What are StarkNet and zkSync?

As Ethereum continues to grapple with scalability challenges, Layer 2 solutions have emerged as a critical innovation to enhance the network’s performance. Among these solutions, StarkNet and zkSync are two of the most prominent projects leveraging zero-knowledge rollups (zk-rollups) to scale Ethereum. While both aim to solve similar problems, high gas fees, slow transaction speeds, and limited throughput, they differ significantly in their architecture, features, and use cases. In this article, we’ll explore what StarkNet is, how it works, and how it compares to zkSync.

What is StarkNet?

StarkNet is a decentralized, permissionless Layer 2 scaling solution built on Ethereum that uses STARK proofs (a type of zero-knowledge proof) to enable scalable and secure smart contract execution. Developed by StarkWare, StarkNet allows developers to deploy complex dApps while maintaining Ethereum-level security.

Key features of StarkNet include:

• Scalability: StarkNet can process thousands of transactions per second, far exceeding Ethereum’s current capacity.
• Security: By anchoring its data back to Ethereum, StarkNet inherits the robust security guarantees of the Ethereum mainnet.
• Flexibility: StarkNet supports general-purpose smart contracts, making it suitable for a wide range of applications, from DeFi to gaming.
• Privacy: STARK proofs inherently protect user privacy by not revealing transaction details on-chain.

StarkNet is designed to be a general-purpose zk-rollup, meaning it can handle arbitrary computations and smart contracts, much like Ethereum itself.

What is zkSync?

zkSync is another Layer 2 scaling solution built on Ethereum that uses SNARK proofs (a different type of zero-knowledge proof) to achieve scalability. Developed by Matter Labs, zkSync focuses on providing fast, low-cost transactions while maintaining Ethereum’s security.

Key features of zkSync include:

• User-Friendly: zkSync is designed to be intuitive for users and developers, with support for EVM compatibility (via zkEVM).
• Low Fees: Transactions on zkSync are significantly cheaper than on Ethereum mainnet.
• Instant Finality: Like other zk-rollups, zkSync provides near-instant transaction finality.
• Focus on Payments: Early versions of zkSync were optimized for payments and token transfers, though newer iterations (e.g., zkSync Era) now support smart contracts.

zkSync aims to provide a seamless experience for Ethereum users, enabling them to enjoy faster and cheaper transactions without sacrificing security.

Key Differences Between StarkNet and zkSync

While both StarkNet and zkSync are zk-rollup solutions, they differ in several important ways:

1. Proof Technology

• StarkNet: Uses STARK proofs (Scalable Transparent ARguments of Knowledge). STARKs are considered more scalable and quantum-resistant but require more computational resources to generate.
• zkSync: Uses SNARK proofs (Succinct Non-Interactive ARguments of Knowledge). SNARKs are smaller and faster to verify but rely on trusted setups, which some consider a potential vulnerability.

2. Smart Contract Support

• StarkNet: Designed as a general-purpose zk-rollup, StarkNet supports complex smart contracts and arbitrary computations. However, writing smart contracts on StarkNet requires learning Cairo, a specialized programming language.
• zkSync: With the release of zkSync Era, zkSync now supports EVM-compatible smart contracts, allowing developers to deploy existing Ethereum dApps with minimal changes.

3. Developer Experience

• StarkNet: Developers need to learn Cairo, which has a steeper learning curve compared to Solidity (the language used on Ethereum). This can be a barrier for adoption, especially for developers unfamiliar with StarkNet’s ecosystem.
• zkSync: zkSync’s EVM compatibility makes it easier for developers to migrate their projects from Ethereum. This lowers the barrier to entry and accelerates adoption.

4. Transaction Costs

• StarkNet: Transaction costs on StarkNet are generally lower due to the efficiency of STARK proofs. However, the cost can vary depending on the complexity of the computation.
• zkSync: zkSync also offers low transaction costs, particularly for simple payments and token transfers. Smart contract interactions may incur slightly higher fees.

5. Use Cases

• StarkNet: Ideal for applications requiring high scalability and flexibility, such as gaming, NFTs, and complex DeFi protocols.
• zkSync: Suited for both payments and smart contract-based applications, with a focus on user-friendly experiences.

6. Ecosystem Maturity

• StarkNet: Still in its early stages of adoption, StarkNet’s ecosystem is growing but remains smaller compared to zkSync’s.
• zkSync: zkSync has gained significant traction, with many projects already deploying on its platform. Its EVM compatibility has accelerated adoption among Ethereum developers.

Real-World Use Cases

Both StarkNet and zkSync are being used in real-world applications, though their focus areas differ slightly:

StarkNet Use Cases

• Immutable X: A Layer 2 solution for NFTs that leverages StarkNet’s scalability to enable gas-free minting and trading.
• dYdX: A decentralized exchange that uses StarkNet’s technology for margin trading and derivatives.
• Gaming: StarkNet’s high throughput makes it ideal for blockchain games requiring frequent, low-cost transactions.

zkSync Use Cases

• Argent: A popular crypto wallet that uses zkSync for low-cost transactions.
• Loopring: A decentralized exchange and payment protocol built on zkSync.
• DeFi Protocols: Projects like ZigZag Exchange and Mute.io leverage zkSync for scalable DeFi applications.

The Future of StarkNet and zkSync

Both StarkNet and zkSync are poised to play a pivotal role in Ethereum’s scalability roadmap. Here’s what the future might hold for each:

StarkNet

• Continued development of Cairo and developer tools to make it easier for developers to build on StarkNet.
• Expansion into new use cases, particularly in gaming and NFTs.
• Integration with Ethereum 2.0 and sharding to further enhance scalability.

zkSync

• Wider adoption of zkSync Era, particularly among Ethereum developers looking for EVM-compatible scaling solutions.
• Partnerships with major projects and ecosystems to drive liquidity and usage.
• Potential integration with other blockchains beyond Ethereum.

Conclusion

StarkNet and zkSync are two of the most innovative Layer 2 solutions addressing Ethereum’s scalability challenges. While both rely on zk-rollups to achieve their goals, they cater to slightly different audiences and use cases:

• StarkNet excels in scalability and flexibility, making it ideal for complex applications like gaming and NFTs.
• zkSync prioritizes user-friendliness and EVM compatibility, appealing to developers looking for a seamless transition from Ethereum.

Ultimately, the choice between StarkNet and zkSync depends on your specific needs. If you’re building a highly scalable, custom application, StarkNet might be the better fit. If you’re looking for an easy-to-use, EVM-compatible solution, zkSync could be the way to go.

Ready to Explore StarkNet and zkSync?

Here are some resources to help you get started:

• StarkNet Documentation
• zkSync Developer Portal

Whether you choose StarkNet or zkSync, both platforms represent the cutting edge of blockchain scalability and are paving the way for a more efficient and accessible web3 future.

Happy building! 🚀

Need Help Taking Your Business to the Next Level?

📧 Contact Us | 📅 Book a Meeting

Stay Connected & Get Updates:
🐦 Follow us on X (Twitter)
💬 Join our growing community on Telegram

Let’s build the future together! 🚀