, but there’s a middle layer that traditional finance captured well (relationship-based visibility, role-based access, context-based disclosure). What I’m interested in is whether public blockchains can support that layer too — not instead of binary privacy, but built on top of it.

Original-Side7370

That’s exactly the fascinating part — as ZK, FHE, and MPC mature, the limitation stops being computational and becomes philosophical. Once cryptography is strong enough to hide everything by default, the real question becomes: What should remain visible? And to whom? And under what social context? In other words, when the technology finally makes perfect invisibility possible, human societies will have to re-decide their own gradients of visibility. That’s where things get really interesting. Because markets where no one sees the order books… still need some actors to see something: • the counterparty • the auditor • the regulator • or the social relationship itself Otherwise we lose the relational aspect of economic life. So I don’t think the future debate will be “transparent vs. hidden.” It will be: “How much visibility does a human relationship require — and how much can technology gracefully step out of the way?” That feels like the real frontier to me.

motiondevv

While our current stack is Web2-based, we are structuring our data models to later integrate with decentralized data infrastructures such as Convex, which provides a high-performance consensus lattice for managing immutable global state. This allows us to define and enforce ownership and sharing policies directly on-chain without sacrificing speed or user experience. Data Flow: \- Capture: Raw motion data is captured by the V.1 wireless sensors. \- Encryption: The data is immediately encrypted locally on the user's device (similar to end-to-end messaging, as we mentioned), which is our primary layer of privacy preservation. \- Storage: Encrypted data is temporarily stored in our back end using standard security policies. \- Tokenization/Blockchain/ DLT Use: The blockchain & other DLT solutios will be used to establish immutability and ownership of the data pod (the container of the wellness data) and to enforce user-defined data-sharing policies, not to verify the contents of the raw data itself. Trust Assumptions: We currently capture data from the sensors but do not verify its accuracy at the point of capture. Unlike in other sectors (e.g., drug development), there is no immediate monetary incentive for tampering with wellness data. This reduces the primary attack vector. We are evaluating decentralized execution layers like Convex that use lattice technology and Convergent Proof of Stake (CPoS) to maintain trusted, convergent state without the bottlenecks of blockchains. This would allow us to cryptographically enforce user-defined data policies (access, anonymization, consent) while remaining composable with future ZK modules. We don’t plan to build privacy or data-policy mechanisms from scratch. Instead, we aim to leverage proven decentralized infrastructures to handle the global consensus layer, while we focus on secure local capture and user experience. This phased path allows us to evolve from Web2 privacy to fully cryptographically-verified, decentralized trust.

_The_Chris_

How exactly do you cryptographically verify motion and biometrics on-chain while preserving privacy. Describe the data flow, proofs used (e.g., ZK, attestations), and where trust assumptions remain.

puckmugger

Simplified explanation for the inept: Imagine you have a busy highway (Ethereum network + its scaling layers) and you want lots of cars (transactions) to pass through quickly, cheaply. You also have some new super-fast lanes (layer 2s + ZK-rollups) to help relieve congestion. Great. But then there’s a single toll booth (the modexp precompile) that’s super slow whenever certain kinds of cars use it. It doesn’t stop all cars, only some kinds of cars (those requiring that particular crypto operation). But because these kinds of operations are common in some of the new scaling / ZK stuff, the slow booth backs up traffic, slows everything down, and raises costs. So even though you’ve built the super-fast lanes, the toll booth still forces many cars into a jam or makes them pay a lot more. That means your overall highway throughput (transactions per second), or cost per car (gas/fees), gets worse than potential. And the new lanes don’t work as well or as cheaply as they could.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Ethereum is facing a critical scaling issue due to the 'modexp precompile,' an encryption algorithm created by Vitalik Buterin in 2017. This algorithm significantly slows down Zero Knowledge (ZK) rollups, which are essential for Ethereum's scalability. Vitalik admitted the algorithm was a mistake and proposed an Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) to replace it with a more ZK-friendly solution. The current algorithm increases execution difficulty by up to 50 times, potentially causing consensus failures and negating the benefits of recent upgrades like Dencun and Pectra. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

MaximumStudent1839

A lot of things have a fixed supply. There are a lot of Bitcoin forks. For example, Litecoin also has a fixed supply and native privacy feature. Do you see that thing pumping? A lot of the newly converted "privacy advocates" are arguing it is because they think ZK is superior to mixers, TEE, etc. I bet you 100% most of them don't know wtf mixers or TEE are besides reading points off their influencers' notes.

visionarysloth

ZK - zero knowledge is all about privacy. So is Zcash, Dash, Monero, Beam, grin, ghost and many others. Not everything is a public ledger.

trillionSdollarstech

Uh no. Research continued afterwards and gave birth to more secure, less wasteful and more capable blockchains (Ethereum was the first of them). Then ZK-STARKS was invented to make L2s as secure as their L1 blockchains while being 100x faster.

redshift_11

Wow ZK just had a 10% jump in 1 second..

johnfintech

I can see where you got "Solana and Sui" from :). It's not just those two. But I happen to like Sui so I don't mind, heh. I haven't seen this paper, thanks for the pointer. It's a nice review. I'll edit my post and include it. I used to dislike review papers, but I grew to appreciate them. This one seems like something everyone interested in the topic should read. The one I indicated is technical, describes an actual implementation of a ZK based migration for EdDSA. In fact it's the 2nd citation in the paper you mentioned.

leech666

Sorry I can't resist shilling Firo a little. Firo, formerly Zcoin, is also one of the OG privacy coins originating roughly at the same time as Zcash. It was a couple of months earlier in its usage of ZK technology. While Zcash probably was more secure/private back then Firo has since evolved massively and is criminally undervalued at the moment for a coin on par with Zcash and Monero. Just like with Zcash privacy is optional though, unlike Monero which has privacy by default.

whatwilly0ubuild

GKR isn't new, it's been around in academic literature for years. Vitalik writing about it just brings more attention to techniques that researchers already knew about. The improvements are real but incremental, not revolutionary. The main benefit of GKR over SNARKs is you don't need a trusted setup ceremony. That's useful but it comes with tradeoffs in proof size and verification time. For most practical applications SNARKs or STARKs are still faster overall even with the setup overhead. Our clients building ZK systems care more about prover time than verification speed because generating proofs is the bottleneck. If GKR makes proving faster for specific types of computations that's valuable, but it's not replacing existing ZK tech across the board. The scalability claims depend heavily on the specific computation being proven. GKR works great for certain circuit structures but performs worse than alternatives for others. It's another tool in the toolbox, not a universal solution. Most of the ZK performance improvements lately come from better hardware acceleration and optimized implementations, not fundamental protocol changes. Getting existing protocols running on GPUs or FPGAs matters more than switching to GKR for most use cases. The hype around every Vitalik post is exhausting tbh. He's smart but the Ethereum community treats everything he writes like gospel when it's usually just consolidating existing research with his perspective on it.

GBeastETH

Despite this headline, the article says: Note that GKR is not "zero knowledge": it only handles succinctness, not privacy. If you want zero knowledge, wrap the GKR proof in a ZK-SNARK or ZK-STARK.

nichef

EIP 7732 will be included in the Glamsterdam update which is the update after the next, Pactra. ePBS aka enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation will make execution and consensus validation separate activities. This will change how validators get paid and you can choose which validation you are participating in. This will pave the way to ZK proving. It won't be out of pocket, block builders would be compensated for their activity. Companies like Brevis or Succinct (there are more too) will most likely be the ones doing the proving / block building and everyone else can validate those blocks. [https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7732](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7732)

ieatbees

this is huge for Ethereum's scalability! the ability to validate blocks faster with ZK proofs is a game-changer. reducing hardware costs and making it more accessible could open up Ethereum to a whole new range of validators and users, especially on lighter devices. i’m especially excited to see how this impacts gas fees and dApp performance long-term. it’s a breakthrough that could really set the stage for smoother, more efficient blockchain experiences

Mumen_Riderr

So UTXOs are just inherently simpler when it comes to state. A UTXO either exists or it doesn't. When you're building ZK proofs you're basically just proving "this UTXO exists and I can spend it". With account models you have to prove the entire current state of an account (balance, nonce, etc) and since that's constantly changing you end up with way more complex state management in your ZK circuits. The bigger issue imo is the centralization risk with account models. Most ZK rollups using accounts (zkSync, StarkNet, etc) rely on centralized sequencers because account balances HAVE to update sequentially ). You can't process two txs from the same account without knowing the order. So whoever runs the sequencer can front-run, censor, extract MEV... basically defeats the whole point. Privacy is also way better with UTXOs since they naturally break the input/output link. You can prove you're spending valid UTXOs without revealing which ones. Account models inherently tie everything to an address, so even with ZK you need extra layers to get similar privacy. In proof generation, with account models you often need to track the entire global state which means only entities with massive compute resources can generate proofs. UTXOs are more independent, so smaller operators can do it.

SolidityScan

That’s a big step for Ethereum scalability. Brevis’s Pico Prism could make real-time zero-knowledge proving practical, meaning faster rollups, lower latency, and cheaper on-chain verification. If it works as promised, it could push Ethereum closer to true mass adoption — where ZK tech runs seamlessly in the background without slowing user experience.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Polygon co-founder Sandeep Nailwal criticized the Ethereum Foundation for not supporting Polygon despite its significant contributions to scaling Ethereum. Nailwal expressed frustration over the lack of recognition and support, claiming Polygon's market value could be higher if it operated independently. Sonic Labs' Andre Cronje echoed similar concerns, highlighting uneven support for developers. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin acknowledged Polygon's contributions and suggested future collaboration through advancements in ZK technology. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Vitalik Buterin has introduced the GKR (Goldwasser–Kalai–Rothblum) protocol, a new proof system aimed at enhancing Ethereum's efficiency in proof verification and scaling. GKR enables faster and more efficient zero-knowledge computations by processing proofs in logarithmic time and reducing computational overhead. While not inherently zero-knowledge, it can integrate with ZK-SNARK or STARK layers for privacy. This aligns with Buterin's vision for a scalable, quantum-resistant Ethereum network, supporting advancements in rollups and zero-knowledge-based scalability. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

jekpopulous2

Yeah but it depends on the specific rollup. With optimistic rollups it takes 7 days to prove the state of the chain which adds a layer of risk. ZK rollups reach finality nearly instantly so they’re insanely difficult to tamper with. AliPay is using ZK proofs. SWIFT is also using a chain (Linea) that generates ZK proofs. The largest rollups (Base and Arbitrum) both use optimistic proofs currently but they’re moving to hybrid models that also generate ZK proofs. So yeah there’s a trade off but as ZK proofs are adopted the risk keeps decreasing. No L2 will ever be as secure as L1 Ethereum but using an L2 that publishes ZK proofs is much safer than using an alt-chain with a more centralized set of validators.

jclaslie

Great to hear. Also, Grvt doesn’t seem to be getting as much attention as it deserves right now. The “dark pool” narrative people are pushing around that Aster DEX is what Grvt built so much earlier with ZK tech. Feels very underrated right now.

I_Hate_Reddit_69420

L1 bitcoin is not really useable for small payments, so those payments would need to happen on a L2. As it lightning network does support micro sats, so you can send a fraction of a sat. As you pointed out, LN does have issues, but there is progress being made on ZK-rollups on top of Bitcoin, which in my opinion would make for a superior L2. That could also just use fractions of satoshis.

ConcordiumMod

Hello u/chain_miner! Thanks a lot for your great questions 🙏 1. About the Hilbert Group investment: We don’t see this as just an investment but as a strategic partnership because our goals are aligned. Beyond capital, there is ongoing collaboration to position Concordium as the primary infrastructure layer for the next generation of institutional and consumer payments. Hilbert is already helping connect us with new partners, and together we are focused on driving ecosystem growth and accelerating the adoption of traditional finance on-chain. Keep watching this space, and you will be pleasantly 2. About the Concordium ID App and ZK-Proofs: We are very happy to hear your excitement about the ID App. A lot of work is being done to achieve feature parity across Concordium’s native wallets and the ID App, as well as to integrate with more wallets to give developers a larger user base. You may have seen our partnership with Ledger, which enables ZK-proof-based verification and stablecoin payments for more than 7.5 million users. That is only the beginning. Now that the infrastructure is in place with the ID App and stablecoins on mainnet, we are launching hackathons to educate, inspire, and support developers in building new applications and use cases. You should join our next Townhall this quarter, where we will share many exciting new updates.

whatwilly0ubuild

The 20% dev tax is called the "Founders Reward" and it's controversial as hell. It was supposed to fund development but it also means miners get less and the incentive structure is weird compared to pure PoW coins. Monero's donation model is cleaner philosophically even if it means slower funding. Zcash's node software situation is a mess. You're right that it feels semi-abandoned compared to Monero's polish. Zcashd deprecation without a clean replacement path is amateur hour for a project that's supposedly focused on privacy. Our clients building privacy infrastructure almost always pick Monero because the tooling is just more mature. The bigger problem with Zcash is optional privacy. Most transactions still use transparent addresses because shielded transactions cost more and are slower. That means the anonymity set is way smaller than Monero where every transaction is private by default. ZK-SNARKs are theoretically stronger but practically useless if nobody uses them. Monero's privacy is mandatory which means you've got a massive anonymity set and better real-world privacy even if the cryptography is less fancy. Zcash's tech might be more advanced but adoption and ease of use matter more than theoretical privacy guarantees. The trusted setup ceremony for Zcash is another red flag that Monero doesn't have. If that ceremony was compromised the whole system could be printing unlimited coins and nobody would know. Monero doesn't require trusting some initialization process. Your Monero purism is justified tbh. Zcash had potential but the execution has been lacking and optional privacy kills the whole value prop.

goldyluckinblokchain


coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Railgun contributors have developed a private multi-signature wallet on Ethereum, addressing a privacy feature requested by Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. The wallet uses zero-knowledge proof (ZK proof) technology to enhance security and privacy, hiding user identities while enabling multi-factor authentication. This innovation responds to Buterin's call for privacy protocols to support multi-signature wallets, a key security standard in the crypto industry. Railgun plans to demo the wallet at an upcoming conference in Argentina. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

AgnewTheModHamster

$ARRR Matey, ZK is the way forward..

eetaylog

Agree. The anonymous, granular system that you described is essentially a ZK framework. No government should be able to control and coerce the decisions it's citizens makes to the level that these proposed IDs would allow. Ever.

riscten

Yep, ZK is definitely part of the equation. What you describe would be awesome but I wouldn't hold my breath for it. The chances of this being implemented at scale in our lifetimes is essentially nil. I would be OK with some centralized system where you could hand out granular, anonymized parameters ("can drive a car", "is over 18", "has a credit score over 700") as bits of data signed by some trusted verifying authority. I mean we're already doing a lot of this authorization stuff quite elegantly in tech, there just needs to be a political will and the technical know-how (which I realize is a massive ask).

Kike328

reason: the eth foundation has funded almost single handlely all the ZK research and thank to them we have ZK proofs

IvanTechnoOp

Depends on the country I'm in. For some examples DuitNow, PromptPay, Keepz, OnePay, SBP, etc. usually they are built by local central banks but sometimes private, depends. Still, it's not that interesting, although literally the most common way to pay for like coffee on the street. Free and fast stablecoins transfers on ethereum networks - that's the real deal. Immediate confirmation by the sequencer + fast L1 finality (with actual plans to reach single-slot using ZK proofs), tokens more stable than dollars at the bank, best of all worlds. You know that your credit card transactions are reversible, right? That means even after "settling" they are not technically final for quite a while. Entirely different approach from most crypto and doesn't compare apples to oranges, no idea why you're forcing this comparison - but still you never fucking wait by the terminal for twenty minutes to an hour waiting for confirmation!

ConcordiumMod

Hi u/eth_mines, Thanks for all the questions! If you think about it, the combo of Protocol Level Tokens + Native ID Layer pretty much unlocks every real-world use case you can imagine — while still keeping blockchain speed, efficiency, and reliability. A few examples: • **Age-Verified Stablecoin Payments:** With regulators tightening rules in places like the UK, France, and parts of the US, there’s a real push for solutions that can enforce age checks without giving up privacy. Concordium’s ID Layer + ZK proofs make it possible for someone to prove they’re 18+ (or meet any other requirement) without sharing personal data. When this plugs into stablecoins as PLTs, it’s already getting serious interest from merchants and payment providers in areas like adult content, gambling, and gaming. • **Trade Finance & Tokenised MMFs:** Concordium’s programmable locking means collateral can be locked or released at the protocol level based on supply-chain events or milestones. That cuts out expensive third-party escrow and reduces smart contract custodial risks. We’ve already got Spiko — one of Europe’s biggest tokenised money market funds — on board, and we’re in late-stage talks with major trade finance players who want to use this to streamline deals without escrow. • **Travel Rule Compliance for Institutions:** For exchanges, brokers, custodians, and prime brokers, Travel Rule compliance is a pain point. With Concordium’s ID Layer, ZKPs, and our partnership with Notabene, Travel Rule data exchange can be automated, making stablecoin transactions fully compliant while still being straight-through settled. That’s a big deal for institutional networks where delays around margin calls and collateral transfers slow things down for their clients.

palacheenka

ADA so is undervalued. Its properties, like robustness, reliability, decentralization, security and soon scalability will sooner or later get a fair evaluation. There's no way around a truly decentealized system. It's very well positioned to become an L2 for Bitcoin DeFi because it uses an extended version of UTxO that Bitcoin uses. It will be lossible to trustlessly use Bitcoin with Cardano DeFi to get yield on BTC without trusting a bridge because it will use ZK and therfore it will be trustless. Great things are coming. Cardano's treasury ensures there's money to develop the ecosystem further and to finance the projects that bring utility to Cardano. All done in a decentealized way by the community. It's time to slowly let memes go and adopt real dApps that solve real world problems.

chain_miner

Thanks for sharing the updates! My questions are about ecosystem growth: How is Concordium measuring the impact of the Hilbert Group investment beyond capital (e.g., introductions to new institutional partners)? The ID App is powerful. What are the plans to incentivize community developers to build dApps that specifically leverage ZK-Proofs?

user_name_checks_out

> BitBloom Protocol: AI-Compressed Media Wrappers for Bitcoin > > Building on the foundational ideas of Counterparty (asset issuance via Bitcoin UTXOs) and RGB (client-validated off-chain contracts with on-chain anchors), we propose BitBloom, a novel protocol that introduces AI-driven neural compression to embed rich media like JPEGs into Bitcoin's constrained data spaces without core modifications. Unlike prior systems that rely solely on hashing or sharding, BitBloom leverages lightweight neural autoencoders to transform images into ultra-compact latent representations—reducing a typical 1MB JPEG to under 100 bytes of on-chain data—while enabling verifiable off-chain reconstruction. This is a fresh evolution, not documented in existing protocols as of October 3, 2025, blending machine learning with Bitcoin's security for sustainable media anchoring.Core Mechanics > > Neural Encoding Layer (New Introduction): > > Use a shared, open-source autoencoder model (e.g., based on PyTorch's variational autoencoders, pre-trained on diverse image datasets) to compress the JPEG. The encoder outputs a fixed-size latent vector (e.g., 64-128 dimensions, quantized to 8-bit integers for brevity), capturing semantic essence like shapes, colors, and textures. > > This vector is the "bloomprint"—a novel, invertible representation that's not just a hash (like IPFS CIDs in RGB) but a compressible blueprint. For example, a 512x512 JPEG becomes ~512 bytes total (vector + metadata), fitting easily into OP_RETURN or Taproot witness data. > > Innovation: The model includes a "fidelity watermark," a subtle perturbation in the latent space that embeds a Bitcoin tx hash, ensuring reconstruction ties back to the anchor without full re-encoding. > > Bitcoin Anchoring (Built on Priors): > > Mint the asset via a standard Bitcoin transaction: Embed the bloomprint in an OP_RETURN output or RGB commitment, similar to Counterparty's colored coins or Taproot Assets' issuance. This creates a UTXO representing the NFT, with the tx ID serving as the root of a Merkle proof for ownership transfers. > > For scalability, integrate with Lightning Network (like Taproot Assets): Initial mint on-chain, then off-chain hops for trades, settling only when disputed. > > No bloat: Unlike Ordinals' full inscriptions, only the bloomprint hits the chain—~0.001% of original size—sidestepping the 300-byte "30" limit you mentioned by design. > > Off-Chain Reconstruction and Validation (Hybrid Extension): > > Holders use a compatible wallet (e.g., a BitBloom-enabled extension for Electrum or Bitmask) with the shared decoder model to regenerate the full JPEG from the bloomprint. Reconstruction is deterministic and local, preserving privacy—no central server needed. > > Verification: Peers can challenge reconstructions via zero-knowledge proofs (ZK-SNARKs, building on RGB's client validation) to confirm fidelity against the original. If the watermark mismatches the anchor tx, the asset invalidates. > > New twist: Evolutionary semantics—the protocol includes hooks for model updates (e.g., fine-tuning on community-submitted JPEGs), allowing NFTs to "evolve" over time (e.g., aging effects or style transfers) while maintaining Bitcoin-secured provenance. > > Why It's Superior to Core Mods or Existing Wrappers > > Efficiency Over Bloat: Modifying Core for larger OP_RETURN risks consensus forks and fee spikes (as with 2023-2024 inscription wars). BitBloom keeps Bitcoin pristine, with data costs under $0.01 per mint vs. $10+ for full embeds. > > Beyond Static Assets: Counterparty and RGB handle fungibles/NFTs well, but they're metadata-agnostic. BitBloom's AI layer enables dynamic media—e.g., generative art NFTs that remix based on holder inputs—without Ethereum-like gas wars.

AltTimeHigh

There’s a new ZK kid in town, zkVerify mainnet token launched today just over an hour ago and at a very low initial value compared to some of the other zk projects.

palacheenka

Deliver what? You do realize that most of the chains that "have delivered" have delivered poorly decentralized blockchains with big token allocations by VCs and in many cases with shitty tokenomics with high inflation and unlimited max supply? Cardano has stayed true to its philosophy - max decentralization first scalability later. And we'll get scalability soon without sacrifising decentralization and security. Cardano will get multiple scalability solutions in 2026 - Better state channels (Hydra), L1 scaling (a 50-60x) with Leios, ZK rollups, optimistic rollups, sidechains (the first one in Q4 2025) and a new ZK based VM called Starstream on L1 which has the potential of speeding up tx 100-1000x. With speed come also low cost tx, more usecases and users. Reliability, scalability and costs to run the blockchain are already one of the lowest in industry.

sirporter

If disclude BTCs downtime in its infancy and include ETHs then yes BTC looks better. EIP 1559 has the potential to make ETH deflationary so that could actually improve its potential to be sound money. I agree that both BTC and ETH will be successful. BTC is optimizing to be a store of value and less so a currency. Transaction fees are not an issue when everyone holds, similar to gold. When ETH implements ZK proofs on the L1, we will see ETH scale immensely and allegedly get to 10,000 tps on the L1 with low fees. This increase in transaction volume will likely cause it to turn deflationary. If ETH executes on this, it’s hard to imagine it not winning both the currency and defi competition.

Calm_Voice_9791

This is not what we meant by bringing ZK to Bitcoin.

vattenj

The longer I stay in the branch, I realize that this is a balance between privacy and transparency. On one side you want total privacy to protect individual's freedom, but total privacy would first attract criminals and many of the illegal activities. A good society can not run without rules, just like a healthy human body would need immune system and healthy living habits to maintain its top condition So far, I think ZK based Railgun's approach is getting close to this good balance: No one knows your balance and funds origin, at the same time you still can prove to anyone that your funds are not from an illegal origin

vattenj

The biggest hope I can see is the wide spread of blockchain based ZK technology, which proves your innocent without revealing anything. The negative side is, it would only blacklist already reported criminal relations, so it takes some time to generate a proof of innocence

jawni

>It’s funny because everyone thought rollups were the endgame Well besides the fact that ZK and rollups aren't mutually exclusive, I don't think that's true. I don't think anyone really had any strong thoughts, as it's inherently very technical and beyond the scope of most people's understanding, until [Vitalik's "Endgame" blog post](https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html). Then it went from no one really having any strong thoughts, to people just parroting Vitalik's opinion that ZK was the endgame. Notice how he name dropped Loopring, which became probably the most popular L2 token here until people could tell it wasn't realizing it's potential.

Kehmor

I mean with everything you've listed; sometimes. Liquidity is the most interesting point you raised, but with bridging costs as low as they are arbitrage makes it functionally a non-issue for almost all users. Them having the option to be centralized is a good thing; some things require centralization, others do not. The web3 obsession with decentralized everything is why we have a billion pseudo governance tokens. It has become a buzzword and detracts from the original point of Defi. The security threat is minimal depending on the L2; ZK rollups or hybrid rollups in particular are very secure.

namieorange

Dis you read the latest Sutton post on X? It is a very long but extremely well explained post about what it means for Kas and the future. Just a little segment of the post: “Native onchain smart contracts will lead to centralization due to increased hardware requirements on L1 nodes, as well as significantly complicate the L1. We want Kaspa L1 to focus on data throughput and sequencing, and not on computational tasks and complex state. The point of vprogs is to balance these tradeoffs, use zk for offchain computation, and yet add just enough components to L1 so that the interaction between zk programs is synchronous and free and provides the same unified dev and user experience as native L1 programmability”. Kaspa isn’t adding heavy base-layer contracts — it’s building vProgs: zk-powered smart contracts w/ sovereignty + full composability, giving devs an L1-like UX but w/ Kaspa speed + security. It’s a ZK based L1/L2 system. Basically, it gives the same experience and security of L1 without the trade off that Sol or ETH have with centralization

quanta_squirrel

When it comes to ZK proofs, there are no implementations that are recognized as quantum secure by *any* standardization body. The true crypto community knows not to roll your own crypto.

OGsuperbear

ARB, OP, ZK, POL all going to get crushed if Base does this.

palacheenka

It's Cardano. Cardano takes decentralization very seriously that's also a reason why it's taken so long to build. It's now in a position where fundamentals are laid out and everything that's going to be built on top will take less and less time. A price of 0.17 ada/tx doesn't seem that high to me if you're not doing lots of small value tx. Also other solutions are coming soon, like L2 optimistic rollups, ZK rollups, side chains. With these the tx costs is (will be) absurdly low without compromising decentralization.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Dyn_company and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1nb2n38/unigoxs_zktls_smarter_fiat_verification_for/ African traders! Tired of P2P scams & fake screenshots? UNIGOX uses ZK-TLS to verify actual fiat transfers instantly, no trust needed. Crypto releases from escrow only after payment’s confirmed. Fast (<2 min), fraud-free, & supports local banks/mobile wallets. Thoughts on P2P verification challenges? Visit - https://guide.unigox.com) #CryptoAfrica *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Post is by: kelvinpodolski and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I2nTK3aAccNoYlv-0niCzSzRcu3R0TFq/view?usp=drivesdk The next monumental shift in the global economy is underway: the migration of real-world assets (RWA) onto the blockchain. From tokenized real estate and corporate bonds to verifiable carbon credits and immutable supply chains, we are witnessing the dawn of a new financial and operational paradigm. This transition promises unprecedented liquidity, transparency, and accessibility. However, a critical chasm threatens to undermine this entire revolution. The challenge is not merely the digitization or tokenization of an asset—it's the fundamental question of **trust**. How can a decentralized network, designed to be trustless, confidently interact with data from the inherently flawed and often opaque off-chain world? Without a verifiable, tamper-proof bridge between these two realms, even the most innovative RWA project is built on a foundation of sand. This is the core problem Orochi Network was built to solve. It is more than just infrastructure; it is the essential **backbone of truth** for the next generation of decentralized applications. As part of Orochi’s "Turn it ON" Campaign, we’re diving deep into how its cutting-edge convergence of cryptographic proofs, scalable architecture, and robust consensus is unlocking a future where real-world assets can thrive on-chain with absolute integrity. ### **The Trust Gap: Why Verifiable Data is Non-Negotiable for RWA** The allure of RWA is clear. Imagine a world where a fraction of a skyscraper in Manhattan can be owned and traded as effortlessly as a meme coin, or where a farmer in Kenya can use their land as collateral for a loan on a global DeFi platform. The potential for democratization is staggering. But the current reality is fraught with risk. Most oracle systems, which feed off-chain data to on-chain smart contracts, operate on a model of delegated trust. They rely on a committee of nodes to report data, but they cannot cryptographically *prove* that the data is correct and unaltered. This creates a single point of failure and opens the door to manipulation, corruption, or simple error. **The consequences of unreliable data are catastrophic:** * A tokenized property deed based on incorrect land registry data is worthless. * A supply chain smart contract triggered by falsified shipping logs leads to massive financial loss and broken trust. * A carbon credit that cannot be irrefutably proven to represent a real reduction in emissions is merely greenwashing, eroding the entire market's credibility. The success of RWA doesn't hinge on the token standard used; it hinges on the **verifiability of the data** behind the token. ### **Bridging the Gap: Introducing Orochi's Verifiable Data Infrastructure** Orochi Network approaches this challenge not with incremental improvements, but with a fundamental architectural revolution. It builds a new layer of truth where data doesn't just come with a promise, but with a **cryptographic proof**. This is achieved through three core pillars: **1. Orocle: The Verifiable Oracle System** Orochi’s flagship solution, Orocle, moves beyond the "trusted reporter" model. It provides mathematically verifiable proofs of data integrity and origin. This means that any smart contract consuming data from Orocle can cryptographically verify not just *what* the data says, but *how* it was acquired and that it hasn't been tampered with during transmission. This transforms data from an opinion into a fact, creating an unbreakable chain of trust from the source to the on-chain contract. **2. zkOracle & OnProver: The Power of Zero-Knowledge Proofs** Taking verifiability a step further, Orochi integrates Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) through its zkOracle and powerful **OnProver** system. This allows the network to prove that a specific computation was performed correctly on a set of data *without revealing the underlying data itself*. 👉 **Explore the technical capabilities of OnProver here: [https://onprover.orochi.network](https://onprover.orochi.network)** This has profound implications for privacy and compliance. For instance, a financial institution can prove an investor is accredited without exposing their private financial records, or a company can verify it meets certain ESG criteria without disclosing proprietary operational data. **3. A Robust Consensus Layer** Underpinning everything is Orochi’s resilient consensus mechanism. It’s engineered to ensure liveness and reliability even under adversarial conditions, preventing data downtime and ensuring that the truth is always available when the network needs it. Together, these components form a holistic ecosystem for **data truth, scalability, and interoperability**—the exact building blocks the RWA sector desperately requires. ### **The Impact: A New Era for Real-World Applications** With Orochi as the foundational layer, the vision for RWA becomes not just possible, but practical and secure. * **Real Estate & Fractional Ownership:** Property titles, rental income verification, and property valuation data can be fed on-chain with cryptographic proof, enabling truly trustworthy and liquid markets for real estate assets. * **Supply Chain & Provenance:** Every step of a product’s journey—from raw material to store shelf—can be recorded and verified. Consumers could scan a QR code and receive a ZK-proof that their product is authentic, ethically sourced, and has not been tampered with. * **Decentralized Finance (DeFi):** Tokenized stocks, bonds, and other securities can be built with unwavering confidence in their underlying data, enabling seamless integration with DeFi protocols for lending, borrowing, and trading without the fear of oracle manipulation. * **Carbon Markets & ESG:** Orochi can anchor environmental data—from IoT sensors on reforestation projects to satellite imagery—directly onto the blockchain. Each carbon credit becomes a cryptographically backed certificate of genuine impact, eliminating fraud and restoring faith in these critical markets. ### **Why the "Turn It ON" Campaign is a Call to Builders** The "Turn it ON" campaign is a recognition that powerful technology alone is not enough. It requires a community of visionaries—builders, entrepreneurs, writers, and thinkers—to understand its potential and amplify its value. Orochi is inviting this community to engage, to imagine, and to build the future on a foundation of verifiable truth. This is more than a technical upgrade; it's a philosophical shift towards a more transparent and accountable digital economy. ### **Final Thoughts: The Future is Verifiable** The tokenization of everything is inevitable. But the quality of that future—whether it is robust, inclusive, and trustworthy—depends entirely on the infrastructure we build today. Orochi Network is not just participating in this transition; it is actively ensuring its integrity. By providing the tools for cryptographically guaranteed truth, Orochi empowers developers, enterprises, and entire industries to build with confidence. It ensures that the bridge between the real world and the blockchain is not a shaky rope bridge, but a fortified, verifiable highway. As we "Turn It ON," we are not just launching features; we are illuminating the path to a future where our digital and physical assets can finally interoperate with perfect trust. **The future isn't just on-chain. It's verifiable.** --- 🔗 **To learn more and dive into the technical details, explore the resources below:** * **Official Website:** [https://orochi.network](https://orochi.network) * **Blog & Use Cases:** [https://orochi.network/blog](https://orochi.network/blog) * **Technical Documentation:** [https://docs.orochi.network](https://docs.orochi.network) * **OnProver Platform:** [https://onprover.orochi.network](https://onprover.orochi.network) #OrochiNetwork #TurnItON #VerifiableData #RWA #RealWorldAssets #Blockchain #Oracle #ZeroKnowledgeProofs #ZKProof #DeFi #SupplyChain #ESG #Web3 #Infrastructure #Innovation #FutureOfFinance *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Post is by: Objective_Room_7955 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1n3dfnf/revolutionary_zkkyc_solution_next_defi/ Revolutionary KYC Solution for DeFi - Investment Opportunity The biggest problem facing DeFi today: regulatory compliance without sacrificing privacy. The Problem: DeFi protocols face increasing regulatory pressure for KYC Users refuse to share personal data on-chain Current solutions are centralized and vulnerable $100B+ DeFi market needs compliance solutions My Solution: Zero-Knowledge KYC system that lets users prove identity without revealing it. Why This Will Moon: First-mover advantage in ZK-KYC space Every major DeFi protocol will need this technology Multiple revenue streams from one system Production-ready with live deployment What's Included: Complete smart contract system ZK-SNARK proof implementation Live deployment on Base Sepolia Professional documentation Commercial licensing rights Full source code + support ROI Potential: License to protocols: $50K-150K each \- SaaS subscriptions: $50-200/month per client \- Enterprise deals: $500K+ potential \- Token launch opportunity later Investment Details: Entry: $25K-45K for complete system Proven technology (not just whitepaper) Immediate deployment capability Exclusive licensing available This could be the infrastructure play that powers the next DeFi bull run. Serious inquiries only - DM for technical demo. \#DeFi #ZeroKnowledge #KYC #Investment #CryptoGems *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Post is by: marketmaker89 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/HiddenAlpha/comments/1n36p40/succinct_prove_token/ ATTN: I AM NOT A SPECULATIVE CRYPTO INVESTOR HOWEVER, I can’t unsee opportunity once I see it. It is why I have made a significant bet on Succinct. If interested - Coinbase trades the token. Why Succinct? Succinct Labs is quickly becoming the backbone of zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) – the tech that’s about to reshape blockchain scaling, privacy, and cross-chain trust. Their SP1 zkVM lets devs write normal Rust code and instantly turn it into proofs, while their Succinct Prover Network is a live marketplace where independent provers compete to generate proofs cheaply and at scale. They’ve already powered 5M+ proofs across 35+ protocols securing $4B+ in value, with heavyweights like Polygon, Celestia, Lido, and Arbitrum onboard. Backed by Paradigm and Polygon’s founders, plus an exclusive deal with Offchain Labs, Succinct is positioned to be the “Chainlink of ZK.” The PROVE token isn’t just governance fluff – it’s the fuel and collateral that runs this proving economy, with provers staking it, users spending it for computation, and stakers earning yield. With ZK proofs viewed as the endgame for blockchain scaling and expected to improve 10–100x in efficiency over the next few years, Succinct sits at the center of a massive growth wave. If ZK is the future, PROVE is a direct bet on that future’s backbone. (Invest accordingly and at your own risk) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

MinimalGravitas

> I know that scaling the L1 will increase hardware requirements Just for clarity, it's not really about hardware requirements, which at least anyone can theoretically meet through upgrading their machines. The real issue is internet bandwidth, because in many places around the world there simply is not the fibre optic infrastructure to support the high speed of connection that would be required to run all the transactions through a single L1. > but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing as long as its not on the level of parallelized chains like Solana, Sui, Aptos, etc. Even if Ethereum had to increase its hardware requirements, they'll still be thousands nodes running around the world and Ethereum would still be one of the most decentralized chains in the world. My point wasn't really about general decentralization, because yea, like you say that's not really in question. What a higher bandwidth requirement would mean though would be that there would be different tiers of user, based simply on where they happened to live. Those of us lucky enough to live somewhere with high speed fibre as an option would be able to use the chain trustlessly, whereas those in more remote locations would not have the option to do so. That doesn't seem very cypherpunk. As you say, most who can run a node don't want to, but I think we should try to maintain the possibility that anyone who wants to can do so. If not, and Ethereum just becomes a system where many people have no option to use the network trustlessly, then what is the point of it, what advantage is there over the centralized legacy systems? > Lastly, even with the requirements being raised, it would still be more decentralized than its own L2s. Again, it's not completely clear what you mean by 'decentralized' here, but as you were talking about hardware requirements, are you aware that you can run nodes for most of the main L2s (e.g. Arbitrum, Optimism etc) on cheap ARM hardware like the Rock 5b or Raspberry Pi 5: https://ethereum-on-arm-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user-guide/running-l2-clients.html Like I said above, eventually with SNARKifying the L1 and other future upgrades (https://ethroadmap.com/verge.html) we will get to the point where nodes have negligible hardware requirements and use very low bandwidth (verifying ZK proofs of the state rather than needing the full history of every transaction), and at that point we'll be able to scale to an almost arbitrarily high throughput, but we aren't there yet and so I think it makes more sense to prioritize the trustlessness that gives the network value rather than sacrifice that for shortcuts to higher TPS in the near term.

0xpolygonlabs

* **Interoperability**: Agglayer uses pessimistic ZK proofs so no chain can rug another. * **Performance vs decentralization**: This is done through technical advancements and optimization of the existing protocols. Decentralization is definitely an important feature as we continue scaling.  * **User experience**: end-users don’t even need to know what chain they’re on. Wallets and apps abstract that away. We are actively building ways to make that abstraction easier for developers through things like our Agglayer Dev Portal and work the R&D team is doing on zk tech, chainless apps, etc * **RWA safeguards**: Agglayer inherits Ethereum security and adds proof layers for compliance-sensitive assets.

S1W-brn

Polygon raised 500M USD in the past and bought ZK teams like Miden. Do you still see these as solid investments that brought enough value to Polygon? Especially now a lot of these buy ins are being spun out? Does Polygon need to repay the 500M that was raised?

epistmeme

I agree with Vitalik. Cross chains introduce new security problems. Vitalik's reddit comment from 2022 pasted below: The fundamental security limits of bridges are actually a key reason why while I am optimistic about a _multi-chain_ blockchain ecosystem (there really are a few separate communities with different values and it's better for them to live separately than all fight over influence on the same thing), I am pessimistic about _cross-chain_ applications. To understand why bridges have these limitations, we need to look at how various combinations of blockchains and bridging survive 51% attacks. **Many people have the mentality that "if a blockchain gets 51% attacked, everything breaks, and so we need to put all our force on preventing a 51% attack from ever happening even once". I really disagree with this style of thinking; in fact, blockchains maintain many of their guarantees even after a 51% attack, and it's really important to preserve these guarantees.** For example, suppose that you have 100 ETH on Ethereum, and Ethereum gets 51% attacked, so some transactions get censored and/or reverted. No matter what happens, you still have your 100 ETH. Even a 51% attacker cannot propose a block that takes away your ETH, because such a block would violate the protocol rules and so it would get rejected by the network. Even if 99% of the hashpower or stake wants to take away your ETH, everyone running a node would just follow the chain with the remaining 1%, because only its blocks follow the protocol rules. More generally, if you have an _application_ on Ethereum, then a 51% attack could censor or revert it for some time, but what comes out at the end is _a consistent state_. If you had 100 ETH, but sold it for 320000 DAI on Uniswap, even if the blockchain gets attacked in some arbitrary crazy way, at the end of the day you still have a sensible outcome - either you keep your 100 ETH or you get your 320000 DAI. The outcome where you get _neither_ (or, for that matter, _both_) violates protocol rules and so would not get accepted. Now, imaging what happens if you move 100 ETH onto a bridge on Solana to get 100 Solana-WETH, and then Ethereum gets 51% attacked. The attacker deposited a bunch of their own ETH into Solana-WETH and then reverted that transaction on the Ethereum side as soon as the Solana side confirmed it. The Solana-WETH contract is now no longer fully backed, and perhaps your 100 Solana-WETH is now only worth 60 ETH. Even if there's a perfect ZK-SNARK-based bridge that fully validates consensus, it's still vulnerable to theft through 51% attacks like this. **For this reason, it's always safer to hold Ethereum-native assets on Ethereum or Solana-native assets on Solana than it is to hold Ethereum-native assets on Solana or Solana-native assets on Ethereum**. And in this context, "Ethereum" refers not just to the base chain, but also any proper L2 that is built on it. If Ethereum gets 51% attacked and reverts, Arbitrum and Optimism revert too, and so "cross-rollup" applications that hold state on Arbitrum and Optimism are guaranteed to remain consistent even if Ethereum gets 51% attacked. And if Ethereum does _not_ get 51% attacked, there's no way to 51% attack Arbitrum and Optimism separately. Hence, holding assets issued on Optimism wrapped on Arbitrum is still perfectly safe. The problem gets worse when you go beyond two chains. If there are 100 chains, then there will end up being dapps with many interdependencies between those chains, and 51% attacking even one chain would create a systemic contagion that threatens the economy on that entire ecosystem. This is why I think zones of interdependency are likely to align closely to zones of sovereignty (so, lots of Ethereum-universe applications interfacing closely with each other, lots of Avax-universe applications interfacing with each other, etc etc, but NOT Ethereum-universe and Avax-universe applications interfacing closely with each other) This incidentally is also why a rollup can't just "go use another data layer". If a rollup stores its data on Celestia or BCH or whatever else but deals with assets on Ethereum, if that layer gets 51% attacked you're screwed. The DAS on Celestia providing 51% attack resistance doesn't actually help you because the Ethereum network isn't reading that DAS; it would be reading a bridge, which _would_ be vulnerable to 51% attacks. To be a rollup that provides security to applications using Ethereum-native assets, you have to use the Ethereum data layer (and likewise for any other ecosystem). I don't expect these problems to show up immediately. 51% attacking even one chain is difficult and expensive. However, the more usage of cross-chain bridges and apps there is, the worse the problem becomes. No one will 51% attack Ethereum just to steal 100 Solana-WETH (or, for that matter, 51% attack Solana just to steal 100 Ethereum-WSOL). But if there's 10 million ETH or SOL in the bridge, then the motivation to make an attack becomes much higher, and large pools may well coordinate to make the attack happen. So cross-chain activity has an anti-network-effect: while there's not much of it going on, it's pretty safe, but the more of it is happening, the more the risks go up.

4luey

ZK is a sleeper.

harpocryptes

Activity keeps growing on Ethereum, unlike Bitcoin: [https://i.snipboard.io/IJ16ZK.jpg](https://i.snipboard.io/IJ16ZK.jpg)

Alex_Nillion

ZK is one of several different types of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs), and like others, ZK is good at certain types of compute and bad at others. Nillion aims to combine several different types of PETs (like multi-party computation, fully homomorphic encryption, TEEs, etc) to allow developer to work with the security parameters & strengths that they need. We started with TEEs and MPC because they allow for the fullest range of private compute and we'll be expanding our set of PETs in the future. We'd love to hear about what you are building and see how Nillion can help. Send me a DM and I'll connect you to our ecosystem team.

vattenj

I think so far ZK is our best hope, to prove the source of fund is legitimate while not revealing any amount or address information The main purpose of KYC is just to establish some kind of traceability, in case something went wrong, you have someone to blame. But if the money is clean and nothing could go wrong in the first place, then the traceability would be unnecessary

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Concordium has launched a mobile app for anonymous age verification using zero-knowledge proofs (ZK-proofs), allowing users to confirm their age without revealing personal details. The app, available for iOS and Android, creates an encrypted ID for age checks on third-party services. This privacy-focused solution comes amid backlash against the UK's mandatory online ID checks for age verification. Concordium is engaging with UK regulators to ensure compliance, and the app costs about $0.01 to create a Concordium ID. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Sassy_Allen

ZK proofs can verify integrity, but they do not replace having the full application stack on chain. Offloading to client side proving still relies on off chain availability, uptime, and control, which means you are trusting that layer not to disappear or censor. ICP’s model keeps state, logic, and storage on chain while still allowing for optimizations, so you get verifiability without introducing a permanent dependency on external infrastructure. Knowing the industry means understanding that speed without availability and persistence is only part of the picture.

Sassy_Allen

Offloading state and execution off chain always introduces a trust assumption in whoever is holding or processing that data. Merkle proofs and ZK can verify integrity, but they cannot prevent downtime, censorship, or unilateral changes if the off chain component disappears or is controlled by a single party. ICP’s approach removes that dependency entirely by keeping state and execution on chain while still optimizing for efficiency. The idea that full on chain execution is “inefficient” ignores that efficiency without trustlessness just recreates a cloud service with extra steps.

002_timmy

Who thinks every blockchain is fully onchain? There’s an entire emerging field to use ZK to do client side proving offchain and then publishing the proofs onchain. You get fast speed with onchain verification. And anyone who’s paying attention to the industry they are investing in would know this

fisstech15

It’s entirely fine to offload some of the state and execution off chain. State can be merkelized and stored as a hash, execution can be verified using ZK. There is no security trade off here. Doing everything on chain is just inefficient.

Coreantes

ZK-proof / Midnight across all major chains!

Coreantes

Fundamentals look good, as in, it’s the first major drop that’s across the bigger chains. It promises to be the first all chains at the same time and provide ZK-proof, amongst other things…

Flaurentiu26

What you describe here is not double spend. The same thing can happen today, a reorg, if you don't wait enough block confirmations. Sure, if the miner have more power, he can reorg a longer chain of blocks, but this is not double spend, the coins will be spend only once, and he may be able to "revoke" the coins that he have send to you. Actually, with just a little more than 50% you will do nothing like that, the canonical chain will be far ahead of you if you try to do something like that. I am not trying to argue just for the sake of arguing. I am literally try to understand what is the real danger of having more than 50% of the hashing power. This is a useless attack, in my view. If the miner have just more than 50% that will not guarantee he will be able to mine a block for sure...and maybe the next block will be mine by a lucky solo miner on a usb stick miner, as it happen a few time in the past. Yea, the miner could have 90% of the hashing rate, and then he can mine whenever he wants, but he will end up creating a fork if he violate the protocol or he will just pull the rug under his feet by taking the network down. All this things are valid for Bitcoin, because it's the simplest network. I am not that familiar with Monero, but if such attach involves generating a fake ZK proof, then you can forget about it. Maybe there is a reason why the biggest mining pool never coordinate and come up with such an attack, because this is just a theoretical attack without any practical outcome.

Ok_Seat5245

This is why we need ZK proofs

MinimalGravitas

Bitcoin doesn't even have a feasible solution for the shrinking of the chain's security budget... it might not be viable in 20 years let alone 1,000 years. https://budget.day/ At some point the Bitcoin community is going to need to decide between: * Increasing throughput so that they can potentially have a chance at replacing block rewards with transaction fees. Last time they tried to have that conversation there was a civil war that resulted in the extreme levels of censorship you now see in Bitcoin forums and the forking off of Bitcoin Cash; * Or scrap the 21 million BTC limit and introduce 'tail emission' to maintain rewards for miners. This would probably be the least technically disruptive option, but sadly since Bitcoin got taken over by non-technical but rich influencers like Saylor, who have pushed 'store of value' over all other ideas and who would obviously react badly to introducing permanent inflation to the chain; * Or scrap mining altogether and move Bitcoin to a different consensus mechanism that doesn't need to pay constantly huge amounts of money to ASIC farms for their infrastructure and electricity costs. Honestly, making Bitcoin into an Ethereum ZK rollup (L2) would let them keep the hard limit and the block size, and would be so much more efficient in terms of security cost that it would probably be viable to survive on transaction costs already.

vattenj

Most of the innovation happens on ETH, with Stable coin, Defi, RWA, ZK, plenty of new exciting usage area

HSuke

> Buterin laid out a potential path to transition toward faster withdrawals using a hybrid “2-of-3” proof system that **combines ZK, optimistic (OP), and trusted execution environment (TEE) components**. What's interesting is that "optimistic rollups" and "zk rollups" don't exist on a technical basis. Rollups are simply rollups that have bridges to L1. They can have 1 bridge with a specific type of proof, or one or more bridges with 1 or more types of proofs. Their bridges can change over time. [Why "Optimistic rollups" and "ZK rollups" don't technically exist.](https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1gxnmzw/why_nearly_everyone_misunderstands_rollups/)

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Vitalik Buterin emphasizes the importance of reducing Ethereum liquidity withdrawal times to under one hour, prioritizing it over Stage 2 L2 decentralization. He argues that slow withdrawals push users toward risky bridging solutions, undermining Ethereum's trustless design. Buterin suggests leveraging improved zero-knowledge (ZK) proof systems and hybrid proof models to achieve faster withdrawals. His long-term vision includes near-instant cross-rollup settlements anchored by Ethereum L1, enhancing its role as a high-speed financial layer. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Timstertimster

because if history is any indication, the companies that physically implement these ZK proofs do so very lazily by first storing the unencrypted data in a database before sending it to the ZK proof API. then some douche with a laptop of said database backup file lets it get out by writing their password on a post it note and going on a 4 hour lunch.

upscaleHipster

Not a fan of this, but I noticed the article is garbage when mentioning that age verification is the end of anonymity online. This is done using **ZK-proofs** in the current proposal, which is tech ensuring that just verifying the age means that no other data is sent, including the actual age!!! How is that breaking anonymity?

Cryptotiptoe21

Damn you couldn't be farther from the truth! It sounds to me like you're upset because you held all of your assets in ethereum and you didn't do your due diligence to actually research Solana and you wonder why the price has outpaced ethereum in the past few years. More people are consistently using Solana then all chains on ethereum combined. I've made a simple list for people that want the truth to dispute everything that you said because damn near everything that you said is a lie or misconstruted... 1. "Solana lied about the circulating supply" Correction: Solana did not lie, but mishandled the disclosure of a loan from the Solana Foundation to a market maker in 2020, which involved ~11.3 million SOL. This was a transparency issue, not an attempt to hide supply permanently. Once discovered, the foundation corrected it, published a public report, and burned the excess tokens shortly after. That’s not "hiding for years"—this was addressed within weeks of launch. Sources: Solana Foundation Response, 2020 --- 2. "TPS is around 300, not 50,000. Anything more is fake." Correction: Solana’s architecture is fundamentally different. It processes parallelized transactions using Sealevel, unlike Ethereum’s single-threaded EVM. Solana can process tens of thousands of non-overlapping transactions per second. The 50,000+ TPS figure includes vote transactions because Solana's consensus is deeply integrated with transaction flow. That’s not marketing trickery—it’s a function of the network design. It’s also incorrect to say "300 TPS" is the limit—on-chain data regularly shows 2000–4000+ TPS, excluding votes, in real time. Dropped transactions occur during congestion, which all chains experience, including Ethereum and even its L2s. TPS dashboard: Solana Beach TPS Tracker Validator.app TPS Stats --- 3. "Hyper-centralized validators that halt the chain" Correction: While Solana has ~2000 validators, not 1000, the active set is over 1300+, with more coming online. Coordination during a halt is not proof of collusion—it’s a strength, showing validators can resolve critical issues in a decentralized-but-efficient manner. The halts (which mostly occurred in 2022) were due to design flaws that Solana Labs has since addressed via upgrades like QUIC, local fee markets, and Firedancer (Jump Crypto's independent validator client). Ethereum’s Lido controls >30% of validator stake, and RocketPool & Coinbase hold more. Solana’s top 20 validators do not control the majority of stake, and no entity can unilaterally halt the chain. --- 4. "SOL inflation is 5–10% and worst in smart contract blockchains" Correction: This is false or outdated. Solana’s current inflation rate is 5.5%, decreasing by 15% per year until it reaches a long-term steady state of 1.5%. ETH had inflation >4% pre-Merge and >10% during the ICO boom (2017–2019). Since the Merge, Ethereum’s supply is sometimes deflationary, but not consistently, and ETH inflation is tied to gas activity, which also impacts user costs. Moreover, Solana has very low fees (fractions of a cent), so inflation is used to compensate validators. That’s a design tradeoff, not a flaw—unlike ETH, Solana doesn't require high fees to secure the network. --- 5. "All research and innovation comes from Ethereum; Solana just copies" Correction: This is baseless tribalism. Solana has pioneered multiple innovations, including: Sealevel (parallel VM execution) Proof of History (cryptographic clock to order transactions) QUIC-based communication Firedancer (new validator client with 600K TPS throughput) ZK Compression State Compression for NFTs and Accounts Ethereum has brilliant researchers, yes—but Solana is not a copycat. They explore fundamentally different scaling paths. ETH chooses modularity and rollups; Solana focuses on monolithic performance. --- 6. "Solana L1 has no plan to scale, so it’s copying L2s like Ethereum" Correction: This is backward. Solana was designed to scale at L1 from the beginning. L2s are being built on top of Solana by third parties (e.g., Nitro on SolanaVM, Eclipse), but they are not required for scalability. These L2s exist for experimentation and custom environments, not because Solana can’t handle demand. Solana still processes more raw transactions per second than all Ethereum L2s combined. Liquidity fragmentation is an active issue on Ethereum—many users are stuck between Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, zkSync, etc., and bridges are often risky. Meanwhile, Solana has shared state across all apps on L1, allowing atomic composability—a feature L2 ecosystems cannot replicate easily. --- 7. "Dangerous trade-offs put users at risk" Correction: This is vague and emotional. Every chain makes trade-offs. Ethereum: favors decentralization and modularity, but users pay $5–$50 per transaction. Solana: favors throughput and latency, with lower hardware requirements than people think (many validators run on ~$100/month bare-metal servers). Solana’s low-latency, high-throughput model is exactly what powers its growth in consumer apps, like: Helium (5G) Render (decentralized GPU) Hivemapper (real-world mapping) Dialect, Jupiter, Backpack, and more. These trade-offs are deliberate, and they serve real use cases.

314stache_nathy

RingCT are battle-tested, is expensive make a attack (like Black marble), FCMP++ will be the same (or better) than ZK-SNARKS (Monero will have a +100 million anonimity pool with Quantum privacy). And FCMP++ will turn Payment Channels possible in Monero (Grease-XMR). Detail about Tachyon: Tachyon have dependency from POS, and will turn Zcash more centralized. 

YoungMoose71

That's an exaggeration, Arbitrum is already a stage 1 rollup, and is working on reaching stage 2 (fully decentralized apart from critical security). And multiple chains and researchers are working toward ZK-rollups providing further decentralization.

Rank_Brain

Simple ZK proofs.... So no need to give your keys... ANd yes it is legit I dived deep into the project they don't have a token so no paid promotions... It's a extension of this piece [https://bitvm.org/bitvm\_bridge.pdf](https://bitvm.org/bitvm_bridge.pdf)

MakCapital

Yeah, it's getting baked in on Solana and Ethereum. Solana has had limited ZK token issuance capabilities for some time and the framework for this tech is shipping as we speak. Won't be long until the native coin and whatever tokens wanting to leverage ZK proofs on the base layer actually start deploying. Privacy on major L1s isn't being ignored. At least the ones that matter. After that, I would have no reason to lock my value into something that acts as a poor SOV and terrible currency. Wouldn't make any sense if all I need is privacy.

314stache_nathy

Entities can suffer from regulatory pressure, and one thing is ZK-SNARK and another Zcash. Zcash has a creator who has often talked about putting a backdoor in Zcash.  * https://imgur.com/WVpjskJ * https://imgur.com/kOEDjjF * https://imgur.com/2qeluSw * https://imgur.com/pyXVKbb * https://imgur.com/Y0ftrrC These entities besides being subject to regulatory pressure use the dev fund, which centralizes the power of the hand in these organizations (in addition to the miners being robbed), this is not very different from pre-mining (if Zcash wants to use PoS this is a problem because the devs can get even more power). Monero has been developed decentralized by numerous devs and communities through ccs.getmonero.org for example, the main team is only responsible for the site and Github (and nothing prevents you from mirroring the code elsewhere, and the site is open-source), and where did you get that there are only 3? There are about 6 if I'm not mistaken, 4 anonymous and 2 public (Spagani left the project by the way), in relation to one of them u/SamsungGalaxyPlayer working for a blockchain analysis company, he himself said that he could show these tools to the main Monero team to improve Monero.  And no, Monero doesn't have organizations linked to the government directly supporting it, as is the case with Zcash. * https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/18zztme/comment/kgm1o1g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button * https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/18zztme/comment/kgl2ly2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button