Ethereum researcher ladislaus.eth printed a walkthrough final week explaining how Ethereum plans to maneuver from re-executing each transaction to verifying zero-knowledge proofs.
The publish frames it as a “quiet however basic transformation,” and the framing is correct. Not as a result of the work is secret, however as a result of its implications ripple throughout Ethereum’s total structure in ways in which will not be apparent till the items join.
This is not Ethereum “including ZK” as a characteristic. Ethereum is prototyping an alternate validation path by which some validators can attest to blocks by verifying compact execution proofs moderately than re-running each transaction.
If it really works, Ethereum’s layer-1 position shifts from “settlement and information availability for rollups” towards “high-throughput execution whose verification stays low-cost sufficient for residence validators.”
What’s truly being constructed
EIP-8025, titled “Optionally available Execution Proofs,” landed in draft type and specifies the mechanics.Execution proofs are shared throughout the consensus-layer peer-to-peer community by way of a devoted matter. Validators can function in two new modes: proof-generating or stateless validation.
The proposal explicitly states that it “doesn’t require a hardfork” and stays backward suitable, whereas nodes can nonetheless re-execute as they do in the present day.
The Ethereum Basis’s zkEVM staff printed a concrete roadmap for 2026 on Jan. 26, outlining six sub-themes: execution witness and visitor program standardization, zkVM-guest API standardization, consensus layer integration, prover infrastructure, benchmarking and metrics, and safety with formal verification.
The primary L1-zkEVM breakout name is scheduled for Feb. 11 at 15:00 UTC.
The tip-to-end pipeline works like this: an execution-layer shopper produces an ExecutionWitness, a self-contained bundle containing all information wanted to validate a block with out holding the total state.
A standardized visitor program consumes that witness and validates the state transition. A zkVM executes this program, and a prover generates a proof of appropriate execution. The consensus layer shopper then verifies that proof as an alternative of calling the execution layer shopper to re-execute.
The important thing dependency is ePBS (Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation), focused for the upcoming Glamsterdam hardfork. With out ePBS, the proving window is roughly one to 2 seconds, which is simply too tight for real-time proving. With ePBS offering block pipelining, the window extends to 6 to 9 seconds.
The decentralization trade-off
If elective proofs and witness codecs mature, extra residence validators can take part with out sustaining full execution layer state.
Elevating gasoline limits turns into politically and economically simpler as a result of validation value decouples from execution complexity. Verification work not scales linearly with on-chain exercise.
Nonetheless, proofing carries its personal danger of centralization. An Ethereum Analysis publish from Feb. 2 experiences that proving a full Ethereum block presently requires roughly 12 GPUs and takes a median of seven seconds.
The writer flags considerations about centralization and notes that limits stay tough to foretell. If proving stays GPU-heavy and concentrates in builder or prover networks, Ethereum could commerce “everybody re-executes” for “few show, many confirm.”
The design goals to deal with this by introducing shopper range on the proving layer. EIP-8025’s working assumption is a three-of-five threshold, which means an attester accepts a block’s execution as legitimate as soon as it has verified three of 5 impartial proofs from totally different execution-layer shopper implementations.
This preserves shopper range on the protocol stage however would not resolve the {hardware} entry drawback.
Probably the most trustworthy framing is that Ethereum is shifting the decentralization battleground. At the moment’s constraint is “are you able to afford to run an execution layer shopper?” Tomorrow’s may be “are you able to entry GPU clusters or prover networks?”
The guess is that proof verification is simpler to commoditize than state storage and re-execution, however the {hardware} query stays open.
L1 scaling unlock
Ethereum’s roadmap, final up to date Feb. 5, lists “Statelessness” as a serious improve theme: verifying blocks with out storing giant state.
Optionally available execution proofs and witnesses are the concrete mechanism that makes stateless validation sensible. A stateless node requires solely a consensus shopper and verifies proofs throughout payload processing.
Syncing reduces to downloading proofs for latest blocks for the reason that final finalization checkpoint.
This issues for gasoline limits. At the moment, each enhance within the gasoline restrict makes operating a node more durable. If validators can confirm proofs moderately than re-executing, the verification value not scales with the gasoline restrict. Execution complexity and validation value decouple.
The benchmarking and repricing workstream within the 2026 roadmap explicitly targets metrics that map gasoline consumed to proving cycles and proving time.
If these metrics stabilize, Ethereum positive factors a lever it hasn’t had earlier than: the power to boost throughput with out proportionally growing the price of operating a validator.
What this implies for layer-2 blockchains
A latest publish by Vitalik Buterin argues that layer-2 blockchains ought to differentiate past scaling and explicitly ties the worth of a “native rollup precompile” to the necessity for enshrined zkEVM proofs that Ethereum already must scale layer-1.
The logic is simple: if all validators confirm execution proofs, the identical proofs will also be utilized by an EXECUTE precompile for native rollups. Layer-1 proving infrastructure turns into shared infrastructure.
This shifts the layer-2 worth proposition. If layer-1 can scale to excessive throughput whereas retaining verification prices low, rollups cannot justify themselves on the idea of “Ethereum cannot deal with the load.”
The brand new differentiation axes are specialised digital machines, ultra-low latency, preconfirmations, and composability fashions like rollups that lean on fast-proving designs.
The situation the place layer-2s stay related is one by which roles are break up between specialization and interoperability.
Layer-1 turns into the high-throughput, low-verification-cost execution and settlement layer. Layer-2s change into characteristic labs, latency optimizers, and composability bridges.
Nonetheless, that requires layer-2 groups to articulate new worth propositions and for Ethereum to ship on the proof-verification roadmap.
Three paths ahead
There are three potential eventualities sooner or later.
The primary situation consists of proof-first validation changing into frequent. If elective proofs and witness codecs mature and shopper implementations stabilize round standardized interfaces, extra residence validators can take part with out operating the total execution layer state.
Gasoline limits enhance as a result of the validation value not aligns with execution complexity. This path is determined by the ExecutionWitness and visitor program standardization workstream converging on transportable codecs.
Situation two is the place prover centralization turns into the brand new choke level. If proving stays GPU-heavy and concentrated in builder or prover networks, then Ethereum shifts the decentralization battleground from validators’ {hardware} to prover market construction.
The protocol nonetheless capabilities, as one trustworthy prover wherever retains the chain dwell, however the safety mannequin modifications.
The third situation is layer-1 proof verification changing into a shared infrastructure. If consensus layer integration hardens and ePBS delivers the prolonged proving window, then Layer 2s’ worth proposition tilts towards specialised VMs, ultra-low latency, and new composability fashions moderately than “scaling Ethereum” alone.
This path requires ePBS to ship on schedule for Glamsterdam.
ScenarioWhat needs to be true (technical preconditions)What breaks / fundamental riskWhat improves (decentralization, gasoline limits, sync time)L1 position end result (execution throughput vs verification value)L2 implication (new differentiation axis)“What to observe” signalProof-first validation turns into commonExecution Witness + visitor program requirements converge; zkVM/visitor API standardizes; CL proof verification path is steady; proofs propagate reliably on P2P; acceptable multi-proof threshold semantics (eg 3-of-5)Proof availability / latency turns into a brand new dependency; verification bugs change into consensus delicate if/when it’s relied on; mismatch throughout shoppers/proversHome validators can attest with out EL state; sync time drops (proofs since finalization checkpoint); gas-limit will increase change into simpler as a result of verification value decouples from execution complexityL1 shifts towards higher-throughput execution with constant-ish verification value for a lot of validatorsL2s should justify themselves past “L1 can’t scale”: specialised VMs, app-specific execution, customized price fashions, privateness, and so on.Spec/test-vector hardening; witness/visitor portability throughout shoppers; steady proof gossip + failure dealing with; benchmark curves (gasoline → proving cycles/time)Prover centralization turns into the choke pointProof technology stays GPU-heavy; proving market consolidates (builders / prover networks); restricted “garage-scale” proving; liveness depends on a small set of subtle provers“Few show, many confirm” concentrates energy; censorship / MEV dynamics intensify; prover outages create liveness/finality stress; geographic / regulatory focus riskValidators should still confirm cheaply, however decentralized shifts: simpler testifying, more durable proving; some gas-limit headroom, however constrained by prover economicsL1 turns into execution scalable in idea, however virtually bounded by prover capability and market structureL2s could lean into primarily based / pre- confirmed designs, various proving techniques, or latency ensures—probably growing dependence on privileged actorsProving value developments ({hardware} necessities, time per block); prover range metrics; incentives for distributed proving; failure-mode drills (what occurs when proofs are lacking?)L1 proof verification turns into shared infrastructureCL integration “hardens”; proofs change into broadly produced / consumed; ePBS ships and supplies a workable proving window; interfaces enable reuse (eg EXECUTE-style precompile / native rollup hooks)Cross-domain coupling danger: if L1 proving infra is careworn, rollup verification paths may additionally undergo; complexity / assault floor expandsShared infra reduces duplicated proving effort; improves interoperability; extra predictable verification prices; clearer path to greater L1 throughput with out pricing out validatorsL1 evolves right into a proof-verified execution + settlement layer that may additionally confirm rollups nativelyL2s pivot to latency (preconfs), specialised execution environments, and composable fashions (eg fast-proving / synchronous-ish designs) moderately than “scale-only”ePBS / Glamsterdam progress; end-to-end pipeline demos (witness → proof → CL confirm); benchmarks + attainable gasoline repricing; rollout of minimal viable proof distribution semantics and monitoring
The larger image
Consensus-specs integration maturity will sign whether or not “elective proofs” transfer from largely TODOs to hardened check vectors.
Standardizing the ExecutionWitness and visitor program is the keystone for stateless validation portability throughout shoppers. Benchmarks that map gasoline consumed to proving cycles and proving time will decide whether or not gasoline repricing for ZK-friendliness is possible.
ePBS and Glamsterdam progress will point out whether or not the six-to-nine-second proving window turns into a actuality. Breakout name outputs will reveal whether or not the working teams converge on interfaces and minimal viable proof distribution semantics.
Ethereum is just not switching to proof-based validation quickly. EIP-8025 explicitly states it “can’t base upgrades on it but,” and the elective framing is intentional. Consequently, this can be a testable pathway moderately than an imminent activation.
But, the truth that the Ethereum Basis shipped a 2026 implementation roadmap, scheduled a breakout name with mission homeowners, and drafted an EIP with concrete peer-to-peer gossip mechanics means this work has moved from analysis plausibility to a supply program.
The transformation is quiet as a result of it would not contain dramatic token economics modifications or user-facing options. But it surely’s basic as a result of it rewrites the connection between execution complexity and validation value.
If Ethereum can decouple the 2, layer-1 will not be the bottleneck that forces all the pieces attention-grabbing onto layer-2.
And if layer-1 proof verification turns into shared infrastructure, your complete layer-2 ecosystem must reply a more durable query: what are you constructing that layer-1 cannot?
