Ethereum researcher ladislaus.eth revealed a walkthrough final week explaining how Ethereum plans to maneuver from re-executing each transaction to verifying zero-knowledge proofs.
The put up 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 function. Ethereum is prototyping an alternate validation path by which some validators can attest to blocks by verifying compact execution proofs relatively than re-running each transaction.
If it really works, Ethereum’s layer-1 position shifts from “settlement and knowledge availability for rollups” towards “high-throughput execution whose verification stays low cost sufficient for dwelling validators.”
What’s really 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 through 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 right now.
The Ethereum Basis’s zkEVM workforce revealed 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 consumer produces an ExecutionWitness, a self-contained package deal containing all knowledge wanted to validate a block with out holding the complete 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 consumer then verifies that proof as a substitute of calling the execution layer consumer 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 optionally available proofs and witness codecs mature, extra dwelling validators can take part with out sustaining full execution layer state.
Elevating fuel limits turns into politically and economically simpler as a result of validation price decouples from execution complexity. Verification work now not scales linearly with on-chain exercise.
Nevertheless, proofing carries its personal danger of centralization. An Ethereum Analysis put up from Feb. 2 reviews that proving a full Ethereum block at the moment requires roughly 12 GPUs and takes a median of seven seconds.
The creator flags issues about centralization and notes that limits stay tough to foretell. If proving stays GPU-heavy and concentrates in builder or prover networks, Ethereum might commerce “everybody re-executes” for “few show, many confirm.”
The design goals to deal with this by introducing consumer variety 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 completely different execution-layer consumer implementations.
This preserves consumer variety on the protocol degree however would not resolve the {hardware} entry drawback.
Essentially the most trustworthy framing is that Ethereum is shifting the decentralization battleground. In the present day’s constraint is “are you able to afford to run an execution layer consumer?” Tomorrow’s is likely to be “are you able to entry GPU clusters or prover networks?”
The guess is that proof verification is less complicated 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 consumer and verifies proofs throughout payload processing.
Syncing reduces to downloading proofs for latest blocks for the reason that final finalization checkpoint.
This issues for fuel limits. In the present day, each improve within the fuel restrict makes operating a node tougher. If validators can confirm proofs relatively than re-executing, the verification price now not scales with the fuel restrict. Execution complexity and validation price decouple.
The benchmarking and repricing workstream within the 2026 roadmap explicitly targets metrics that map fuel consumed to proving cycles and proving time.
If these metrics stabilize, Ethereum features a lever it hasn’t had earlier than: the power to lift throughput with out proportionally rising the price of operating a validator.
What this implies for layer-2 blockchains
A latest put up 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 easy: if all validators confirm execution proofs, the identical proofs may 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 holding verification prices low, rollups cannot justify themselves on the premise 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 cut up between specialization and interoperability.
Layer-1 turns into the high-throughput, low-verification-cost execution and settlement layer. Layer-2s turn out to be function labs, latency optimizers, and composability bridges.
Nevertheless, 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 situations sooner or later.
The primary situation consists of proof-first validation changing into frequent. If optionally available proofs and witness codecs mature and consumer implementations stabilize round standardized interfaces, extra dwelling validators can take part with out operating the complete execution layer state.
Gasoline limits improve as a result of the validation price now not aligns with execution complexity. This path depends upon the ExecutionWitness and visitor program standardization workstream converging on moveable codecs.
State of affairs 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 features, as one trustworthy prover wherever retains the chain dwell, however the safety mannequin adjustments.
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 relatively than “scaling Ethereum” alone.
This path requires ePBS to ship on schedule for Glamsterdam.
| State of affairs | What needs to be true (technical preconditions) | What breaks / predominant danger | What improves (decentralization, fuel limits, sync time) | L1 position end result (execution throughput vs verification price) | L2 implication (new differentiation axis) | “What to observe” sign |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proof-first validation turns into frequent | Execution 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 turn out to be consensus delicate if/when it’s relied on; mismatch throughout purchasers/provers | Dwelling validators can attest with out EL state; sync time drops (proofs since finalization checkpoint); gas-limit will increase turn out to be simpler as a result of verification price decouples from execution complexity | L1 shifts towards higher-throughput execution with constant-ish verification price for a lot of validators | L2s should justify themselves past “L1 can’t scale”: specialised VMs, app-specific execution, customized price fashions, privateness, and many others. | Spec/test-vector hardening; witness/visitor portability throughout purchasers; steady proof gossip + failure dealing with; benchmark curves (fuel → proving cycles/time) |
| Prover centralization turns into the choke level | Proof technology stays GPU-heavy; proving market consolidates (builders / prover networks); restricted “garage-scale” proving; liveness depends on a small set of refined provers | “Few show, many confirm” concentrates energy; censorship / MEV dynamics intensify; prover outages create liveness/finality stress; geographic / regulatory focus danger | Validators should confirm cheaply, however decentralized shifts: simpler testifying, tougher proving; some gas-limit headroom, however constrained by prover economics | L1 turns into execution scalable in principle, however virtually bounded by prover capability and market construction | L2s might lean into based mostly / pre- confirmed designs, various proving techniques, or latency ensures—doubtlessly rising dependence on privileged actors | Proving price traits ({hardware} necessities, time per block); prover variety metrics; incentives for distributed proving; failure-mode drills (what occurs when proofs are lacking?) |
| L1 proof verification turns into shared infrastructure | CL integration “hardens”; proofs turn out to be extensively 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 might additionally undergo; complexity / assault floor expands | Shared infra reduces duplicated proving effort; improves interoperability; extra predictable verification prices; clearer path to larger L1 throughput with out pricing out validators | L1 evolves right into a proof-verified execution + settlement layer that may additionally confirm rollups natively | L2s pivot to latency (preconfs), specialised execution environments, and composable fashions (eg fast-proving / synchronous-ish designs) relatively than “scale-only” | ePBS / Glamsterdam progress; end-to-end pipeline demos (witness → proof → CL confirm); benchmarks + attainable fuel repricing; rollout of minimal viable proof distribution semantics and monitoring |
The larger image
Consensus-specs integration maturity will sign whether or not “optionally available proofs” transfer from largely TODOs to hardened check vectors.
Standardizing the ExecutionWitness and visitor program is the keystone for stateless validation portability throughout purchasers. Benchmarks that map fuel consumed to proving cycles and proving time will decide whether or not fuel 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 just isn’t switching to proof-based validation quickly. EIP-8025 explicitly states it “can’t base upgrades on it but,” and the optionally available framing is intentional. Consequently, it is a testable pathway relatively than an imminent activation.
But, the truth that the Ethereum Basis shipped a 2026 implementation roadmap, scheduled a breakout name with challenge 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 adjustments or user-facing options. But it surely’s basic as a result of it rewrites the connection between execution complexity and validation price.
If Ethereum can decouple the 2, layer-1 will now not be the bottleneck that forces every thing fascinating onto layer-2.
And if layer-1 proof verification turns into shared infrastructure, the complete layer-2 ecosystem must reply a tougher query: what are you constructing that layer-1 cannot?
