Ethereum Foundation Maps Path To zkEVM Proofs On Mainnet L1

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-01-16Last updated on 2026-01-16

Abstract

The Ethereum Foundation has outlined a detailed plan to enable Ethereum's mainnet (L1) to validate blocks using zkEVM proofs, reducing the need for validators to re-execute every transaction. The proposal, shared by EF Co-Executive Director Tomasz K. Stańczak, involves engineering work across execution and consensus clients, new proving infrastructure, and security processes. Key milestones include creating a standardized "ExecutionWitness" data structure per block, developing a zkEVM guest program for stateless validation, and updating consensus clients to verify zk proofs during block validation. The plan also emphasizes operational readiness, including proof generation integration, GPU testing, benchmarking, and security measures like reproducible builds and formal threat models. A major dependency is ePBS (enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation), which would extend proof generation time from 1–2 seconds to 6–9 seconds, and is targeted for deployment in mid-2026. If implemented, this would make proof-based validation a practical option on L1, though proving times and operational complexity remain key challenges.

The Ethereum Foundation has published a step-by-step plan to let Ethereum’s main chain validate blocks using zkEVM proofs, reducing the need for validators to re-run every computation themselves. The proposal, shared via X on Jan. 15 by Tomasz K. Stańczak, Co-Executive Director at the Ethereum Foundation, lays out the engineering work needed across Ethereum’s execution and consensus clients, plus new proving infrastructure and security processes.

Ethereum L1 Moves Toward zk Proof-Based Validation

Already in July last year, the Ethereum Foundation announced its “zk-first” approach. Today, Ethereum’s validators typically check a block by re-executing the transactions and comparing results. The plan proposes an alternative: validators could verify a cryptographic proof that the block’s execution was correct.

The document summarizes the intended pipeline in plain terms: an execution client produces a compact “witness” package for a block, a standardized zkEVM program uses that package to generate a proof of correct execution, and consensus clients verify that proof during block validation.

The first milestone is creating an “ExecutionWitness,” a per-block data structure containing the information needed to validate execution without re-running it. The plan calls for a formal witness format in Ethereum’s execution specifications, conformance tests, and a standardized RPC endpoint. It notes that the current debug_executionWitness endpoint is already “being used in production by Optimism’s Kona,” while suggesting a more zk-friendly endpoint may be needed.

A key dependency is adding better tracking of which parts of state a block touches, via Block Level Access Lists (BALs). The document says that as of November 2025, this work was not treated as urgent enough to be backported to earlier forks.

The next milestone is a “zkEVM guest program,” described as stateless validation logic that checks whether a block produces a valid state transition when combined with its witness. The plan emphasizes reproducible builds and compiling to standardized targets so assumptions are explicit and verifiable.

Beyond Ethereum-specific code, the plan aims to standardize the interface between zkVMs and the guest program: common targets, common ways to access precompiles and I/O, and agreed assumptions about how programs are loaded and executed.

On the consensus side, the roadmap calls for changes so consensus clients can accept zk proofs as part of beacon block validation, with accompanying specifications, test vectors, and an internal rollout plan. The document also flags execution payload availability as important, including an approach that could involve “putting the block in blobs.”

The proposal treats proof generation as an operational problem as much as a protocol one. It includes milestones to integrate zkVMs into EF tooling such as Ethproofs and Ere, test GPU setups (including “zkboost”), and track reliability and bottlenecks.

Benchmarking is framed as ongoing work, with explicit goals like measuring witness generation time, proof creation and verification time, and the network impact of proof propagation. Those measurements could feed into future gas repricing proposals for zk-heavy workloads.

Security is also marked as perpetual, with plans for formal specs, monitoring, supply-chain controls like reproducible builds and artifact signing, and a documented trust and threat model. The document proposes a “go/no-go framework” for deciding when proof systems are mature enough for broader use.

One external dependency stands out: ePBS, which the document describes as necessary to give provers more time. Without it, the plan says the prover has “1–2 seconds” to create a proof; with it, “6–9 seconds.” The document adds a two-sentence framing that captures the urgency: “This is not a project that we are working on. However, it is an optimization that we need.” It expects ePBS to be deployed in “Glamsterdam,” targeted for mid-2026.

If these milestones land, Ethereum would be moving toward proof-based validation as a practical option on L1, while the timing and operational complexity of proving remain the gating factors.

At press time, ETH traded at $3,300.

ETH faces the 0.618 Fib, 1-week chart | Source: ETHUSDT on TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main goal of the Ethereum Foundation's new proposal regarding zkEVM proofs?

AThe main goal is to enable Ethereum's main chain to validate blocks using zkEVM proofs, reducing the need for validators to re-execute every computation themselves by verifying cryptographic proofs of correct execution instead.

QWhat is an 'ExecutionWitness' as described in the plan?

AAn 'ExecutionWitness' is a per-block data structure that contains the information needed to validate execution without re-running it, including a formal witness format in Ethereum’s execution specifications, conformance tests, and a standardized RPC endpoint.

QWhy is Block Level Access Lists (BALs) important for this proposal?

ABlock Level Access Lists (BALs) are important because they enable better tracking of which parts of the state a block touches, which is a key dependency for generating the execution witness needed for zkEVM proof validation.

QWhat role does ePBS play in the implementation of zkEVM proofs on L1?

AePBS (proposer-builder separation enhancement) is necessary to give provers more time to create proofs, extending the proof creation window from 1-2 seconds to 6-9 seconds, and is considered an essential optimization for the plan.

QHow does the proposal address security concerns related to zkEVM proof validation?

AThe proposal addresses security through formal specifications, monitoring, supply-chain controls like reproducible builds and artifact signing, a documented trust and threat model, and a 'go/no-go framework' to decide when proof systems are mature enough for broader use.

Related Reads

Saylor's Purchase of 1550 Bitcoin Is a Bad Trade

**Title: Saylor's Purchase of 1,550 Bitcoins Was a Bad Trade** The article critically analyzes Strategy's recent move of selling 32 bitcoins followed by a much larger purchase of 1,550 bitcoins. While appearing bullish, the author argues this trade is detrimental to MSTR shareholders. The core argument revolves around the concept of "breakeven modified Net Asset Value (mNAV)," a key metric for Strategy. To increase Bitcoin per share (BPS) for MSTR holders, Strategy must issue new shares at a premium high enough that the funds raised can buy more bitcoin than the bitcoin backing each existing share. Currently, this breakeven mNAV is estimated at 1.30. The recent trade failed on two counts: 1. The shares for the $181 million raise were issued at an mNAV *below* the 1.30 breakeven point. Selling "cheap" shares to buy bitcoin actually *reduces* BPS. 2. Only $101.3 million of the raised funds were used to buy bitcoin; the rest went to boost the company's dollar reserves. The breakeven mNAV calculation assumes *100%* of proceeds are used for bitcoin purchases. Diverting funds, even if mNAV were high, dilutes BPS. The result is an estimated 0.19% decrease in Bitcoin per share for MSTR holders. In exchange, Strategy merely extended its operational runway for its dollar reserves from ~6.3 months to 7 months. The author interprets this as Strategy prioritizing the survival and development of its STRC business over its stated core goal of increasing MSTR's BPS. This constitutes a gamble: if sacrificing MSTR value leads to improved market sentiment and a recovery in STRC's price (and thus mNAV), the whole system could work. If not, Strategy may be forced into a cycle of further diluting MSTR to stay afloat, potentially leading to deferred STRC dividends or corporate decline. The article concludes with a hope for price recovery for Bitcoin, MSTR, and STRC.

Foresight News13m ago

Saylor's Purchase of 1550 Bitcoin Is a Bad Trade

Foresight News13m ago

The AI Bear Market Lasting Two Days Is Over; Why Did Funds Buy Back Storage Stocks First?

After a severe two-day selloff in early June that erased over $1 trillion from U.S. chip stock market value, capital is flowing back first to the memory sector. The correction was not driven by a collapse in AI demand but rather a market reassessment of high expectations. Stocks like Broadcom faced selling pressure despite strong AI revenue guidance, signaling a shift in focus from who has an "AI story" to who can most rapidly translate AI demand into verifiable profits and earnings per share (EPS). Memory companies, such as Micron and SK Hynix, are leading the recovery because their EPS growth is more immediately verifiable. The AI server boom directly increases demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and high-capacity server DRAM, tightening supply and driving up contract prices for conventional DRAM and NAND Flash. This price increase, coupled with a shift to higher-margin products, flows directly into near-term revenue and profitability, as evidenced in recent earnings reports. In contrast, other AI semiconductor segments like GPUs, ASICs, and optical modules, while central to the long-term AI infrastructure story, face longer and less certain paths to EPS validation. Their growth depends more on future product cycles, customer adoption timelines, and capital expenditure plans. The rebound in memory stocks highlights a market preference for assets with shorter, more transparent EPS conversion cycles following the recent de-risking phase. However, this does not negate the potential of other AI hardware segments should they provide clearer near-term order visibility. The episode has raised the validation bar for all AI-related investments.

marsbit13m ago

The AI Bear Market Lasting Two Days Is Over; Why Did Funds Buy Back Storage Stocks First?

marsbit13m ago

Monera Digital|Crypto Market May Report: Four Major Reasons Behind the Accelerated Decline

Monera Digital Crypto Market May Report: Four Key Reasons Behind the Accelerated Decline The crypto market experienced a significant downturn in May, driven by an internal liquidity crisis rather than external macro factors. Bitcoin fell from around $82,850 to $73,674, even as traditional markets rallied in the final week, highlighting a clear "liquidity transmission failure" specific to crypto. Four primary internal factors caused the accelerated sell-off: 1. **Major ETF Outflows:** U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of $2.425 billion for the month, the third-largest monthly withdrawal since their launch. Ethereum ETFs also reversed to net outflows. This turned a key pillar of the bull run into a source of selling pressure. 2. **Holder Capitulation:** On-chain data showed textbook "surrender" patterns. The Short-Term Holder MVRV ratio fell below 1.0, indicating this cohort is now in aggregate loss. The Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) metric also deteriorated significantly. 3. **Contagious Negative Sentiment:** The Coinbase Premium Index, which shows U.S. institutional buying/selling pressure, turned deeply negative for most of the month. This confirmed the ETF outflows and reflected a strategic shift away from crypto toward assets like U.S. Treasuries. 4. **Leverage Unwinding and Psychological Breaks:** Despite the downturn, futures open interest initially grew, signaling leveraged positioning. This culminated in a sharp deleveraging event with $307 million in long liquidations. Furthermore, the price broke below the critical $75K-$76K support zone, which is both a key gamma option level and the approximate average cost basis for major public companies holding Bitcoin, turning them from potential buyers into potential sellers. The report concludes that the market's pricing power has shifted from macro narratives to internal liquidation. While Bitcoin's 200-week moving average quantile has entered a historical "value zone" at 10.2%, this indicates a deep bear market reset is underway, not an immediate reversal. A sustainable recovery will require both a genuine improvement in the macro liquidity environment and clear signs of renewed on-chain demand, such as ETF inflows resuming and the Coinbase Premium turning positive. Until then, discipline and capital preservation are paramount.

marsbit24m ago

Monera Digital|Crypto Market May Report: Four Major Reasons Behind the Accelerated Decline

marsbit24m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片