Despite significant optimizations over the past three years (such as Plonky2, Halo2, Boojum, RISC-V ZK circuits), ZK proof generation remains one of the most computationally expensive operations in blockchain.
• For complex circuits (DeFi states, game logic), generating proofs often takes anywhere from hundreds of milliseconds to several seconds.
• On mobile devices or lightweight hardware, proof generation is nearly impossible and still relies on cloud services or validator nodes.
• Some ZK systems require a GPU/FPGA to achieve usable speeds.
• Cloud-based generation introduces new trust assumptions and centralization risks.
• SNARKs have low verification costs but require a trusted setup.
• STARKs do not need a trusted setup, but proofs are larger and verification costs exceed those of SNARKs.
ZK is best suited for separating privacy and verification from “real-time logic,” making it ideal for settlement, compliance checks, and batch processing, rather than for all business logic.
ZK inherently provides privacy, but excessive privacy can clash with global compliance frameworks (AML/KYC/anti-terrorist financing).
• On-chain private assets make it hard to track fund flows.
• Participant identities are obscured.
• Transaction mixing may conceal suspicious activity.
As a result, regulators often require:
• Selective disclosure
• Regulatory exception access (Regulator Backdoor, not a universal backdoor)
• Transaction audit proofs
Including:
• ZK-KYC (proving you meet requirements without exposing your identity)
• Auditable private accounts (regulator-readable proofs)
• On-chain flow-of-funds proofs
However, divergent regulatory stances across countries make it difficult for projects to meet global standards in one go.
ZK engineering is far more challenging than traditional smart contracts due to:
• Required expertise in cryptography, circuit design, compilers, and distributed systems
• Each ZK framework uses its own DSL (Circom, Noir, Leo, etc.)
• High auditing thresholds and costly errors
Result: Development is expensive, audit cycles are long, and tooling cannot fully abstract underlying complexity.
• More mature ZK compilers (zkVM, zkEVM)
• Higher-level abstractions (Rust → Circuit)
• Standardized privacy compliance protocols
User experience remains one of the biggest obstacles to ZK adoption:
• Users must understand what “proof generation” means
• Proof generation can take several seconds, impacting UX
• Proof generation typically costs more than standard transactions
• Batch processing experiences are still inconsistent
• Full privacy makes account recovery harder
• Social recovery mechanisms require new ZK process designs
Most users don’t understand:
• What is a circuit?
• How are proofs generated?
• Why does privacy require computation?
This leads to low user migration and adoption willingness.
ZK represents advanced technology, but this does not guarantee its commercial viability. Current projects commonly face:
• Ordinary users have a low willingness to pay for privacy.
• Developers hesitate over high proof-generation costs.
• High compliance demands and integration costs.
• Poor compatibility with existing systems.
• Enterprises are unwilling to shoulder proof-generation expenses.
Privacy, compression, and security are hard to directly translate into revenue.
• On-chain identity (ZK-ID)
• Compliance-focused finance (ZK-RegTech)
• Enterprise data collaboration (ZK data exchange)
• AI × ZK: verifiable AI inference
• ZK computation outsourcing
But these remain in early validation stages.
• Making AI models “provable”
• Ensuring AI outcomes are trustworthy and traceable
This drives industrial-scale demand for ZK models.
Apple, Samsung, and Nvidia are integrating ZK acceleration capabilities, which will drastically lower ZK costs.
• Standardized ZK-KYC
• Audit proofs readable by financial institutions
• “Private yet regulatale” infrastructure
More L1/L2s will adopt ZK as their default settlement mechanism.
• Low-barrier ZK DSLs
• Circuit visualization tools
• Modular proof architectures
• Wallets automatically generate proofs
• Asynchronous proof generation (no waiting for completion)
• Modular privacy toggles
ZK will evolve from a “technical capability” to an “infrastructure-level capability.”
Zero-Knowledge Proofs are becoming a cornerstone of blockchain, AI, and fintech’s future. However, real-world implementation still faces:
• Computational performance bottlenecks
• Conflicts between compliance and auditability
• A complex developer ecosystem
• Immature user experience
• Unclear commercialization models
Nevertheless, the industry is actively seeking solutions. With hardware acceleration, maturation of zkVM technology, emerging compliance frameworks, and surging demand for AI verifiability, ZK will gradually transition from cutting-edge technology to a large-scale real-world application.