Breaking the Deadlock in Layer2: How Do Upstream ZK Technology Services Unlock New Market Momentum?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Breaking the Deadlock in Layer2: How Do Upstream ZK Technology Services Unlock New Market Momentum?
As Layer2 becomes popular in decentralized components, the security governance model of Layer2 will inevitably face intensified criticism, making a cross-chain settlement solution based on ZK infrastructure a necessity.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Haotian
Many assume ZK-Rollup is the endgame for Ethereum layer2, but as research deepens, I've come to realize it's not the ZK-Rollup form that qualifies as the ultimate solution—rather, it's the ZK technology itself. In theory, OP-Rollups could also leverage ZK techniques to drastically shorten or even eliminate the 7-day challenge period, and resolve governance flaws tied to centralized MPC multisig setups. How should we understand this? This article explores these ideas through @MetisL2 and its underlying technical project @ProjectZKM:
In a previous article, I argued that the potential of ZK technology for layer2 scaling has only been partially tapped, with significant room left for enabling fully trustless, cross-chain interoperability. Concretely within layer2 use cases, this brings two direct impacts:
1) Cross-chain asset transfers between layer2 and layer1 can achieve secure, deterministic settlement via foundational ZK tech. By leveraging ZK proofs, OP-Rollups can significantly reduce the 7-day waiting window required for withdrawals;
2) The Prover system on layer2 and the Rollup verification contract on layer1 can jointly establish a trust-minimized environment across chains. In theory, this eliminates reliance on centralized or semi-centralized MPC multisig committees—a so-called "governance-by-committee" model widely criticized for introducing human-dependent risks.
In fact, @MetisL2—an OP-Rollup-based layer2 chain—has already achieved architectural transformation along both dimensions by integrating core ZK technologies:
On one hand, through a hybrid Rollup architecture combining OP-Rollup and ZK-Rollup, Metis improves the user experience of withdrawals by reducing the standard 7-day waiting period, thereby accelerating liquidity release;
On the other hand, Metis leverages @ProjectZKM’s framework to experimentally implement a trustless interoperability model across sovereign chains. Here, ZK serves as foundational infrastructure: decentralized co-processors act as trusted entities that generate and verify proofs, while managing communication and trust mechanisms between blockchain nodes across different chains. But how exactly does this work?
Hybrid Rollup
Typically, a layer2 is either an OP-Rollup relying on optimistic assumptions and a 7-day challenge window, or a ZK-Rollup using ZK-SNARKs to achieve single-block finality.
The former enables fast batch processing and low fees, but suffers from a critical drawback: users must wait 7 days when withdrawing funds to layer1. According to the optimistic principle, only after 7 days without a successful challenge is the withdrawal considered secure;
The latter achieves immediate asset finality via ZK-SNARK proofs at the block level, but incurs additional computational costs from the Prover system beyond data availability (DA) expenses. Moreover, building ecosystems on ZK-Rollups presents higher entry barriers for developers, slowing ecosystem growth.
So how can we retain the usability advantages of OP-Rollup while eliminating the 7-day liquidity lock-up? The answer lies in channeling transactions differently: regular transactions go through the OP-Rollup pipeline, while specific withdrawal operations are routed via a ZK-Rollup pathway. This hybrid approach combines the strengths of both architectures into an optimal compromise.
Metis has already implemented this hybrid Rollup model as part of its standard chain operations. The ZK-powered capabilities enabling this come from @ProjectZKM—a cutting-edge ZK infrastructure project incubated by the Metis team. While operating their layer2, the Metis team identified persistent issues beyond just the sequencer centralization problem, including “semi-centralized MPC governance” and “liquidity locking.” Their goal with ZKM is to systematically address these challenges.
This might sound abstract at first. As I explained in my earlier piece on ZK tech, such services currently reside at the upstream end of the layer2 technology supply chain. Despite being technically advanced, they haven’t yet seen widespread adoption, making them unfamiliar to most.
Like RISC Zero, ZKM aims to provide foundational security enhancements to layer2 projects based on core ZK frameworks.
Currently, ZKM provides the ZK-Rollup component within Metis’ hybrid Rollup setup, supported underneath by an Entangled Rollup protocol that enables unified liquidity management.
In fact, upstream ZK providers like @ProjectZKM, @RiscZero, and @SuccinctLabs are all pushing similar technical paradigms to narrow the gap between OP-Rollups and ZK-Rollups—and crucially, to eliminate unnecessary liquidity drag caused by untested 7-day challenge windows. Notably, projects like Metis, Fraxchain, Aztec, and Ola are already exploring implementations of such hybrid Rollup models.
Trustless Cross-Chain Bridges via ZK
Most current layer2 solutions face criticism for having their mainnet Rollup contracts controlled by semi-centralized MPC governance committees. This places the security of most layer2s at what Vitalik calls Stage 0.
Upstream ZK tech providers like ZKM and RISC Zero theoretically enable any smart-contract-capable chains to build decentralized, trustless environments without relying on MPC-based cross-chain bridges.
The mechanism is simple: ZK-SNARKs allow consensus nodes from two separate chains to communicate directly. When a node on Chain A receives a transaction and corresponding ZKP from a node on Chain B, it can independently verify the proof’s validity and accept the submitted state. The entire process relies solely on cryptographic algorithms—no third-party human intervention is needed.
The co-processor orchestrating inter-node communication can itself be implemented in a decentralized, open-source architecture, thus fully resolving the centralization concerns inherent in traditional Rollup designs.
Given Ethereum’s full smart contract programmability, all Ethereum layer2s inherently possess the prerequisites for ZK-based cross-chain interoperability. Ideally, if all layer2s adopt a common ZK framework for cross-chain coordination—and other layer1s or even layer3s join this network—the Ethereum mainnet could evolve into a universal settlement layer across a fully interconnected blockchain landscape.
Why then do most layer2 teams still cling to MPC multisig governance? Primarily out of perceived security necessity. In my view, the root cause lies in the underdevelopment and limited availability of key decentralized components: decentralized sequencers, provers, and zkBridges. Under these conditions, maintaining a centralized or semi-centralized governance committee appears safer by comparison.
However, over the long term, as decentralized components become more mature and widely adopted, reliance on centralized governance will increasingly draw scrutiny. At that point, a ZK-based cross-chain settlement framework will become essential. The future potential of the ZK infrastructure sector is therefore immense.
To sum up,
It's no exaggeration to say that Ethereum's layer2 ecosystem is currently stuck in a development bottleneck: either a breakout "killer app" emerges on layer2 or layer3 to restore market confidence, or progress must come from further decentralizing core components like sequencers, provers, and zkBridges to strengthen the technological narrative. The latter path inevitably leads to a foundational ZK-based framework—one where the distinction between OP-Rollup and ZK-Rollup fades away, and the true endgame nature of ZK technology finally shines through.
Only by following this trajectory can the long-term viability of layer2 be secured. Furthermore, this path opens numerous new narratives: ZK hardware acceleration; ZK-integrated DePIN systems for PCs, mobile devices, and IoT; tamper-proof cloud computing with ZK-based data protection; decentralized ZK prover networks with optimized compute resource allocation, and more.
Indeed, at the intersection of AI, ZK, and DePIN, several pioneering projects are already emerging.
Metis’ approach to layer2 evolution—and the founding vision behind the hardcore ZKM project—is precisely this: to generalize ZK technology across every facet of the global layer2 ecosystem. Beyond that, my own research has highlighted other promising efforts, such as @cysic_xyz focusing on ZK hardware and chip acceleration, and @ola_zkzkvm advancing decentralized ZK prover networks.
In conclusion, let me reiterate: ZK technology’s current applications in layer2 represent merely the tip of the iceberg. Once ZK becomes more broadly adopted in hybrid Rollups, zkBridges, and hardware acceleration, it will breathe new life into the entire layer2 landscape.
After all, it will still take considerable time for the broader layer2 market to embrace this ZK-driven upgrade paradigm.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Haotian | CryptoInsight
