When the market's attention is still focused on Gas fee comparisons and TVL rankings, the real brutal competition in the zkEVM field has long been unfolding in another dimension behind the scenes. This dimension is unrelated to the design types of virtual machines (Type 2, 3, 4) and temporarily transcends the abundance of ecological applications. It is a hardcore arms race about the efficiency of proof systems, and the outcome of this competition will directly determine the ultimate direction of the zkRollup narrative.
My judgment is: the "first half" of the zkEVM competition is a battle of compatibility, while the "second half" will be the ultimate showdown of proof generation efficiency. The advantages currently displayed by Linea largely stem from its early layout and profound understanding of this "second half" battle.
What is proof generation efficiency? Simply put, it is the time and computational resources required for a zkRollup node (Sequencer) to generate a zero-knowledge proof after packaging a batch of transactions. This metric is crucial because it directly relates to:
1. User experience: The faster the proof generation, the shorter the finality confirmation time for funds being withdrawn from L2 to the L1 mainnet.
2. Network decentralization: If proof generation requires expensive, specialized hardware and lengthy computation times, only a few large institutions can afford the role of Sequencer, leading to centralization.
3. Cost control: The computational cost of generating proofs will ultimately be reflected in the user's transaction fees.
The 'proof generation optimization' mentioned by Linea in its technical documentation is not an empty statement. It touches on the core area of zk technology: the design of the Prover. According to my research, innovations in this area mainly focus on a few points:
· Parallel circuit processing: Breaking down large proof computation tasks into multiple sub-tasks for parallel processing significantly reduces time.
· Use of recursive proofs: Aggregating multiple small proofs into a single proof, significantly reducing the cost of final verification on the mainnet.
· Hardware acceleration: Specialized hardware (such as GPU, FPGA, or even ASIC) designed for ZK-friendly algorithms achieves orders of magnitude speedup.
Linea is backed by the strong R&D capabilities of ConsenSys, and its investment in this direction is continuous and in-depth. It understands that even a network that is 100% EVM compatible, if proof generation takes an hour or is costly, will still have no way out in long-term competition.
This is why I say that Type 2 zkEVM is a wise choice made by Linea to win the 'first half'. It attracts the largest developer community and existing contract assets, rapidly building a prosperous ecosystem and network effects. However, its real moat lies in utilizing the breathing space provided by this ecosystem to fully invest in the competition for the 'second half'.
When some other zkEVMs have chosen paths with poorer compatibility in pursuit of short-term performance metrics, facing the dual squeeze of proof efficiency bottlenecks and a lack of developer ecosystem in the future, Linea may have already achieved a perfect unity of compatibility and performance through its continuous optimization in proof systems.
Therefore, observing Linea, we cannot only see how many DApps it has deployed today, but also pay attention to its pace in proof iteration and its layout in ZK hardware research. This behind-the-scenes contest about proof efficiency is the key to determining the ultimate landscape of Linea and the entire zkRollup track. Linea has already obtained the entry ticket for the 'second half' and is ready to start.
