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 complete 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 wherein some validators can attest to blocks by verifying compact execution proofs slightly 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 dwelling validators.”
What’s truly being constructed
EIP-8025, titled “Non-compulsory Execution Proofs,” landed in draft kind and specifies the mechanics.
Execution proofs are shared throughout the consensus-layer peer-to-peer community by way of a devoted subject. 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 appropriate, whereas nodes can nonetheless re-execute as they do immediately.
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 top-to-end pipeline works like this: an execution-layer consumer 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 right execution. The consensus layer consumer then verifies that proof as an alternative 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 just 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 dwelling 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 now 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 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 troublesome 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 handle this by introducing consumer variety on the proving layer. EIP-8025’s working assumption is a three-of-five threshold, that 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 consumer implementations.
This preserves consumer variety on the protocol stage however does not resolve the {hardware} entry drawback.
Probably the most sincere framing is that Ethereum is shifting the decentralization battleground. As we speak’s constraint is “are you able to afford to run an execution layer consumer?” Tomorrow’s may be “are you able to entry GPU clusters or prover networks?”
The wager 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.
Non-compulsory 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 gasoline limits. As we speak, each enhance within the gasoline restrict makes operating a node more durable. If validators can confirm proofs slightly than re-executing, the verification value now 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 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 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 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 preserving 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 wherein roles are cut up between specialization and interoperability.
Layer-1 turns into the high-throughput, low-verification-cost execution and settlement layer. Layer-2s grow to be 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 situations sooner or later.
The primary situation consists of proof-first validation changing into widespread. If elective proofs and witness codecs mature and consumer implementations stabilize round standardized interfaces, extra dwelling validators can take part with out operating the total execution layer state.
Gasoline limits enhance as a result of the validation value now not aligns with execution complexity. This path relies on 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 sincere prover anyplace retains the chain reside, 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 slightly than “scaling Ethereum” alone.
This path requires ePBS to ship on schedule for Glamsterdam.
| Situation | What needs to be true (technical preconditions) | What breaks / foremost danger | What improves (decentralization, gasoline limits, sync time) | L1 position final result (execution throughput vs verification value) | L2 implication (new differentiation axis) | “What to look at” sign |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proof-first validation turns into widespread | 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 grow 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 grow to be simpler as a result of verification value decouples from execution complexity | L1 shifts towards higher-throughput execution with constant-ish verification value for a lot of validators | L2s should justify themselves past “L1 can’t scale”: specialised VMs, app-specific execution, customized payment fashions, privateness, and many others. | Spec/test-vector hardening; witness/visitor portability throughout purchasers; steady proof gossip + failure dealing with; benchmark curves (gasoline → 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, more durable proving; some gas-limit headroom, however constrained by prover economics | L1 turns into execution scalable in concept, however virtually bounded by prover capability and market construction | L2s might lean into primarily based / pre- confirmed designs, different proving methods, or latency ensures—doubtlessly rising dependence on privileged actors | Proving value 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 grow to be broadly produced / consumed; ePBS ships and gives a workable proving window; interfaces permit reuse (eg EXECUTE-style precompile / native rollup hooks) | Cross-domain coupling danger: if L1 proving infra is harassed, rollup verification paths may additionally endure; complexity / assault floor expands | Shared infra reduces duplicated proving effort; improves interoperability; extra predictable verification prices; clearer path to greater 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) slightly than “scale-only” | ePBS / Glamsterdam progress; end-to-end pipeline demos (witness → proof → CL confirm); benchmarks + potential 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 principally TODOs to hardened take a look at vectors.
Standardizing the ExecutionWitness and visitor program is the keystone for stateless validation portability throughout purchasers. 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 shouldn’t be switching to proof-based validation quickly. EIP-8025 explicitly states it “can not base upgrades on it but,” and the elective framing is intentional. Consequently, it is a testable pathway slightly than an imminent activation.
But, the truth that the Ethereum Basis shipped a 2026 implementation roadmap, scheduled a breakout name with venture house owners, 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 does not contain dramatic token economics adjustments or user-facing options. Nevertheless it’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 now not be the bottleneck that forces the whole lot attention-grabbing onto layer-2.
And if layer-1 proof verification turns into shared infrastructure, the whole layer-2 ecosystem must reply a more durable query: what are you constructing that layer-1 cannot?