ZK rollups deliver high confidentiality and faster commit times while reducing the data load of the main blockchain by moving thousands of transactions off-chain. Experts such as Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin believe that ZK rollups could be at the center of Ethereum’s scalability strategies. Buterin has penned several articles advocating rollups to scale Ethereum, which is struggling with network congestion and rising costs.

Buterin specifically supports Zero Knowledge Proof Rollups (ZK rollups) as they have the potential for higher transaction throughput and instant transaction settlement. Other industry experts, such as StarkWare’s Eli Ben-Sasson, zkSync’s Alex Gluchowski, and the Ethereum Foundation’s Barry Whitehat, also advocate ZK rollups for their scalability and security benefits.

But are ToM evidence the final piece of the scalability puzzle?

According to Fluence R&D President Mike Voronov, the answer is a little more complicated. In an interview with Kripto.haber, Voronov acknowledges the advantages of this approach, such as “stronger security guarantees” and “shorter shooting times.” But like other scaling methods, it has its “own pros and cons,” he adds.

In ToM proofs, the proof generation and verification process is computationally intensive due to the need to execute complex cryptographic algorithms. These algorithms ensure that the proofs are both secure and concise, which is critical for maintaining transaction confidentiality in blockchain networks.

Voronov emphasized that other approaches, particularly fraud proofs, provide a similar balance between performance and security. Fraud proofs in Optimistic Rollups allow users to verify off-chain transactions by disputing suspicious transactions. When these objections are made, detection of invalid transactions on the main chain ensures security after verification.

This approach is less resource-intensive compared to ToM evidence because it only runs computational checks when a specific transaction is challenged, rather than proactively validating each transaction.

But he adds that the strength of ToM proofs lies in the cryptographic guarantees that Optimistic Rollups do not have due to their reliance on fraud proofs.

“Compared to other scaling solutions, such as optimistic rollups, sharding, fraud proofs, and state channels, ZKP-based solutions generally offer much stronger cryptographic guarantees and impose lower economic and infrastructure burden on the chain.”

Talent Protocol CTO Francisco Leal agrees, adding that the success of recent ToM-focused projects such as zkSync and Starknet indicates that “ToM technology is already quite advanced and promising.”

“Different systems have different needs, making it difficult for a single solution to universally address all use cases. Therefore, there will continue to be diversity in scaling solutions that reflect the diverse demands of different blockchain applications.” said Leal in an interview with crypto.haber.

According to CTO, Optimistic rollups are currently the biggest competitor to ZK rollups. He noted that zero-knowledge proofs such as zk-SNARKs and zk-STARKs, which have raised $100 million in investments at a $6 billion valuation, are at a disadvantage in terms of processing power due to ever-increasing demands for proof creation and verification. However, he predicts this will soon “reduce” with advances in computing power.

Investors’ interest in zero-knowledge technologies has increased with million-dollar investments. Notable investments include StarkWare, which invested $100 million at a $6 billion valuation, and zkSync, which raised $200 million. Meanwhile, Polygon Labs has also significantly increased its commitment to zero-knowledge initiatives, investing $1 billion in the industry.

When asked whether ZK rollups could help scale blockchain networks at a level equal to or superior to their traditional counterparts, both executives remained optimistic.

Voronov emphasized that such success would require “full standardization of Zero Knowledge Proof (ZKP) protocols and related tools.” Leal, however, underlined that currently “evidence generation and verification efficiency” acts as a “bottleneck” and needs to be improved.