Interpreting Zircuit: A unique layer2?

Author: Haotian

Why is @ZircuitL2 a unique layer2? 1) It is built on the OP Stack Codebase but does not belong to the OP Superchain camp? 2) It belongs to the OP-Rollup chain but does not highlight the fraud proof, and it has a strong ZK imprint from the name to the technical details? 3) It has nothing to do with the AVS security consensus mechanism, but it has given airdrops to $Eigen stakers, etc. Next, let me briefly talk about my understanding of the Zircuit chain:

1) OP Stack obviously provides a basic technical framework for quickly starting layer2, but many chains including Metis, Mantle, Zircuit, etc. use the OP Stack Codebase technical framework but have not been incorporated into the Superchain strategic route.

The reason is simple. Although the super chain will enjoy the resource gain of the OP Super Alliance, it will also be limited in terms of technical autonomy and flexibility, such as fraud proof. Many layer2s in the OP Stack camp have not yet fully launched the Fraud Proof proof system, which is closely related to their choice of framework dependence and neglect of autonomous development.

Zircuit is a typical example. Although it is marked as an OP-Rollup Type on L2beat, its overall technical architecture and brand tone give people a strong ZK perception impression, and many people will merge it into the category of ZK-Rollup.

The reason for preferring the ZK technical framework is mainly because the support of ZK technology can make the OP-Rollup framework more reliable. After all, it is difficult to call an OP-Rollup without the real Fraud Proof proof operation a safe and reliable chain, but with the ZK Proof proof system, the state change trust environment built on ZK technology can well make up for its shortcomings in optimistic challenge proof. Therefore, strictly speaking, it should be classified as a hybrid Rollup.

In fact, the architectural design of this type of hybrid Rollup is not new. @MetisL2, also a new layer2, also focuses on differentiation based on this, providing users with a fast withdrawal channel through ZK-Rollup Router without waiting for the 7-day challenge period.

2) Recently, Vitalik praised Starknet's performance in optimizing the Blob Gas pricing mechanism and block state compression. This is actually another optimization direction for layer2 after enhancing cross-chain interoperability: enhancing its own data structure and performance processing details.

Because the future upgrade route of the Ethereum mainnet will tend to be lightweight ZK-SNARKs, if the layer2 chain can be familiar with the application of the ZK technology bottom layer, and has enhanced performance in data structure, state compression, message transmission, etc., it will be closer to the future Rollup-Centric strategic direction.

Therefore, as a rising star, Zircuit has made a lot of technical optimizations in details at the beginning of the chain, such as:

1. Sequencer-level security enhancement (SLS): Many layer2 chains have various problems such as sequencer centralization and MEV, so that financial application protocols such as DeFi have not been able to develop stably in the layer2 environment.

In view of this, Zircuit has creatively designed a preventive security architecture for Sequencer. Malicious transactions will be monitored when transactions are in Mempool. Malicious transactions will be applied to an isolation zone with multiple release conditions to ensure the smooth and safe execution of normal transactions; this method of adding a layer of security pre-check in the Sequencer component can identify potential MEV behaviors and provide a fairer execution environment for DeFi applications.

2. Modular Proof System: The ZK-Rollup paradigm layer2 chain has obvious Finality advantages over the OP-Rollup chain, but at the same time it will also incur additional costs for computing, generating, and verifying Proofs. This part of the cost is not within the scope of the main network's reduction of layer2 Gas through Blobs blocks, so ZK-Rollup layer2 must try to reduce ZK Proofs costs.

To this end, ZIrcuit uses two paths, Template Proofs and Proof Aggregation, to optimize costs: Template Proofs is a transitional solution that uses simplified proof templates to maintain the update verification of the basic state without having to generate a complete proof for each Batch to reduce costs; Proof Aggregation collects multiple unverified proof tasks and generates proofs in parallel through specific circuits and general circuits, and finally aggregates these proofs into a single proof for unified verification.

Obviously, this kind of setting up specific proprietary circuits to adapt to Proof systems of different proof types can greatly reduce the cost of ZK proof generation and verification. This is similar to Starknet's use of the STARK system and zkSync's use of a recursive system, which can effectively reduce ZK overhead.

3. AI-Enabled layer2: As a newer layer2 chain, Zircuit is naturally suitable for the integration of AI elements such as AI model reasoning and AI Agent. This is reflected in the AI ​​model analysis of suspicious transactions in the SLS sorter, the AI ​​automated isolation or suspension of protocols in special circumstances, and so on.

The above.

As for why Zircuit wants to jointly @Eigenlayer to issue an airdrop, it is difficult to see anything from a purely technical perspective. I would rather understand that this is a strategic support for Zircuit's layer2 for Eigenlayer to output Ethereum AVS security.

From a long-term perspective, AVS, as a fast and secure consensus infrastructure, may help Zircuit's SSL system be quickly integrated into other layer2 ecosystems at some point in time.