274 posts tagged with "Blockchain"

When the former CTO of Ant Chain and the Chief Security Officer of Ant Financial's Web3 division left one of the world's largest fintech companies to start a blockchain from scratch, the industry took notice. Their bet? That the $24 billion tokenized real-world asset market is about to explode into the trillions—and existing blockchains aren't ready for it.

Pharos Network, the high-performance Layer 1 they're building, just closed an $8 million seed round led by Lightspeed Faction and Hack VC. But the more interesting number is the $1.5 billion RWA pipeline they've announced with Ant Digital Technologies, their former employer's Web3 arm. This isn't a speculative DeFi play—it's an institutional-grade infrastructure bet backed by people who've already built financial systems processing billions of transactions.

The Ant Group DNA: Building for Scale They've Already Seen​

Alex Zhang, Pharos's CEO, spent years as CTO of Ant Chain, overseeing blockchain infrastructure that processed transactions for hundreds of millions of users across Alibaba's ecosystem. Co-founder and CTO Meng Wu was responsible for security at Ant Financial's Web3 division, protecting some of the most valuable financial infrastructure in Asia.

Their diagnosis of the current blockchain landscape is blunt: existing networks weren't designed for the financial industry's actual requirements. Solana optimizes for speed but lacks the compliance primitives institutions need. Ethereum prioritizes decentralization but can't deliver the sub-second finality that real-time payments demand. The "institutional Solana" doesn't exist yet.

Pharos aims to fill that gap with what they call a "full-stack parallel blockchain"—a network designed from the ground up for the specific demands of tokenized assets, cross-border payments, and enterprise DeFi.

The Technical Architecture: Beyond Sequential Processing​

Most blockchains process transactions sequentially, like a single-file line at a bank. Even Ethereum's recent upgrades and Solana's parallel processing treat the blockchain as a unified system with fundamental throughput limits. Pharos takes a different approach, implementing what they call "Degree of Parallelism" optimization—essentially treating the blockchain like a GPU rather than a CPU.

The Three-Layer Design:

• L1-Base: Provides data availability with hardware acceleration, handling the raw storage and retrieval of blockchain data at speeds traditional networks can't match.

• L1-Core: Implements a novel BFT consensus that allows multiple validator nodes to propose, validate, and commit transactions concurrently. Unlike classical BFT implementations requiring fixed leader roles and round-based communication, Pharos validators operate in parallel.

• L1-Extension: Enables "Special Processing Networks" (SPNs)—customized execution environments for specific use cases like high-frequency trading or AI model execution. Think of it as creating dedicated fast lanes for different types of financial activity.

The Execution Engine:

The heart of Pharos is its parallel execution system combining LLVM-based intermediate representation conversion with speculative parallel processing. The technical innovations include:

• Smart Access List Inference (SALI): Static and dynamic analysis to identify which state entries a contract will access, enabling transactions with non-overlapping state to execute simultaneously.

• Dual VM Support: Both EVM and WASM virtual machines, ensuring Solidity compatibility while enabling high-performance execution for contracts written in Rust or other languages.

• Pipelined Block Processing: Inspired by superscalar processors, dividing the block lifecycle into parallel stages—consensus ordering, database preloading, execution, Merkleization, and flushing all happen concurrently.

The result? Their testnet has demonstrated 30,000+ TPS with 0.5-second block times, with mainnet targets of 50,000 TPS and sub-second finality. For context, Visa processes roughly 1,700 TPS on average.

Why RWA Tokenization Needs Different Infrastructure​

The tokenized real-world asset market has grown from $85 million in 2020 to over $24 billion by mid-2025—a 245x increase in just five years. McKinsey projects $2 trillion by 2030; Standard Chartered estimates $30 trillion by 2034. Some analysts expect $50 trillion in annual RWA trading by decade's end.

But here's the disconnect: most of this growth has happened on chains that weren't designed for it. Private credit dominates the current market at $17 billion, followed by U.S. Treasuries at $7.3 billion. These aren't speculative tokens—they're regulated financial instruments requiring:

• Identity verification that satisfies KYC/AML requirements across jurisdictions
• Compliance primitives built into the protocol layer, not bolted on afterward
• Sub-second settlement for real-time payment applications
• Institutional-grade security with formal verification and hardware-backed protection

Pharos addresses these requirements with native zkDID authentication and on-chain/off-chain credit systems. When they talk about "bridging TradFi and Web3," they mean building the compliance rails into the infrastructure itself.

The Ant Digital Partnership: $1.5 Billion in Real Assets​

The strategic partnership with ZAN—Ant Digital Technologies' Web3 brand—isn't just a press release. It represents a $1.5 billion pipeline of renewable energy RWA assets slated for the Pharos mainnet at launch.

The collaboration focuses on three areas:

1. Node services and infrastructure: ZAN's enterprise-grade node operations supporting Pharos's validator network
2. Security and hardware acceleration: Leveraging Ant's experience with hardware-secured financial systems
3. RWA use case development: Bringing actual tokenized assets—not hypothetical ones—to the network from day one

The Pharos team has prior experience implementing tokenization projects including Xiexin Energy Technology and Langxin Group. They're not learning RWA tokenization on Pharos—they're applying expertise developed inside one of the world's largest fintech ecosystems.

From Testnet to Mainnet: The Q1 2026 Launch​

Pharos launched its AtlanticOcean testnet with impressive metrics: nearly 3 billion transactions across 23 million blocks since May, all with 0.5-second block times. The testnet introduced:

• Hybrid parallel execution based on DAG and Block-STM V1
• Official PoS tokenomics with a 1 billion token supply
• Modular architecture decoupling consensus, execution, and storage layers
• Integration with major wallets including OKX Wallet and Bitget Wallet

Mainnet is scheduled for Q1 2026, coinciding with the Token Generation Event. The foundation charter will be released after TGE, establishing the governance framework for what aims to be a truly decentralized network despite its institutional focus.

The project has attracted over 1.4 million testnet users—a significant community for a pre-mainnet network, suggesting strong interest in the RWA-focused narrative.

The Competitive Landscape: Where Does Pharos Fit?​

The RWA tokenization space is getting crowded. Provenance leads with over $12 billion in assets. Ethereum hosts major issuers like BlackRock and Ondo. Canton Network—backed by Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, and DTCC—processes over $4 trillion in tokenized transactions monthly.

Pharos's positioning is distinct:

• Versus Canton: Canton is permissioned; Pharos aims for trustless decentralization with compliance primitives
• Versus Ethereum: Pharos offers 50x the throughput with native RWA infrastructure
• Versus Solana: Pharos prioritizes institutional compliance over raw DeFi throughput
• Versus Plume Network: Both target RWA, but Pharos brings Ant Group's enterprise DNA and existing asset pipeline

The Ant Group pedigree matters here. Building financial infrastructure isn't just about technical architecture—it's about understanding regulatory requirements, institutional risk management, and the actual workflows of financial services. The Pharos team has built these systems at scale.

What This Means for the RWA Narrative​

The RWA tokenization thesis is straightforward: most of the world's value exists in illiquid assets that could benefit from blockchain's settlement efficiency, programmability, and global accessibility. Real estate, private credit, commodities, infrastructure—these markets dwarf cryptocurrency's entire market cap.

But the infrastructure gap has been real. Tokenizing a Treasury bill on Ethereum works; tokenizing $300 million in renewable energy assets requires compliance rails, institutional-grade security, and throughput that doesn't collapse under real-world transaction volumes.

Pharos represents a new category of blockchain: not a general-purpose smart contract platform optimizing for DeFi composability, but a specialized financial infrastructure layer designed for the specific requirements of tokenized real-world assets.

Whether they succeed depends on execution—literally. Can they deliver 50,000 TPS at mainnet? Will institutions actually deploy assets on the network? Does the compliance framework satisfy regulators across jurisdictions?

The answers will emerge through 2026. But with $8 million in funding, $1.5 billion in announced asset pipeline, and a team that's already built financial systems at Ant Group scale, Pharos has the resources and credibility to find out.

---

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade blockchain infrastructure for the next generation of Web3 applications. As RWA tokenization transforms global finance, reliable node services and API access become critical infrastructure. Explore our API marketplace to build on foundations designed for institutional-grade applications.

In April 2025, Vitalik Buterin proposed something that would have seemed heretical a year earlier: replacing Ethereum's EVM with RISC-V. The suggestion sparked immediate debate. But what most commentators missed was that Polkadot had already been building exactly this architecture for over a year—and was months away from deploying it to production.

Polkadot's JAM (Join-Accumulate Machine) isn't just another blockchain upgrade. It represents a fundamental rethinking of what a "blockchain" even means. Where Ethereum's worldview centers on a global virtual machine processing transactions, JAM eliminates the transaction concept entirely at its core layer, replacing it with a computation model that promises 850 MB/s data availability—42 times Polkadot's previous capacity and 650 times Ethereum's 1.3 MB/s.

The implications extend far beyond performance benchmarks. JAM may be the clearest articulation yet of a post-Ethereum paradigm for blockchain architecture.

The Gray Paper: Gavin Wood's Third Act​

Dr. Gavin Wood wrote the Ethereum Yellow Paper in 2014, providing the formal specification that made Ethereum possible. He followed with the Polkadot White Paper in 2016, introducing heterogeneous sharding and shared security. In April 2024, he released the JAM Gray Paper at Token2049 in Dubai—completing a trilogy that spans the entire history of programmable blockchains.

The Gray Paper describes JAM as "a global singleton permissionless object environment—akin to Ethereum's smart-contract environment—paired with secure sideband computation parallelized over a scalable node network." But this undersells the conceptual shift.

JAM doesn't just improve on existing blockchain designs. It asks: what if we stopped thinking about blockchains as virtual machines entirely?

The Transaction Problem​

Traditional blockchains—Ethereum included—are fundamentally transaction-processing systems. Users submit transactions, validators order and execute them, and the blockchain records state changes. This model has served well but carries inherent limitations:

• Sequential bottlenecks: Transactions must be ordered, creating throughput constraints
• Global state contention: Every transaction potentially touches shared state
• Execution coupling: Consensus and computation are tightly bound

JAM decouples these concerns through what Wood calls the "Refine-Accumulate" paradigm. The system operates in two phases:

Refine: Computation happens in parallel across the network. Work is divided into independent units that can execute simultaneously without coordination.

Accumulate: Results are collected and merged into global state. Only this phase requires consensus on ordering.

The result is a "transactionless" core protocol. JAM itself doesn't process transactions—applications built on JAM do. This separation allows the base layer to focus purely on secure, parallel computation.

PolkaVM: Why RISC-V Matters​

At the heart of JAM sits PolkaVM, a purpose-built virtual machine based on the RISC-V instruction set. This choice has profound implications for blockchain computation.

The EVM's Architectural Debt​

Ethereum's EVM was designed in 2013-2014, before many modern assumptions about blockchain execution were understood. Its architecture reflects that era:

• Stack-based execution: Operations push and pop values from an unbounded stack, requiring complex tracking
• 256-bit word size: Chosen for cryptographic convenience but wasteful for most operations
• Single-dimensional gas: One metric attempts to price vastly different computational resources
• Interpretation-only: EVM bytecode cannot be compiled to native code efficiently

These design decisions made sense as initial choices but create ongoing performance penalties.

RISC-V's Advantages​

PolkaVM takes a fundamentally different approach:

Register-based architecture: Like modern CPUs, PolkaVM uses a finite set of registers for argument passing. This aligns with actual hardware, enabling efficient translation to native instruction sets.

64-bit word size: Modern processors are 64-bit. Using a matching word size eliminates the overhead of emulating 256-bit operations for the vast majority of computations.

Multi-dimensional gas: Different resources (computation, storage, bandwidth) are priced independently, better reflecting true costs and preventing mispricing attacks.

Dual execution modes: Code can be interpreted for immediate execution or JIT-compiled for optimized performance. The system chooses the appropriate mode based on workload characteristics.

Performance Impact​

The architectural differences translate to real performance gains. Benchmarks show PolkaVM achieving 10x+ improvements over WebAssembly for arithmetic-intensive contracts—and the EVM is slower still. For complex, multi-contract interactions, the gap widens further as JIT compilation amortizes setup costs.

Perhaps more importantly, PolkaVM supports any language that compiles to RISC-V. While EVM developers are limited to Solidity, Vyper, and a handful of specialized languages, PolkaVM opens the door to Rust, C++, and eventually any LLVM-supported language. This dramatically expands the potential developer pool.

Maintaining Developer Experience​

Despite the architectural overhaul, PolkaVM maintains compatibility with existing workflows. The Revive compiler provides complete Solidity support, including inline assembler. Developers can continue using Hardhat, Remix, and MetaMask without changing their processes.

The Papermoon team demonstrated this compatibility by successfully migrating Uniswap V2's contract code to the PolkaVM testnet—proving that even complex, battle-tested DeFi code can transition without rewrites.

JAM's Performance Targets​

The numbers Wood projects for JAM are staggering by current blockchain standards.

Data Availability​

JAM targets 850 MB/s of data availability—roughly 42 times the vanilla Polkadot capacity before recent optimizations and 650 times Ethereum's 1.3 MB/s. For context, this approaches the throughput of enterprise database systems.

Computational Throughput​

The Gray Paper estimates JAM can achieve approximately 150 billion gas per second at full capacity. Translating gas to transactions is imprecise, but theoretical maximum throughput reaches 3.4+ million TPS based on the data availability target.

Real-World Validation​

These aren't purely theoretical numbers. Stress tests have validated the architecture:

• Kusama (August 2025): Achieved 143,000 TPS at only 23% load capacity
• Polkadot "Spammening" (2024): Reached 623,000 TPS in controlled testing

These figures represent genuine transaction throughput, not optimistic projections or testnet conditions that don't reflect production environments.

Development Status and Timeline​

JAM development follows a structured milestone system, with 43 implementation teams competing for a prize pool exceeding $60 million (10 million DOT + 100,000 KSM).

Current Progress (Late 2025)​

The ecosystem has reached several critical milestones:

• Multiple teams have achieved 100% conformance with Web3 Foundation test vectors
• Development has progressed through Gray Paper versions 0.6.2 through 0.8.0, approaching v1.0
• The JAM Experience conference in Lisbon (May 2025) brought together implementation teams for deep technical collaboration
• University tours reached over 1,300 attendees across nine global locations, including Cambridge, Peking University, and Fudan University

Milestone Structure​

Teams progress through a series of milestones:

1. IMPORTER (M1): Passing state-transitioning conformance tests and importing blocks
2. AUTHORER (M2): Full conformance including block production, networking, and off-chain components
3. HALF-SPEED (M3): Achieving Kusama-level performance, with access to JAM Toaster for full-scale testing
4. FULL-SPEED (M4): Polkadot mainnet-level performance with professional security audits

Multiple teams have completed M1, with several progressing toward M2.

Timeline to Mainnet​

• Late 2025: Final Gray Paper revisions, continued milestone submissions, expanded testnet participation
• Q1 2026: JAM mainnet upgrade on Polkadot following governance approval via OpenGov referendum
• 2026: CoreChain Phase 1 deployment, official public JAM testnet, full network transition

The governance process has already shown strong community support. A near-unanimous DOT holder vote approved the upgrade direction in May 2024.

JAM vs. Ethereum: Complementary or Competitive?​

The question of whether JAM represents an "Ethereum killer" misses the architectural nuance.

Different Design Philosophies​

Ethereum builds outward from a monolithic foundation. The EVM provides a global execution environment, and scaling solutions—L2s, rollups, sharding—layer on top. This approach has created an enormous ecosystem but also accumulated technical debt.

JAM starts with modularity at its core. The separation of Refine and Accumulate phases, the domain-specific optimization for rollup handling, and the transactionless base layer all reflect a ground-up design for scalability.

Convergent Technical Choices​

Despite different starting points, the projects are converging on similar conclusions. Vitalik's April 2025 RISC-V proposal acknowledged that the EVM's architecture limits long-term performance. Polkadot had already deployed RISC-V support to testnet months earlier.

This convergence validates both projects' technical judgment while highlighting the execution gap: Polkadot is shipping what Ethereum is proposing.

Ecosystem Realities​

Technical superiority doesn't automatically translate to ecosystem dominance. Ethereum's developer community, application diversity, and liquidity depth represent substantial network effects that can't be replicated overnight.

The more likely outcome isn't replacement but specialization. JAM's architecture is optimized for certain workloads—particularly high-throughput applications and rollup infrastructure—while Ethereum retains advantages in ecosystem maturity and capital formation.

In 2026, they look less like competitors and more like complementary layers of a multi-chain internet.

What JAM Means for Blockchain Architecture​

JAM's significance extends beyond Polkadot. It represents the clearest articulation of a post-EVM paradigm that other projects will study and selectively adopt.

Key Principles​

Computation separation: Decoupling execution from consensus enables parallel processing at the base layer, not as an afterthought.

Domain-specific optimization: Rather than building a general-purpose VM and hoping it scales, JAM is architected specifically for the workloads blockchains actually run.

Hardware alignment: Using RISC-V and 64-bit words aligns virtual machine architecture with physical hardware, eliminating emulation overhead.

Transaction abstraction: Moving transaction handling to the application layer allows the protocol to focus on computation and state management.

Industry Impact​

Whether JAM succeeds or fails commercially, these architectural choices will influence blockchain design for the next decade. The Gray Paper provides a formal specification that other projects can study, critique, and selectively implement.

Ethereum's RISC-V proposal already demonstrates this influence. The question isn't whether these ideas will spread, but how quickly and in what form.

The Road Ahead​

JAM represents Gavin Wood's most ambitious technical vision since Polkadot itself. The stakes match the ambition: success would validate an entirely different approach to blockchain architecture, while failure would leave Polkadot competing with newer L1s without a differentiated technical narrative.

The next 18 months will determine whether JAM's theoretical advantages translate to production reality. With 43 implementation teams, a nine-figure prize pool, and a clear roadmap to mainnet, the project has resources and momentum. What remains to be seen is whether the complexity of the Refine-Accumulate paradigm can deliver on Wood's vision of a "distributed computer that can run almost any kind of task."

For developers and projects evaluating blockchain infrastructure, JAM merits serious attention—not as hype, but as a technically rigorous attempt to solve problems that every major blockchain faces. The blockchain-as-virtual-machine paradigm served the industry well for a decade. JAM bets that the next decade requires something fundamentally different.

---

Building on next-generation blockchain infrastructure? BlockEden.xyz provides high-performance RPC endpoints across the Polkadot ecosystem and 30+ other networks. Explore our API marketplace to access enterprise-grade infrastructure for your applications.

When stablecoin transfers quietly processed $27.6 trillion in 2024—outpacing Visa and Mastercard's combined volume by nearly 8%—most headlines missed the real story. The shift wasn't happening in Silicon Valley board rooms or Wall Street trading desks. It was unfolding across QR-code-enabled street vendors in Lagos, mobile money kiosks in Nairobi, and scan-to-pay terminals throughout Southeast Asia.

Welcome to the age of regional payment networks, where a constellation of focused players is systematically dismantling the assumption that global payments require global companies.

The $27 Trillion Signal​

For decades, cross-border payments have been the exclusive domain of a few giants. Visa processes transactions in over 200 countries. Mastercard serves 150 million merchants globally. PayPal's network spans 200 markets. These numbers seemed insurmountable—until they weren't.

According to CEX.IO research, USD-backed stablecoins outperformed Visa and Mastercard in all four quarters of 2024 and continued their dominance into Q1 2025. But the more interesting finding isn't the volume—it's where the volume is coming from.

The Chainalysis 2024 Global Adoption Index reveals that Central and Southern Asia and Oceania (CSAO) leads global cryptocurrency adoption, with seven of the top 20 countries located in the region. Sub-Saharan Africa saw "significant" DeFi growth, with South Africa emerging as a major hub for retail crypto payments.

This isn't random. It's the result of regional networks building infrastructure that actually fits local needs.

AEON: 50 Million Merchants in 18 Months​

Consider AEON, a payment network that most Western observers have never heard of. Within 18 months of launch, AEON has connected over 50 million merchants across emerging markets, primarily in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The numbers tell a compelling story:

• 20+ million merchants acquired within four months of launch
• 994,000+ transactions processed worth over $29 million in early volume
• 200,000+ active users leveraging scan-to-pay functionality

AEON's approach sidesteps the traditional card network model entirely. Rather than requiring POS terminal upgrades or merchant agreements through acquiring banks, AEON enables payments via QR codes—the same interface that already dominates payments across Asia. In December 2025, AEON integrated with X Layer, OKX's Ethereum Layer 2, bringing scan-to-pay capability directly to the network's merchant base.

The network's 2026 roadmap is even more ambitious: establishing industry standards for AI agent payments with "Know Your Agent" authentication frameworks that could make AEON the default settlement layer for autonomous commerce.

Gnosis Pay: Self-Custody Meets Visa Rails​

While AEON is building parallel infrastructure, Gnosis Pay is taking a different approach: leveraging existing rails while preserving crypto's core value proposition.

The Gnosis Pay Visa debit card launched across Europe in February 2024 with a unique selling point—it's genuinely self-custodial. Unlike virtually every other crypto card, which requires depositing funds into a custodial account, Gnosis Pay users maintain control of their private keys. Funds stay in a Safe wallet on Gnosis Chain until the moment of purchase.

The economics are equally distinctive:

• Zero transaction fees at any of Visa's 80+ million global merchants
• Zero foreign exchange fees for international purchases
• Zero off-ramping fees that typically drain 1-3% of every transaction

For European users, Gnosis Pay provides an Estonia IBAN through a partnership with Monerium, enabling SEPA transfers and salary deposits. It's effectively a traditional bank account backed by self-custodial crypto.

The tiered cashback system—ranging from 1% to 5% based on GNO token holdings—creates alignment between users and the network. But the real innovation is proving that card networks and self-custody aren't mutually exclusive. Gnosis Pay has demonstrated that crypto payments can integrate with existing infrastructure without sacrificing the properties that make crypto valuable.

Geographic expansion plans for 2026 include the USA, Mexico, Colombia, Australia, Singapore, Thailand, Japan, Indonesia, and India—essentially, the same emerging markets where AEON is building alternative rails.

M-Pesa: 60 Million Users Go On-Chain​

If AEON represents new entrants and Gnosis Pay represents crypto-native innovation, M-Pesa represents something potentially more significant: incumbent adoption.

In January 2026, M-Pesa—Africa's dominant mobile money platform with over 60 million monthly users—announced a partnership with the ADI Foundation to deploy blockchain infrastructure across eight African countries: Kenya, the DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Lesotho, Mozambique, and Tanzania.

The timing aligns with Kenya's Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, which took effect in November 2025 as Africa's most comprehensive cryptocurrency regulatory framework. The partnership will introduce a UAE Dirham-backed stablecoin—issued by First Abu Dhabi Bank under UAE Central Bank oversight—providing users with a hedge against local currency volatility.

The opportunity is substantial. Kenya alone processed $3.3 billion in stablecoin transactions in the year to June 2024, ranking fourth among African nations. The cryptocurrency market across sub-Saharan Africa grew 52% year-over-year, reaching over $205 billion between July 2024 and June 2025.

But volume tells only part of the story. The more compelling statistic: 42% of adults in sub-Saharan Africa remain unbanked. M-Pesa's blockchain integration isn't disrupting financial services—it's providing them for the first time to populations that traditional banks have systematically ignored.

The Cost Arbitrage​

Why are regional networks succeeding where global players have struggled for decades? The answer comes down to economics that make global payment giants structurally uncompetitive for cross-border transfers.

Traditional remittance costs:

• Sub-Saharan Africa average: 8.78% of transaction value (Q1 2025, World Bank)
• Global average: 6%+ for cross-border transfers
• Bank wire processing time: 3-5 business days

Stablecoin transfer costs:

• Average fee: 0.5-1% of value sent
• Solana-based stablecoin transfers: Under $0.01, settlement in 30 seconds
• Processing time: Under 3 minutes, 24/7/365

For a $200 remittance to Kenya, the math is stark: a traditional transfer might cost $17.56 in fees; a stablecoin transfer costs roughly $1-2. When global remittances exceed $800 billion annually, that cost difference represents tens of billions in potential savings—money that currently flows to intermediaries rather than recipients.

Regional networks are capturing this arbitrage because they're built for it. They don't carry the legacy infrastructure costs of correspondent banking relationships or the compliance overhead of operating in 200 markets simultaneously.

The B2B Explosion​

Consumer payments get the headlines, but the faster-growing segment is B2B. Monthly B2B stablecoin payment volumes surged from under $100 million in early 2023 to over $3 billion by 2025—a 30-fold increase in two years.

Companies across Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia are increasingly using stablecoins for global payroll, supplier payments, and FX optimization. Bitso, the Latin American crypto platform, has reported significant B2B flows driven entirely by stablecoin settlement.

Analysis of 31 stablecoin payment companies shows that over $94.2 billion in payments were settled from January 2023 to February 2025. These aren't speculative transactions—they're ordinary business payments operating outside traditional banking rails.

The appeal is straightforward: businesses in emerging markets often face unreliable correspondent banking relationships, multi-day settlement times, and opaque fees. Stablecoins provide immediate finality and predictable costs, regardless of which countries are involved in the transaction.

How Traditional Giants Are Responding​

Visa and Mastercard aren't ignoring the threat. Mastercard partnered with MoonPay to enable stablecoin payments across 150 million merchants. Visa is piloting stablecoin services in six Latin American countries and supports over 130 stablecoin-linked card programs in more than 40 countries.

But their response reveals the structural challenge. Traditional networks are adding crypto as an optional overlay to existing infrastructure. Regional networks are building crypto-native infrastructure from the ground up.

The distinction matters. When Gnosis Pay offers zero fees, it's because the underlying Gnosis Chain was designed for efficient settlement. When Visa offers stablecoin support, it's routing through the same correspondent banking system that makes traditional transfers expensive. The infrastructure dictates the economics.

2026: The Year of Convergence​

Several trends are converging to accelerate regional network adoption:

Regulatory clarity: Kenya's VASP Act, the EU's MiCA framework, and Brazil's stablecoin regulations are creating compliance pathways that were absent even 18 months ago.

Infrastructure maturity: Southeast Asia's digital payments market is projected to hit $3 trillion by end of 2025, expanding at 18% annually. That's infrastructure regional crypto networks can leverage rather than build from scratch.

Mobile penetration: Africa's mobile money ecosystem reached 562 million users in 2025, handling $495 billion in yearly transactions. Every smartphone becomes a potential crypto payment terminal.

User volume: Over 560 million people worldwide hold cryptocurrency as of early 2025, with growth concentrated in the same regions where traditional banking fails.

The first wave of stablecoin infrastructure scaling will really happen in 2026, according to AArete's global head of financial services consulting. Crypto payment adoption is projected to grow 85% through 2026, fueled by regulatory support and scalable infrastructure.

The Localization Advantage​

Perhaps the most underappreciated advantage regional networks hold is localization—not just in language, but in payment behavior.

QR codes dominate payments across Asia for cultural and practical reasons that differ from the card-centric West. M-Pesa's agent network model works in Africa because it mirrors existing informal economy structures. Latin America's preference for bank transfers over cards reflects decades of credit card fraud concerns.

Regional networks understand these nuances because they're built by teams embedded in local markets. AEON's founders understand Southeast Asian payment behavior. Gnosis Pay's team understands European regulatory requirements. M-Pesa's operators have 15 years of experience in African mobile money.

Global networks, by contrast, optimize for the average case. They provide the same POS terminals to Lagos as they do to London, the same onboarding flows to Jakarta as to New York. The result is infrastructure that works acceptably everywhere but optimally nowhere.

What This Means for the Future​

The implications extend beyond payments. Regional networks are proving that critical financial infrastructure doesn't require global scale to be valuable—it requires local fit.

This suggests a future where payments fragment into regional networks connected by interoperability protocols, rather than consolidating under a few global providers. It's a model that more closely resembles the internet—multiple networks connected by common standards—than the current credit card duopoly.

For emerging market populations, this shift represents something more significant: the first credible alternative to financial systems that have extracted fees while providing minimal service for decades.

For traditional payment giants, it represents an existential strategic question: can they adapt their infrastructure quickly enough, or will regional networks capture the next billion payment users before they can respond?

The next 24 months will provide the answer.

---

For builders developing in the Web3 payments space, robust infrastructure is the foundation of everything. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API access across major blockchain networks including Ethereum, Solana, and Sui—the same chains powering the next generation of payment applications. Explore our API marketplace to build on infrastructure designed for the scale these opportunities demand.

What if the future of artificial intelligence isn't controlled by a handful of trillion-dollar corporations, but by millions of contributors earning tokens for training models and sharing data? Two projects are racing to make this vision real—and they couldn't be more different in their approach.

Bittensor, with its Bitcoin-inspired tokenomics and proof-of-intelligence mining, has built a $2.9 billion ecosystem where AI models compete for rewards. Sahara AI, backed by $49 million from Pantera and Binance Labs, is constructing a full-stack blockchain where data ownership and copyright protection come first. One rewards raw intelligence output; the other protects the humans behind the data.

As centralized AI giants like OpenAI and Google race toward artificial general intelligence, these decentralized alternatives are betting that the future belongs to open, permissionless systems. But which vision will prevail?

The Centralization Problem in AI​

The AI industry faces a stark concentration of power. Training frontier models requires billions of dollars in compute infrastructure, with clusters of thousands of GPUs running for months. Only a handful of companies—OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta—can afford this scale. DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis recently described it as "the most intense competitive environment" veteran technologists have ever seen.

This concentration creates cascading problems. Data contributors—the artists, writers, and programmers whose work trains these models—receive no compensation or attribution. Small developers can't compete against proprietary moats. And users have no choice but to trust that centralized providers will behave responsibly with their data and outputs.

Decentralized AI protocols offer an alternative architecture. By distributing computation, data, and rewards across global networks, they aim to democratize access while ensuring fair compensation. But the design space is vast, and two leading projects have chosen radically different paths.

Bittensor: The Proof-of-Intelligence Mining Network​

Bittensor operates like "Bitcoin for AI"—a permissionless network where participants earn TAO tokens by contributing valuable machine learning outputs. Instead of solving arbitrary cryptographic puzzles, miners run AI models and answer queries. The better their responses, the more they earn.

How It Works​

The network consists of specialized subnets, each focused on a particular AI task: text generation, image synthesis, trading signals, protein folding, code completion. As of early 2026, Bittensor hosts over 129 active subnets, up from 32 in its early stages.

Within each subnet, three roles interact:

• Miners run AI models and respond to queries, earning TAO based on output quality
• Validators evaluate miner responses and assign scores using the Yuma Consensus algorithm
• Subnet Owners curate the task specifications and receive a portion of emissions

The emission split is 41% to miners, 41% to validators, and 18% to subnet owners. This creates a market-driven system where the best AI contributions earn the most rewards—a meritocracy enforced by cryptographic consensus rather than corporate hierarchy.

The TAO Token Economy​

TAO mirrors Bitcoin's tokenomics: a hard cap of 21 million tokens, regular halving events, and no pre-mine or ICO. On December 12, 2025, Bittensor completed its first halving, reducing daily emissions from 7,200 to 3,600 TAO.

The February 2025 dynamic TAO (dTAO) upgrade introduced market-driven subnet pricing. When stakers buy into a subnet's alpha token, they're voting with their TAO for that subnet's value. Higher demand means higher emissions—a price discovery mechanism for AI capabilities.

Currently, around 73% of TAO supply is staked, signaling strong long-term conviction. Grayscale's GTAO trust filed for NYSE conversion in December 2025, potentially opening the door to a TAO ETF and broader institutional access.

Network Scale and Adoption​

The numbers tell a story of rapid growth:

• 121,567 unique wallets across all subnets
• 106,839 miners and 37,642 validators
• Market cap of approximately $2.9 billion
• EVM compatibility enabling smart contracts on subnets

Bittensor's thesis is simple: if you create the right incentives, intelligence will emerge from the network. No central coordinator needed.

Sahara AI: The Full-Stack Data Sovereignty Platform​

While Bittensor focuses on incentivizing AI output, Sahara AI tackles the input problem: who owns the data that trains these models, and how do contributors get paid?

Founded by researchers from MIT and USC, Sahara has raised $49 million across funding rounds led by Pantera Capital, Binance Labs, and Polychain Capital. Its 2025 IDO on Buidlpad attracted 103,000 participants from 118 countries, raising over $74 million—with 79% paid in World Liberty Financial's USD1 stablecoin.

The Three Pillars​

Sahara AI is built on three foundational principles:

1. Sovereignty and Provenance: Every data contribution is recorded on-chain with immutable attribution. Even after data is ingested into AI models during training, contributors retain verifiable ownership. The platform is SOC2 certified for security and compliance.

2. AI Utility: The Sahara Marketplace (launched in open beta June 2025) allows users to buy, sell, and license AI models, datasets, and compute resources. Every transaction is recorded on the blockchain with transparent revenue sharing.

3. Collaborative Economy: High-quality contributors receive soulbound tokens (non-transferable reputation markers) that unlock premium roles and governance rights. Token holders vote on platform upgrades and fund allocation.

Data Services Platform​

Sahara's Data Services Platform, launched December 2024, lets anyone earn money by creating datasets for AI training. Over 200,000 global AI trainers and 35 enterprise clients use the platform, with more than 3 million data annotations processed.

This addresses a fundamental asymmetry in AI development: companies like OpenAI scrape the internet for training data, but the original creators see nothing. Sahara ensures that data contributors—whether labeling images, writing code, or annotating text—receive direct compensation through SAHARA token payments.

Technical Architecture​

Sahara Chain uses CometBFT (a fork of Tendermint Core) for Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus. The design prioritizes privacy, provenance, and performance for AI applications requiring secure data handling.

The token economy features:

• Per-inference payments priced in SAHARA
• Proof-of-Stake validation with staking rewards
• Decentralized governance for protocol decisions
• 10 billion maximum supply with June 2025 TGE

The mainnet launched in Q3 2025, with the team reporting 1.4 million daily active accounts on the testnet and partnerships with Microsoft, AWS, and Google Cloud.

Head-to-Head: Comparing the Visions​

Dimension	Bittensor	Sahara AI
Primary Focus	AI output quality	Data input sovereignty
Consensus	Proof of Intelligence (Yuma)	Proof of Stake (CometBFT)
Token Supply	21M hard cap	10B maximum
Mining Model	Competitive (best outputs win)	Collaborative (all contributors paid)
Key Metric	Intelligence per token	Data provenance per transaction
Market Cap (Jan 2026)	~$2.9B	~$71M
Institutional Signal	Grayscale ETF filing	Binance/Pantera backing
Main Differentiator	Subnet diversity	Copyright protection

Different Problems, Different Solutions​

Bittensor asks: How do we incentivize the production of the best AI outputs? Its answer is market competition—let miners battle for rewards, and quality will emerge.

Sahara AI asks: How do we fairly compensate everyone who contributes to AI? Its answer is provenance—track every contribution on-chain, and ensure creators get paid.

These aren't contradictory visions; they're complementary layers of a potential decentralized AI stack. Bittensor optimizes for model quality through competition. Sahara optimizes for data quality through fair compensation.

The Copyright Question​

One of AI's most contentious issues is training data rights. Major lawsuits from artists, authors, and publishers argue that scraping copyrighted content for training constitutes infringement.

Sahara addresses this directly with on-chain provenance. When a dataset enters the system, the contributor's ownership is cryptographically recorded. If that data is used to train a model, the attribution persists—and royalty payments can flow automatically.

Bittensor, by contrast, is agnostic about where miners get their training data. The network rewards output quality, not input provenance. This makes it more flexible but also more vulnerable to the same copyright challenges facing centralized AI.

Scale and Adoption Trajectories​

Bittensor's $2.9 billion market cap dwarfs Sahara's $71 million, reflecting a multi-year head start and the TAO halving narrative. With 129 subnets and Grayscale's ETF filing, Bittensor has achieved meaningful institutional validation.

Sahara is earlier in its lifecycle but growing fast. The $74 million IDO demonstrates retail demand, and enterprise partnerships with AWS and Google Cloud suggest real-world adoption potential. The Q3 2025 mainnet launch puts it on track for full production operations in 2026.

The 2026 Outlook: Show Me the ROI​

As Menlo Ventures partner Venky Ganesan observed, "2026 is the 'show me the money' year for AI." Enterprises demand real ROI, and countries need productivity gains to justify infrastructure spending.

Decentralized AI must prove it can compete with centralized alternatives—not just philosophically, but practically. Can Bittensor subnets produce models that rival GPT-5? Can Sahara's data marketplace attract enough contributors to build premium training sets?

The total AI crypto market cap sits at $24-27 billion, small compared to OpenAI's rumored $150 billion valuation. But decentralized projects offer something centralized giants cannot: permissionless participation, transparent economics, and resistance to single points of failure.

What to Watch​

For Bittensor:

• Post-halving supply dynamics and price discovery
• Subnet quality metrics vs. centralized model benchmarks
• Grayscale ETF approval timeline

For Sahara AI:

• Mainnet stability and transaction volume
• Enterprise adoption beyond pilot programs
• Regulatory reception of on-chain copyright provenance

The Convergence Thesis​

The most likely outcome isn't that one project wins while the other loses. AI infrastructure is vast enough for multiple winners addressing different problems.

Bittensor excels at coordinating distributed intelligence production. Sahara excels at coordinating fair data compensation. A mature decentralized AI ecosystem might use both: Sahara for sourcing high-quality, ethically-sourced training data, and Bittensor for competitively improving models trained on that data.

The real competition isn't between Bittensor and Sahara—it's between decentralized AI as a category and the centralized giants that currently dominate. If decentralized networks can achieve even a fraction of frontier model capabilities while offering superior economics for contributors, they'll capture enormous value as AI spending accelerates.

Two visions. Two architectures. One question: can decentralized AI deliver intelligence without centralized control?

---

Building AI applications on blockchain infrastructure requires reliable, high-performance RPC services. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API access to support AI-blockchain integrations. Explore our API marketplace to build on foundations designed for the decentralized AI era.

In January 2025, Ledger co-founder David Balland was kidnapped from his home in central France. His captors demanded EUR 10 million in cryptocurrency—and severed one of his fingers to prove they meant business. Four months later, an Italian investor was held captive for 17 days, subjected to severe physical abuse while attackers tried to extract access to his $28 million in Bitcoin.

These aren't isolated incidents. They're part of a disturbing trend that security experts are calling a "record year for wrench attacks"—physical violence used to bypass the digital security that cryptocurrency was designed to provide. And the data reveals an uncomfortable truth: as Bitcoin's price climbs, so does the violence targeting its holders.

What Is a Wrench Attack?​

The term "wrench attack" comes from an xkcd webcomic illustrating a simple concept: no matter how sophisticated your encryption, an attacker can bypass it all with a $5 wrench and the willingness to use it. In crypto, this translates to criminals who skip the hacking and go straight to physical coercion—kidnapping, home invasion, torture, and threats against family members.

Jameson Lopp, chief security officer at Bitcoin wallet company Casa, maintains a database of over 225 verified physical attacks on cryptocurrency holders. The data tells a stark story:

• 2025 saw approximately 70 wrench attacks—nearly double the 41 recorded in 2024
• About 25% of incidents are home invasions, often aided by leaked KYC data or public records
• 23% are kidnappings, frequently involving family members as leverage
• Two-thirds of attacks succeed in extracting assets
• Only 60% of known perpetrators are caught

And these numbers likely understate reality. Many victims choose not to report crimes, fearing repeat offenses or lacking confidence in law enforcement's ability to help.

The Price-Violence Correlation​

Research by Marilyne Ordekian at University College London identified a direct correlation between Bitcoin's price and the frequency of physical attacks. Chainalysis confirmed this pattern, finding "a clear correlation between violent incidents and a forward-looking moving average of bitcoin's price."

The logic is grimly straightforward: when Bitcoin hits all-time highs (surpassing $120,000 in 2025), the perceived payoff for violent crime increases proportionally. Criminals don't need to understand blockchain technology—they just need to know that someone near them has valuable digital assets.

This correlation has predictive implications. As TRM Labs' global head of policy Ari Redbord notes: "As cryptocurrency adoption grows and more value is held directly by individuals, criminals are increasingly incentivised to bypass technical defenses altogether and target people instead."

The forecast for 2026 isn't optimistic. TRM Labs predicts wrench attacks will continue rising as Bitcoin maintains elevated prices and crypto wealth becomes more widespread.

The Anatomy of Modern Crypto Violence​

The 2025 attack wave revealed how sophisticated these operations have become:

The Ledger Kidnapping (January 2025) David Balland and his partner were taken from their home in central France. The attackers demanded EUR 10 million, using finger amputation as leverage. French police eventually rescued both victims and arrested several suspects—but the psychological damage and security implications for the entire industry were profound.

The Paris Wave (May 2025) In a single month, Paris experienced multiple high-profile attacks:

• The daughter and grandson of a cryptocurrency CEO were attacked in broad daylight
• A crypto entrepreneur's father was abducted, with kidnappers demanding EUR 5-7 million and severing his finger
• An Italian investor was held for 17 days of severe physical abuse

The U.S. Home Invasion Ring Gilbert St. Felix received a 47-year sentence—the longest ever in a U.S. crypto case—for leading a violent home-invasion ring targeting holders. His crew used KYC data leaks to identify targets, then employed extreme violence including waterboarding and threats of mutilation.

The Texas Brothers (September 2024) Raymond and Isiah Garcia allegedly held a Minnesota family hostage at gunpoint with AR-15s and shotguns, zip-tying victims while demanding $8 million in cryptocurrency transfers.

What's notable is the geographic spread. These aren't just happening in high-risk regions—attacks are concentrated in Western Europe, the U.S., and Canada, countries traditionally considered safe with robust law enforcement. As Solace Global notes, this "illustrates the risks criminal organizations are willing to take to secure such valuable and easily movable digital assets."

The KYC Data Problem​

A troubling pattern has emerged: many attacks appear facilitated by leaked Know Your Customer (KYC) data. When you verify your identity on a cryptocurrency exchange, that information can become a targeting mechanism if the exchange suffers a data breach.

French crypto executives have explicitly blamed European cryptocurrency regulations for creating databases that hackers can exploit. According to Les Echos, kidnappers may have used these files to identify victims' places of residence.

The irony is bitter. Regulations designed to prevent financial crime may be enabling physical crime against the very users they're meant to protect.

France's Emergency Response​

After recording its 10th crypto-related kidnapping in 2025, France's government launched unprecedented protective measures:

Immediate Security Upgrades

• Priority access to police emergency services for crypto professionals
• Home security inspections and direct consultations with law enforcement
• Security training with elite police forces
• Safety audits of executives' residences

Legislative Action Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin announced a new decree for rapid implementation. Lawmaker Paul Midy submitted a bill to automatically delete business leaders' personal addresses from public company records—addressing the doxing vector that enabled many attacks.

Investigation Progress 25 individuals have been charged in connection with French cases. An alleged mastermind was arrested in Morocco but awaits extradition.

The French response reveals something important: governments are beginning to treat crypto security as a matter of public safety, not just financial regulation.

Operational Security: The Human Firewall​

Technical security—hardware wallets, multisig, cold storage—can protect assets from digital theft. But wrench attacks bypass technology entirely. The solution requires operational security (OpSec), treating yourself with the caution typically reserved for high-net-worth individuals.

Identity Separation

• Never connect your real-world identity to your on-chain holdings
• Use separate email addresses and devices for crypto activities
• Avoid using home addresses for any crypto-related deliveries (including hardware wallets)
• Consider purchasing hardware directly from manufacturers using a virtual office address

The First Rule: Don't Talk About Your Stack

• Never discuss holdings publicly—including on social media, in Discord servers, or at meetups
• Be wary of "crypto friends" who might share information
• Avoid displaying wealth indicators that could signal crypto success

Physical Fortification

• Security cameras and alarm systems
• Home security assessments
• Varying daily routines to avoid predictable patterns
• Awareness of physical surroundings, especially when accessing wallets

Technical Measures That Also Provide Physical Protection

• Geographic distribution of multisig keys (attackers can't force you to provide what you don't physically have access to)
• Time-locked withdrawals that prevent immediate transfers under duress
• "Panic wallets" with limited funds that can be surrendered if threatened
• Casa-style collaborative custody where no single person controls all keys

Communication Security

• Use authenticator apps, never SMS-based 2FA (SIM swapping remains a common attack vector)
• Screen unknown calls ruthlessly
• Never share verification codes
• Put PINs and passwords on all mobile accounts

The Mindset Shift​

Perhaps the most critical security measure is mental. As Casa's guide notes: "Complacency is arguably the greatest threat to your OPSEC. Many victims of bitcoin-related attacks knew what basic precautions to put in place, but they didn't get around to putting them into practice because they didn't believe they'd ever be a target."

The "it won't happen to me" mindset is the riskiest vulnerability of all.

Maximum physical privacy requires what one security guide describes as "treating yourself like a high-net-worth individual in witness protection—constant vigilance, multiple defense layers, and acceptance that perfect security doesn't exist, only making attacks too costly or difficult."

The Bigger Picture​

The rise of wrench attacks reveals a fundamental tension in crypto's value proposition. Self-custody is celebrated as freedom from institutional gatekeepers—but it also means individual users bear full responsibility for their own security, including physical safety.

Traditional banking, for all its flaws, provides institutional layers of protection. When criminals target bank customers, the bank absorbs losses. When criminals target crypto holders, the victims are often on their own.

This doesn't mean self-custody is wrong. It means the ecosystem needs to mature beyond technical security to address human vulnerability.

What needs to change:

• Industry: Better data hygiene practices and breach response protocols
• Regulation: Recognition that KYC databases create targeting risks requiring protective measures
• Education: Physical security awareness as standard onboarding for new users
• Technology: More solutions like time-locks and collaborative custody that provide protection even under duress

Looking Ahead​

The correlation between Bitcoin price and violent attacks suggests 2026 will see continued growth in this crime category. With Bitcoin maintaining prices above $100,000 and crypto wealth becoming more visible, the incentive structure for criminals remains strong.

But awareness is growing. France's legislative response, increased security training, and the mainstreaming of operational security practices represent the beginning of an industry-wide reckoning with physical vulnerability.

The next phase of crypto security won't be measured in key lengths or hash rates. It will be measured in how well the ecosystem protects the humans holding the keys.

---

Security is foundational to everything in Web3. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade blockchain infrastructure with security-first design across 30+ networks. For teams building applications where user safety matters, explore our API marketplace and start building on infrastructure you can trust.

In 2022, Vitalik Buterin posed a simple question that would define the next four years of Ethereum scaling: how much Ethereum compatibility are you willing to sacrifice for faster zero-knowledge proofs? His answer came in the form of a five-type classification system for zkEVMs that has since become the industry standard for evaluating these critical scaling solutions.

Fast forward to 2026, and the answer isn't so simple anymore. Proving times have collapsed from 16 minutes to 16 seconds. Costs have dropped 45x. Multiple teams have demonstrated real-time proof generation faster than Ethereum's 12-second block times. Yet the fundamental trade-off Vitalik identified remains—and understanding it is essential for any developer or project choosing where to build.

The Vitalik Classification: Types 1 Through 4​

Vitalik's framework categorizes zkEVMs along a spectrum from perfect Ethereum equivalence to maximum proving efficiency. Higher type numbers mean faster proofs but less compatibility with existing Ethereum infrastructure.

Type 1: Fully Ethereum-Equivalent​

Type 1 zkEVMs don't change anything about Ethereum. They prove the exact same execution environment that Ethereum L1 uses—same opcodes, same data structures, same everything.

The upside: Perfect compatibility. Ethereum execution clients work as-is. Every tool, every contract, every piece of infrastructure transfers directly. This is ultimately what Ethereum needs to make L1 itself more scalable.

The downside: Ethereum wasn't designed for zero-knowledge proofs. The EVM's stack-based architecture is notoriously inefficient for ZK proof generation. Early Type 1 implementations required hours to generate a single proof.

Leading project: Taiko aims for Type 1 equivalence as a based rollup using Ethereum's validators for sequencing, enabling synchronous composability with other based rollups.

Type 2: Fully EVM-Equivalent​

Type 2 zkEVMs maintain full EVM compatibility but change internal representations—how state is stored, how data structures are organized—to improve proof generation.

The upside: Contracts written for Ethereum run without modification. The developer experience remains identical. Migration friction approaches zero.

The downside: Block explorers and debugging tools may need modifications. State proofs work differently than on Ethereum L1.

Leading projects: Scroll and Linea target Type 2 compatibility, achieving near-perfect EVM equivalence at the VM level without transpilers or custom compilers.

Type 2.5: EVM-Equivalent with Gas Cost Changes​

Type 2.5 is a pragmatic middle ground. The zkEVM remains EVM-compatible but increases gas costs for operations that are particularly expensive to prove in zero-knowledge.

The trade-off: Since Ethereum has a gas limit per block, increasing gas costs for specific opcodes means fewer of those opcodes can execute per block. Applications work, but certain computational patterns become prohibitively expensive.

Type 3: Almost EVM-Equivalent​

Type 3 zkEVMs sacrifice specific EVM features—often related to precompiles, memory handling, or how contract code is treated—to dramatically improve proof generation.

The upside: Faster proofs, lower costs, better performance.

The downside: Some Ethereum applications won't work without modification. Developers may need to rewrite contracts that rely on unsupported features.

Reality check: No team actually wants to stay at Type 3. It's understood as a transitional stage while teams work on adding the complex precompile support needed to reach Type 2.5 or Type 2. Both Scroll and Polygon zkEVM operated as Type 3 before advancing up the compatibility ladder.

Type 4: High-Level Language Compatible​

Type 4 systems abandon EVM compatibility entirely at the bytecode level. Instead, they compile Solidity or Vyper to a custom VM designed specifically for efficient ZK proofs.

The upside: Fastest proof generation. Lowest costs. Maximum performance.

The downside: Contracts may behave differently. Addresses might not match Ethereum deployments. Debugging tools need complete rewrites. Migration requires careful testing.

Leading projects: zkSync Era and StarkNet represent the Type 4 approach. zkSync transpiles Solidity to custom bytecode optimized for ZK. StarkNet uses Cairo, an entirely new language designed for provability.

Performance Benchmarks: Where We Stand in 2026​

The numbers have transformed dramatically since Vitalik's original post. What was theoretical in 2022 is production reality in 2026.

Proving Times​

Early zkEVMs required approximately 16 minutes to generate proofs. Current implementations complete the same process in roughly 16 seconds—a 60x improvement. Several teams have demonstrated proof generation in under 2 seconds, faster than Ethereum's 12-second block times.

The Ethereum Foundation has set an ambitious target: proving 99% of mainnet blocks in under 10 seconds using less than $100,000 in hardware and 10kW of power consumption. Multiple teams have already demonstrated capability close to this target.

Transaction Costs​

The Dencun upgrade in March 2024 (EIP-4844 introducing "blobs") reduced L2 fees by 75-90%, making all rollups dramatically more cost-effective. Current benchmarks show:

Platform	Transaction Cost	Notes
Polygon zkEVM	$0.00275	Per transaction for full batches
zkSync Era	$0.00378	Median transaction cost
Linea	$0.05-0.15	Average transaction

Throughput​

Real-world performance varies significantly based on transaction complexity:

Platform	TPS (Complex DeFi)	Notes
Polygon zkEVM	5.4 tx/s	AMM swap benchmark
zkSync Era	71 TPS	Complex DeFi swaps
Theoretical (Linea)	100,000 TPS	With advanced sharding

These numbers will continue improving as hardware acceleration, parallelization, and algorithmic optimizations mature.

Market Adoption: TVL and Developer Traction​

The zkEVM landscape has consolidated around several clear leaders, each representing different points on the type spectrum:

Current TVL Rankings (2025)​

• Scroll: $748 million TVL, largest pure zkEVM
• StarkNet: $826 million TVS
• zkSync Era: $569 million TVL, 270+ deployed dApps
• Linea: ~$963 million TVS, 400%+ growth in daily active addresses

The overall Layer 2 ecosystem has reached $70 billion in TVL, with ZK rollups capturing increasing market share as proving costs continue declining.

Developer Adoption Signals​

• Over 65% of new smart contracts in 2025 deployed on Layer 2 networks
• zkSync Era attracted approximately $1.9 billion in tokenized real-world assets, capturing ~25% of on-chain RWA market share
• Layer 2 networks handled an estimated 1.9 million daily transactions in 2025

The Compatibility-Performance Trade-off in Practice​

Understanding the theoretical types is useful, but the practical implications for developers are what matter.

Type 1-2: Zero Migration Friction​

For Scroll and Linea (Type 2), migration means literally zero code changes for most applications. Deploy the same Solidity bytecode, use the same tools (MetaMask, Hardhat, Remix), expect the same behavior.

Best for: Existing Ethereum applications prioritizing seamless migration; projects where proven, audited code must remain unchanged; teams without resources for extensive testing and modification.

Type 3: Careful Testing Required​

For Polygon zkEVM and similar Type 3 implementations, most applications work but edge cases exist. Certain precompiles may behave differently or be unsupported.

Best for: Teams with resources for thorough testnet validation; projects not relying on exotic EVM features; applications prioritizing cost efficiency over perfect compatibility.

Type 4: Different Mental Model​

For zkSync Era and StarkNet, the development experience differs meaningfully from Ethereum:

zkSync Era supports Solidity but transpiles it to custom bytecode. Contracts compile and run, but behavior may differ in subtle ways. Addresses aren't guaranteed to match Ethereum deployments.

StarkNet uses Cairo, requiring developers to learn an entirely new language—though one specifically designed for provable computation.

Best for: Greenfield projects not constrained by existing code; applications prioritizing maximum performance; teams willing to invest in specialized tooling and testing.

Security: The Non-Negotiable Constraint​

The Ethereum Foundation introduced clear cryptographic security requirements for zkEVM developers in 2025:

• 100-bit provable security by May 2026
• 128-bit security by end of 2026

These requirements reflect the reality that faster proofs mean nothing if the underlying cryptography isn't bulletproof. Teams are expected to meet these thresholds regardless of their type classification.

The security focus has slowed some performance improvements—the Ethereum Foundation explicitly chose security over speed through 2026—but ensures the foundation for mainstream adoption remains solid.

Choosing Your zkEVM: A Decision Framework​

Choose Type 1-2 (Taiko, Scroll, Linea) if:​

• You're migrating existing battle-tested contracts
• Audit costs are a concern (no reaudit needed)
• Your team is Ethereum-native without ZK expertise
• Composability with Ethereum L1 matters
• You need synchronous interoperability with other based rollups

Choose Type 3 (Polygon zkEVM) if:​

• You want a balance of compatibility and performance
• You can invest in thorough testnet validation
• Cost efficiency is a priority
• You don't rely on exotic EVM precompiles

Choose Type 4 (zkSync Era, StarkNet) if:​

• You're building from scratch without migration constraints
• Maximum performance justifies tooling investment
• Your use case benefits from ZK-native design patterns
• You have resources for specialized development

What Comes Next​

The type classifications won't remain static. Vitalik noted that zkEVM projects can "easily start at higher-numbered types and jump to lower-numbered types over time." We're seeing this in practice—projects that launched as Type 3 are advancing toward Type 2 as they complete precompile implementations.

More intriguingly, if Ethereum L1 adopts modifications to become more ZK-friendly, Type 2 and Type 3 implementations could become Type 1 without changing their own code.

The endgame appears increasingly clear: proving times will continue compressing, costs will continue declining, and the distinction between types will blur as hardware acceleration and algorithmic improvements close the performance gap. The question isn't which type will win—it's how quickly the entire spectrum converges toward practical equivalence.

For now, the framework remains valuable. Understanding where a zkEVM sits on the compatibility-performance spectrum tells you what to expect during development, deployment, and operation. That knowledge is essential for any team building on Ethereum's ZK-powered future.

---

Building on zkEVM infrastructure? BlockEden.xyz provides high-performance RPC endpoints across multiple zkEVM chains including Polygon zkEVM, Scroll, and Linea. Explore our API marketplace to access the infrastructure layer your ZK applications need.

Ethereum captured over 40% of all on-chain fees in 2021. By 2025, that number collapsed to less than 3%. This isn't a story of Ethereum's decline—it's a story of where value actually flows when transaction fees drop to fractions of a penny.

The fat protocol thesis, introduced by Joel Monegro in 2016, promised that base layer blockchains would capture the lion's share of value as applications built on top of them. For years, this held true. But something fundamental shifted in 2024-2025: applications started generating more fees than the blockchains they run on, and the gap is widening every quarter.

The Numbers That Flipped the Script​

In H1 2025, $9.7 billion was paid to protocols across the crypto ecosystem. The breakdown tells the real story: 63% went to DeFi and finance applications—led by trading fees from DEXs and perpetual derivatives platforms. Only 22% went to blockchains themselves, primarily L1 transaction fees and MEV capture. L2 and L3 fees remained marginal.

The shift accelerated throughout the year. DeFi and finance applications are on track for $13.1 billion in fees for 2025, representing 66% of total on-chain fees. Meanwhile, blockchain valuations continue to command over 90% of total market cap among fee-generating protocols, despite their share of actual fees declining from over 60% in 2023 to just 12% in Q3 2025.

This creates a striking disconnect: blockchains are valued at Price-to-Fee ratios in the thousands, while applications trade at ratios between 10 and 100. The market still prices infrastructure as if it captures the majority of value—even as that value migrates upward.

The Fee Collapse That Changed Everything​

Transaction costs on major chains have plummeted to levels that would have seemed impossible three years ago. Solana processes transactions for $0.00025—less than one-tenth of a cent. Ethereum mainnet gas prices hit record lows of 0.067 gwei in November 2025, with sustained periods below 0.2 gwei. Layer 2 networks like Base and Arbitrum routinely process transactions for under $0.01.

The Dencun upgrade in March 2024 triggered a 95% drop in average gas fees on Ethereum mainnet. The effects compounded throughout 2025 as major rollups optimized their batching systems to take full advantage of blob-based data posting. Optimism cut DA costs by more than half by switching from call data to blobs.

This isn't just good for users—it fundamentally restructures where value accumulates. When transaction fees drop from dollars to fractions of pennies, the protocol layer can no longer capture meaningful economic value through gas alone. That value has to go somewhere, and increasingly, it flows to applications.

Pump.fun: The $724 Million Case Study​

No example illustrates the app-over-infrastructure shift more clearly than Pump.fun, the Solana-based memecoin launchpad. As of August 2025, Pump.fun generated over $724 million in cumulative revenue—more than many Layer 1 blockchains.

The platform's business model is simple: a 1% swap fee on all tokens traded and 1.5 SOL when a coin graduates after hitting a $90,000 market cap. This captured more value than Solana itself earned in network fees during many periods. In July 2025, Pump.fun raised $1.3 billion through a token offering—$600 million public, $700 million private.

Pump.fun wasn't alone. Seven Solana applications generated more than $100 million in revenue during 2025: Axiom Exchange, Meteora, Raydium, Jupiter, Photon, and Bullx joined the list. Total app revenue across Solana reached $2.39 billion, up 46% year over year.

Meanwhile, Solana's network REV (realized extractable value) climbed to $1.4 billion—impressive growth, but increasingly overshadowed by the applications running on top of it. The apps are eating the protocol's lunch.

The New Power Centers​

The concentration of value at the application layer has created new power dynamics. In DEXs, the landscape shifted dramatically: Uniswap's dominance fell from roughly 50% to around 18% in a single year. Raydium and Meteora captured share by riding Solana's surge, while Uniswap lagged on Ethereum.

In perpetual derivatives, the shift was even more dramatic. Jupiter grew its fee share from 5% to 45%. Hyperliquid, launched less than a year ago, now contributes 35% of subsector fees and became a top-three crypto asset by fee revenue. The decentralized perpetuals market exploded as these platforms captured value that might otherwise flow to centralized exchanges.

Lending remained the domain of Aave, holding 62% of DeFi lending market share with $39 billion in TVL by August 2025. But even here, challengers emerged: Morpho increased its share to 10% from nearly zero in H1 2024.

The top five protocols (Tron, Ethereum, Solana, Jito, Flashbots) captured approximately 80% of blockchain fees in H1 2025. But that concentration obscured the real trend: a market once dominated by two or three platforms capturing 80% of fees is now far more balanced, with ten protocols collectively accounting for that same 80%.

The Fat Protocol Thesis on Life Support​

Joel Monegro's 2016 theory proposed that base layer blockchains, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, would accrue more value than their application layers. This inverted the traditional internet model, where protocols like HTTP and SMTP captured no economic value while Google, Facebook, and Netflix extracted billions.

Two mechanisms were supposed to drive this: shared data layers that reduced barriers to entry, and cryptographic access tokens with speculative value. Both mechanisms worked—until they didn't.

The emergence of modular blockchains and the abundance of blockspace fundamentally changed the equation. Protocols are becoming "thinner" as they outsource data availability, execution, and settlement to specialized layers. Applications, meanwhile, focus on what makes them successful: user experience, liquidity, and network effects.

Transaction fees trending toward zero make it harder for protocols to capture value. The 180-day cumulative revenue data backs this argument: seven of the ten largest revenue generators are now applications, not protocols.

The Revenue Redistribution Revolution​

Major protocols that historically avoided explicit value distribution are changing course. While only around 5% of protocol revenue was redistributed to holders before 2025, that number has tripled to roughly 15%. Aave and Uniswap, which long resisted direct value sharing, are moving in this direction.

This creates an interesting tension. Applications can now share more revenue with token holders because they're capturing more value. But this also highlights the gap between L1 valuations and actual revenue generation.

Pump.fun's approach illustrates the complexity. The platform's value accrual mechanism relies on token buybacks rather than direct dividends. Community members increasingly call for mechanisms like fee burns, validator incentives, or revenue redistribution that translate network success more directly into tokenholder benefits.

What This Means for 2026​

Projections suggest 2026 on-chain fees could reach $32 billion or more—60% year-over-year growth from 2025's projected $19.8 billion. Nearly all of that growth is attributable to applications rather than infrastructure.

Infrastructure tokens face continued pressure despite regulatory clarity in key markets. High inflation schedules, insufficient demand for governance rights, and concentration of value at the base layer suggest further consolidation ahead.

For builders, the implications are clear: application-layer opportunities now rival or exceed infrastructure plays. The path to sustainable revenue runs through user-facing products rather than raw blockspace.

For investors, the valuation disconnect between infrastructure and applications presents both risk and opportunity. L1 tokens trading at Price-to-Fee ratios in the thousands while applications trade at 10-100x face potential repricing as the market recognizes where value actually flows.

The New Equilibrium​

The infrastructure-to-application shift doesn't mean blockchains become worthless. Ethereum, Solana, and other L1s remain critical infrastructure that applications depend on. But the relationship is inverting: applications increasingly choose chains based on cost and performance rather than ecosystem lock-in, while chains compete on being the cheapest and most reliable substrate.

This mirrors the traditional tech stack. AWS and Google Cloud are enormously valuable, but the applications built on top of them—Netflix, Spotify, Airbnb—capture outsized attention and, increasingly, outsized value relative to their infrastructure costs.

The $2.39 billion in Solana app revenue versus sub-penny transaction fees tells the story. The value is there. It's just not where the 2016 thesis predicted it would be.

---

The infrastructure-to-application shift creates new opportunities and challenges for builders. BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API services across 20+ blockchains, helping developers build the applications capturing value in this new landscape. Explore our API marketplace to access the infrastructure powering the next generation of revenue-generating applications.

In 2025, more than 11.6 million crypto tokens failed—86.3% of all cryptocurrency failures recorded since 2021. Yet here's the uncomfortable truth: most of these projects didn't collapse because their technology was broken. They failed because nobody understood why they mattered.

The crypto industry has built trillion-dollar infrastructure on the assumption that superior technology wins markets. It doesn't. Betamax was technically better than VHS. Google+ offered features Facebook lacked. And in Web3, the pattern repeats daily: technically brilliant protocols fade into obscurity while narratively compelling projects capture mindshare, capital, and users.

The $37 Million Question​

When Polkadot's $37 million marketing spend was revealed in 2024, it sparked outrage across the blockchain community. Critics argued the money should have funded development. But the disclosure exposed a deeper truth: even well-funded technical projects struggle to explain why anyone outside the developer bubble should care.

Apple didn't launch the iPod by explaining MP3 compression. They marketed it as "1,000 songs in your pocket." Web3 projects do the opposite. Browse any chain's announcement and you'll find phrases like "modular DA" or "account abstraction"—technical terms that mean nothing to the 8 billion people who haven't memorized the Ethereum roadmap.

The result is predictable. According to research from the University of Surrey, up to 90% of blockchain startups fail—and the primary causes aren't technical. Projects collapse due to unclear business models, poor user experience, and most critically, an inability to translate technical capability into compelling narratives that resonate beyond crypto-native audiences.

The Betamax Graveyard: When Better Technology Loses​

The Betamax vs. VHS war offers a perfect template for understanding Web3's storytelling crisis. Sony's Betamax offered superior picture quality and smaller cassettes. But VHS understood what consumers actually wanted: longer recording times (2 hours vs. 1 hour) at lower prices. Technical superiority was irrelevant when it conflicted with user needs.

Privacy coins illustrate this dynamic in real-time. Monero's technology is structurally superior for actual privacy—every transaction contributes to a constantly churning anonymity set. But in 2024-2025, Zcash surged 700% and overtook Monero's market cap. Why? Because Zcash told a story regulators could accept.

Monero faced delisting from Binance, Kraken, and exchanges across the European Economic Area. Users were forced to convert holdings or move to smaller platforms. Meanwhile, Zcash's optional privacy model—technically a compromise—gave institutions a path to participate. Grayscale's Zcash Trust passed $123 million in assets under management.

"If privacy survives in regulated markets at all, Zcash is the one most likely to be allowed through the door," analysts noted. Monero remains "purer," but purity doesn't pay the bills when your token isn't listed anywhere.

The market punished technical correctness and rewarded narrative adaptability. This isn't an anomaly—it's the pattern.

Why Brilliant Builders Can't Tell Stories​

Most crypto projects are built by brilliant technical minds who understand consensus mechanisms, tokenomics, and blockchain architecture inside out. Translating that expertise into compelling narratives requires an entirely different skill set.

The problem compounds because crypto culture rewards technical depth. GitHub commits signal credibility. Whitepapers establish authority. Discord channels fill with architecture diagrams and benchmark comparisons. But none of this content reaches the mainstream users Web3 claims to want.

Consider how crypto communities talk about core values. "Decentralization" and "trustlessness" are cypherpunk ideals that mean nothing outside the bubble. In EU policy discussions, "decentralization" typically refers to shifting power from Brussels to national governments—not distributed networks. The words carry completely different weight depending on the audience.

What non-crypto people actually recognize are the values behind these terms: fairness, access, privacy, and ownership. But translating technical features into human values requires communication skills that technical founders often lack—or deprioritize.

The Narrative Framework That Works​

Successful Web3 storytelling positions the audience as the hero of the narrative, not the technology. This requires a fundamental shift in how projects communicate.

Start with the problem, not the solution. Users don't care about your consensus mechanism. They care about what's broken in their lives and how you fix it. DeFi didn't win mindshare by explaining automated market makers. It promised financial access to anyone with an internet connection.

Make complex concepts relatable without oversimplifying. The goal isn't dumbing down technology—it's finding analogies and entry points that help new audiences understand why innovation matters. "1,000 songs in your pocket" didn't explain MP3 compression. It communicated value.

Create hooks that build emotional momentum. You have seconds to capture attention in noisy markets. Hooks create curiosity, tension, or surprise. They make people feel something before they understand everything.

Align tokenomics with narrative. If your story emphasizes community ownership but your token distribution concentrates among early investors, the disconnect destroys credibility. The narrative must match economic reality.

Build frameworks for community storytelling. Unlike traditional brands, Web3 projects don't control their narratives. Communities actively shape and extend project stories. Successful projects provide templates, contests, and governance mechanisms that guide community-generated content while allowing creativity.

The 2026 Shift: From Hype to Value Delivery​

The market is evolving. Several hot token launches in late 2024 hit peak hype but failed to convert attention into sustainable growth. Price action and user metrics didn't meet expectations. Pure narrative without substance collapsed.

For 2026, marketing must connect narratives to actual product value. Long-term storytelling should build around real business outcomes, real value delivery, and real product execution. Meme-style narratives can still spark breakout moments, but they can't serve as the foundation.

The winning formula combines "storytelling ability" with "real delivery." Tokens that dominated 2025's narrative loops—spreading across Twitter, Discord, and trending boards—succeeded because their communities could own and amplify authentic stories.

For founders, the takeaway is simple: craft a story people want to repeat, and make sure the product behind it delivers on the promise.

Fixing the Gap: Practical Steps for Technical Teams​

Hire narrative specialists. Technical excellence and communication skills rarely coexist in the same person. Recognize this limitation and bring in people who translate technology into human stories.

Define your audience clearly. Are you building for developers, retail users, or institutions? Each audience requires different narratives, channels, and value propositions. "Everyone" isn't an audience.

Test messaging outside the bubble. Before launching, explain your project to people who don't hold crypto. If they can't summarize what you do and why it matters after a two-minute pitch, your narrative needs work.

Build origin stories. Why was your project created? What problem are you solving? Who are the people behind it? Origin stories humanize technology and create emotional connection.

Create consistent messaging across platforms. In Web3, teams are often remote and community-driven. Messaging gets split across Twitter threads, Discord chats, GitHub repos, and community calls. The story must hold up across all channels and contributors.

Paint the future. What does the world look like with your protocol in it? Vision narratives help audiences understand where you're going, not just where you are.

The Uncomfortable Truth​

The 11.6 million tokens that failed in 2025 didn't collapse because blockchain technology stopped working. They failed because their creators assumed technical superiority would speak for itself. It doesn't. It never has.

The crypto industry measures success through Twitter followers rather than transaction volumes. Marketing budgets dwarf technical spending. Growth metrics become more important than GitHub commits. This reality frustrates builders who believe merit should determine outcomes.

But frustration doesn't change markets. Betamax deserved to win. It didn't. Monero's privacy model is structurally correct. It's getting delisted anyway. Technical purity matters less than narrative adaptability in determining which projects survive long enough to achieve their mission.

Web3 has a storytelling crisis. The projects that solve it will onboard the next billion users. The ones that don't will join the 86% that disappeared in 2025—remembered only as another entry in crypto's graveyard of superior technology that couldn't explain why it mattered.

---

The best technology means nothing if no one understands why it matters. BlockEden.xyz helps developers build on reliable infrastructure across 20+ blockchains—so you can focus on crafting the stories that drive adoption. Explore our API marketplace and build on foundations designed to last.

Zero-knowledge rollups were supposed to be the future of blockchain scaling. Instead, they've become hostages to a $97 million centralized prover market where a handful of companies extract 60-70% of fees — while users wait minutes for proofs that should take seconds.

Boundless, RISC Zero's decentralized proof marketplace that launched on mainnet in September 2025, claims to have cracked this problem. By turning ZK proof generation into an open market where GPU operators compete for work, Boundless promises to make verifiable computation "as cheap as execution." But can a token-incentivized network really break the centralization death spiral that's kept ZK technology expensive and inaccessible?

The Billion-Dollar Bottleneck: Why ZK Proofs Are Still Expensive​

The promise of zero-knowledge rollups was elegant: execute transactions off-chain, generate a cryptographic proof of correct execution, and verify that proof on Ethereum for a fraction of the cost. In theory, this would deliver Ethereum-level security at sub-cent transaction costs.

Reality proved messier.

A single ZK proof for a batch of 4,000 transactions takes two to five minutes to generate on a high-end A100 GPU, costing $0.04 to $0.17 in cloud computing fees alone. That's before factoring in the specialized software, engineering expertise, and redundant infrastructure needed to run a reliable proving service.

The result? Over 90% of ZK-L2s rely on a handful of prover-as-a-service providers. This centralization introduces exactly the risks that blockchain was designed to eliminate: censorship, MEV extraction, single points of failure, and web2-style rent extraction.

The Technical Challenge​

The bottleneck isn't network congestion — it's the mathematics itself. ZK proving relies on multi-scalar multiplications (MSMs) and number-theoretic transforms (NTTs) over elliptic curves. These operations are fundamentally different from the matrix math that makes GPUs excellent for AI workloads.

After years of MSM optimization, NTTs now account for up to 90% of proof generation latency on GPUs. The cryptography community has hit diminishing returns on software optimization alone.

Enter Boundless: The Open Proof Market​

Boundless attempts to solve this problem by decoupling proof generation from blockchain consensus entirely. Instead of each rollup running its own prover infrastructure, Boundless creates a marketplace where:

1. Requestors submit proof requests (from any chain)
2. Provers compete to generate proofs using GPUs and commodity hardware
3. Settlement happens on the destination chain specified by the requester

The key innovation is "Proof of Verifiable Work" (PoVW) — a mechanism that rewards provers not for useless hashes (like Bitcoin mining) but for generating useful ZK proofs. Each proof carries cryptographic metadata proving how much computation went into it, creating a transparent record of work.

How It Actually Works​

Under the hood, Boundless builds on RISC Zero's zkVM — a zero-knowledge virtual machine that can execute any program compiled for the RISC-V instruction set. This means developers can write applications in Rust, C++, or any language that compiles to RISC-V, then generate proofs of correct execution without learning specialized ZK circuits.

The three-layer architecture includes:

• zkVM Layer: Executes arbitrary programs and generates STARK proofs
• Recursion Layer: Aggregates multiple STARKs into compact proofs
• Settlement Layer: Converts proofs to Groth16 format for on-chain verification

This design allows Boundless to generate proofs that are small enough (around 200KB) for economical on-chain verification while supporting complex computations.

The ZKC Token: Mining Proofs Instead of Hashes​

Boundless introduced ZK Coin (ZKC) as the native token powering its proof market. Unlike typical utility tokens, ZKC is actively mined through proof generation — provers earn ZKC rewards proportional to the computational work they contribute.

Tokenomics Overview​

• Total Supply: 1 billion ZKC (with 7% inflation in Year 1, tapering to 3% by Year 8)
• Ecosystem Growth: 41.6% allocated to adoption initiatives
• Strategic Partners: 21.5% with 1-year cliff and 2-year vesting
• Community: 8.3% for token sale and airdrops
• Current Price: ~$0.12 (down from $0.29 ICO price)

The inflationary model has sparked debate. Proponents argue ongoing emissions are necessary to incentivize a healthy prover network. Critics point out that 7% annual inflation creates constant sell pressure, potentially limiting ZKC's value appreciation even as the network grows.

Market Turbulence​

ZKC's first months weren't smooth. In October 2025, South Korean exchange Upbit flagged the token with an "investment warning," triggering a 46% price crash. Upbit lifted the warning after Boundless clarified its tokenomics, but the episode highlighted the volatility risks of infrastructure tokens tied to emerging markets.

Mainnet Reality: Who's Actually Using Boundless?​

Since launching mainnet beta on Base in July 2025 and full mainnet in September, Boundless has secured notable integrations:

Wormhole Integration​

Wormhole is integrating Boundless to add ZK verification to Ethereum consensus, making cross-chain transfers more secure. Instead of relying purely on multi-sig guardians, Wormhole NTT (Native Token Transfers) can now include optional ZK proofs for users who want cryptographic guarantees.

Citrea Bitcoin L2​

Citrea, a Bitcoin Layer-2 zk-rollup built by Chainway Labs, uses RISC Zero's zkVM to generate validity proofs posted to Bitcoin via BitVM. This enables EVM-equivalent programmability on Bitcoin while using BTC for settlement and data availability.

Google Cloud Partnership​

Through its Verifiable AI Program, Boundless partnered with Google Cloud to enable ZK-powered AI proofs. Developers can build applications that prove AI model outputs without revealing inputs — a crucial capability for privacy-preserving machine learning.

Stellar Bridge​

In September 2025, Nethermind deployed RISC Zero verifiers for Stellar zk Bridge integration, enabling cross-chain proofs between Stellar's low-cost payment network and Ethereum's security guarantees.

The Competition: Succinct SP1 and the zkVM Wars​

Boundless isn't the only player racing to solve ZK's scalability problem. Succinct Labs' SP1 zkVM has emerged as a major competitor, sparking a benchmarking war between the two teams.

RISC Zero's Claims​

RISC Zero asserts that properly configured zkVM deployments are "at least 7x less expensive than SP1" and up to 60x cheaper for small workloads. They point to tighter proof sizes and more efficient GPU utilization.

Succinct's Response​

Succinct counters that RISC Zero's benchmarks "misleadingly compared CPU performance to GPU results." Their SP1 Hypercube prover claims $0.02 proofs with ~2 minute latency — though it remains closed source.

Independent Analysis​

A Fenbushi Capital comparison found RISC Zero demonstrated "superior speed and efficiency across all benchmark categories in GPU environments," but noted SP1 excels in developer adoption, powering projects like Celestia's Blobstream with $3.14B in total value secured versus RISC Zero's $239M.

The real competitive advantage may not be raw performance but ecosystem lock-in. Boundless plans to support competing zkVMs including SP1, ZKsync's Boojum, and Jolt — positioning itself as a protocol-agnostic proof marketplace rather than a single-vendor solution.

2026 Roadmap: What's Next for Boundless​

RISC Zero's roadmap for Boundless includes several ambitious targets:

Ecosystem Expansion (Q4 2025 - 2026)​

• Extend ZK proof support to Solana
• Bitcoin integration via BitVM
• Additional L2 deployments

Hybrid Rollup Upgrades​

The most significant technical milestone is transitioning optimistic rollups (like Optimism and Base chains) to use validity proofs for faster finality. Instead of waiting 7 days for fraud proof windows, OP chains could settle in minutes.

Multi-zkVM Support​

Support for competing zkVMs is on the roadmap, allowing developers to switch between RISC Zero, SP1, or other proving systems without leaving the marketplace.

Decentralization Completion​

RISC Zero terminated its hosted proof service in December 2025, forcing all proof generation through the decentralized Boundless network. This marked a significant commitment to the decentralization thesis — but also means the network's reliability now depends entirely on independent provers.

The Bigger Picture: Will Decentralized Proving Become the Standard?​

The success of Boundless hinges on a fundamental bet: that proof generation will commoditize the way cloud computing did. If that thesis holds, having the most efficient prover network matters less than having the largest and most liquid marketplace.

Several factors support this view:

1. Hardware commoditization: ZK-specific ASICs from companies like Cysic promise 50x energy efficiency improvements, potentially lowering barriers to entry
2. Proof aggregation: Networks like Boundless can batch proofs from multiple applications, amortizing fixed costs
3. Cross-chain demand: As more chains adopt ZK verification, demand for proof generation could outpace any single provider's capacity

But risks remain:

1. Centralization creep: Early prover networks tend toward concentration as economies of scale favor large operators
2. Token dependency: If ZKC price collapses, prover incentives evaporate — potentially causing a death spiral
3. Technical complexity: Running a competitive prover requires significant expertise, potentially limiting decentralization in practice

What This Means for Developers​

For builders considering ZK integration, Boundless represents a pragmatic middle ground:

• No infrastructure overhead: Submit proof requests via API without running your own provers
• Multi-chain settlement: Generate proofs once, verify on any supported chain
• Language flexibility: Write in Rust or any RISC-V compatible language instead of learning ZK DSLs

The trade-off is dependency on a token-incentivized network whose long-term stability remains unproven. For production applications, many teams may prefer Boundless for testnet and experimentation while maintaining fallback prover infrastructure for critical workloads.

Conclusion​

Boundless represents the most ambitious attempt yet to solve ZK's centralization problem. By turning proof generation into an open market incentivized by ZKC tokens, RISC Zero is betting that competition will drive costs down faster than any single vendor could achieve alone.

The mainnet launch, major integrations with Wormhole and Citrea, and commitment to supporting rival zkVMs suggest serious technical capability. But the inflationary tokenomics, exchange volatility, and unproven decentralization at scale leave important questions unanswered.

For the ZK ecosystem, Boundless's success or failure will signal whether decentralized infrastructure can compete with centralized efficiency — or whether the blockchain industry's scaling future remains in the hands of a few well-funded prover services.

---

Building applications that need ZK verification across multiple chains? BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise RPC endpoints and APIs for Ethereum, Base, and 20+ networks — the reliable connectivity layer your cross-chain ZK applications need.