zksl vs zksync
base eco (sol vs eth): sol = faster, cheaper base layer - easier to deploy zk infra natively vs eth
focus: zksl = deeper more fundamental tech vs zksync
scope: one L2 vs entire runtime (zksl technically could prove all solana app state *eventually*)
market
im just a new speculator who noticed asymmetric potential & thought it was worth sharing
others would have noticed and pushed this either way eventually
we await the plumbing between two systems now (verifier & prover)
the prover side is the mountain, once climbed the rest is
$zksl dev historical pattern
- always announce phases after completion not during
- never have pre committed code before releasing a dev log
- all past finalised statements preceded a public post showing the results in 12-36 hours
*finalise internally - stage infra
$zksl
my invalidations
1. no commits or docs within 72 h of a major claim
2. new devnet/v2 without migration path or verify success tx
3. partial winterfell commits with no working proof after 72 h.
4. silence
legitimacy threshold movers
any 2 of the 5 below when
$zKSL - where we stand now
below appears to be internal validation (quality assurance) - all components except the winterfell prover appear operational
consistency + determinism tests before swapping the placeholder prover for the real winterfell engine
ensuring hashes/logic
$zksl
if the upcoming update (supposedly with project state report + commits + workflow) again lacks any verifiable code or links, it’s a clear invalidation for me
$zksl
my invalidations
1. no commits or docs within 72 h of a major claim
2. new devnet/v2 without migration path or verify success tx
3. partial winterfell commits with no working proof after 72 h.
4. silence
legitimacy threshold movers
any 2 of the 5 below when
Chains with the biggest fee growth in the past 7 days:
1️⃣ @zksync: +694%
2️⃣ @arbitrum: +194%
3️⃣ @SeiNetwork:+186%
4️⃣ @LineaBuild: +121%
5️⃣ @Optimism: +117%
Usage is cool.
But revenue is better.