2026-01-16 02:35:23

After recently taking a hit, I went back to review some foundational academic textbooks, especially on number theory and ZK. Comparing them with the various zero-knowledge proof projects on the market today, I realize that the industry has indeed undergone significant changes.

I still remember a few years ago when the mainstream narrative around ZK was very straightforward—performing complex computations off-chain, then just submitting a ZK proof on-chain for verification. Theoretically, this could reduce costs and latency by several orders of magnitude. That logic sounded very elegant.

But looking back now, BNB Chain has shifted towards a ZK-focused approach, and the entire ecosystem’s zero-knowledge proof solutions have long evolved into a complex system. From simple computational verification to now covering state compression, cross-chain interactions, modular scaling, and other multi-dimensional applications, the tech stack is on a completely different level. It’s not just a simple tool upgrade, but an entire conceptual framework that’s iterating.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

0xSleepDeprived

· 17h ago

I understand the concept of taking a hit and making up lessons, but ZK is so complicated now? It feels like the narrative from a few years ago is already outdated. --- BNB is starting to play with ZK, which shows that this thing is definitely not just a showpiece; the approach has completely changed. --- From simple verification to state compression, cross-chain, and modularization, that's quite a leap. Are the previous projects still popular now? --- The term "complex" is used perfectly here. It feels like the entire technical framework has been upgraded. The whitepapers from before now seem a bit naive. --- Wait, isn't the core of ZK the off-chain computation and on-chain verification? How come so many derivatives have emerged now? --- Pull out the number theory textbooks for a refresher. It shows that this industry really needs to go back to basics, or else it’s easy to get cut. --- The scale of the tech stack is completely different, which means the projects in the ecosystem should probably be re-evaluated too. --- A few years ago, I also believed in that logic. Looking back, it was still too naive. --- So now, choosing a ZK project depends on whose framework is updated, rather than who can prove the fastest, right? --- I'm curious about what BNB's move means for other public chains.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerAirdrop

· 17h ago

I understand the concept of taking a hit and making up lessons very well. Every time I get slapped in the face, I start reading the documentation haha. ZK stuff, to put it simply, has evolved from "one trick pony" to "all-rounder." Right now, just talking about verification calculations seems too naive. State compression, cross-chain, modularization... Just hearing the names, you can tell the complexity is skyrocketing. It feels like projects entering the ZK track now are not even talking about the same thing. A few years ago, the story of "off-chain computation with on-chain proofs" was so sweet. Who still believes that now? It depends on ecosystem compatibility and technical depth. BNB has already taken action, while other public chains are still hesitating. This time, it's not just a hype cycle but a paradigm shift. Number theory lessons are a bit hardcore, but it seems that people who don't understand the principles in this area now are just wasting their time looking at projects.

View OriginalReply0

BTCRetirementFund

· 17h ago

Losing out actually teaches you real stuff, this is the right way. --- I've seen it for a long time, ZK went from bragging to actually doing work, that's just how it is. --- When BNB shifted to ZK, I knew the direction was right. Looking back now, it's definitely different. --- The gap between papers and reality is huge. The simple solutions of the past have long been eliminated, right? --- Haha, from PPT to practical application, I've seen many tech stacks upgrade. It all depends on who can truly implement it. --- State compression, cross-chain, modularization—feels like ZK has already become a full suite of solutions? --- Taking a course is good, much more reliable than blindly chasing hot trends. --- A complex system is just a complex system, but the key is who uses it most smoothly. --- This narrative evolution is quite fast. A few years ago, that set of ideas was nowhere near this scale. --- Can costs and delays really knock out several orders of magnitude? It doesn't seem so absolute anymore.

View OriginalReply0

TheMemefather

· 17h ago

Taking a loss to improve is worth this round of catch-up lessons The early ZK narrative was indeed too idealistic. Only now do we realize how crazy technological evolution is What does BNB's involvement in ZK indicate? The big players have long seen through the tricks

View OriginalReply0