Zero-Knowledge Proofs in Web3: What Is ZK-SNARK

If you look at Web3 through applied use cases, sooner or later, you run into the same problem: a blockchain is, by definition, transparent, while most real-world tasks require privacy. You need to prove that a transaction, a computation, or a state is correct, but at the same time, you don't want to reveal the underlying data to the entire world. It is at this intersection that Zero-Knowledge Proofs appear, and more specifically, ZK-SNARK as one of the key instruments of zero-knowledge technology.

Over the past few years, Zero-Knowledge Proofs have quietly turned from a theoretical construct into a working layer of Web3 infrastructure. They are used to launch private payments and identity protocols, build ZK rollups for Ethereum scaling, verify the correctness of complex operations without revealing raw data, and strengthen Web3 security where simple blockchain transparency is no longer sufficient. As a result, SNARK, as well as STARK and the emergence of new ZK-Proof systems, stop being purely academic topics – the way this layer is built directly determines how secure, private, and scalable the networks and protocols you allocate capital to will actually be.

Get our detailed breakdown on DeFi Fundamentals: A Beginner's Guide to Decentralised Finance (2025).

Zero-Knowledge Proofs in Web3: Core Ideas and Why They Matter

Before diving into the technical implementation, which definitely deserves your attention, let us look at the core idea behind it and what problems it is intended to solve.

What Is a Zero-Knowledge Proof?

A Zero-Knowledge Proof is a cryptographic proof that makes it possible to confirm the correctness of a statement without revealing the underlying data it is based on. Instead of publishing the full set of input values or the intermediate computation steps, the protocol operates on a compact proof that is sufficient to check whether the prescribed rules have been followed.

Such schemes rely on three basic properties:

• Completeness means that, given correct data and honest behavior by the party generating the proof, the verifier almost always accepts the proof as valid.
• Soundness captures the opposite side: given a false statement, the probability of generating a proof that passes verification is extremely low and negligibly close to zero.
• The zero-knowledge property ensures that the hidden data can't be reconstructed from the proof itself and that no additional information about it can be extracted; the only conclusion available to the verifier is that the statement satisfies the formalized conditions of the protocol.

Thus, Zero-Knowledge Proofs form a separate class of rigorous cryptographic proofs, comparable in their level of formality to digital signatures, commitments, and other fundamental primitives. They can be described, implemented, and analyzed in the same terms as the rest of the basic cryptography that blockchain systems are built on.

From Cryptographic Proofs to ZK-Proof Systems

Classical cryptographic mechanisms solve different problems. Signatures confirm the authorship of a message and its immutability, but the content itself remains open. Hash functions make it possible to commit to a value and later demonstrate that it was exactly this value that was used, but the underlying data is revealed during verification. Interactive authentication and knowledge-verification protocols require repeated message exchanges between the parties and scale poorly in environments where many independent nodes must verify the same fact.

Zero-Knowledge Proofs add another type of proof, in which verifiability is separated from data disclosure and doesn't require a mandatory interactive dialogue. Based on this idea, families of ZK-Proof systems are formed – concrete zero-knowledge protocols that differ in their mathematical foundation, cryptographic assumptions, proof size, generation complexity, and verification cost.

At the level of choosing a particular ZK-Proof system, the main ones of which we will examine later, the architectural characteristics are set: what resources network participants will need, what level of trust in the underlying assumptions is acceptable, and what proof and verification-time parameters match the target load. ZK-SNARK and ZK-STARK in this sense, occupy the position of separate implemented schemes as two among many possible ways to build Zero-Knowledge Proofs; in reality, the concept allows for a larger number of implementation variants.

Why Zero-Knowledge Technology Matters for Web3

You know that public blockchains provide a single state visible to everyone: transactions, balances, protocol parameters, and their changes are available for observation and verification to any node. This certainly increases resistance to data tampering, but at the same time turns every action into part of an open history in which financial operations, ownership structures, and participant behavior become easy to analyze. In many scenarios, this conflicts with privacy requirements – from protecting commercially sensitive data to complying with regulatory norms in certain jurisdictions.

This is exactly where Zero-knowledge technology fills the gap, making it possible to move part of the checks from the level of direct disclosure of input data to the level of verifying rule correctness through a cryptographic proof. As a result, the network sees only what is necessary for consensus and state updates, while all sensitive parameters remain under the control of the parties that provide them. This approach creates a foundation for preserving both trust and privacy in Web3 that isn't tied to trusted infrastructure or centralized storage, and it opens the space for truly decentralized privacy, where control over information disclosure is distributed rather than concentrated in a single operator.

There is also an additional advantage for Web3 security, because part of the logic that previously lived off-chain and was checked in a trust-based model can be formalized in the form of ZK-Proof systems and verified at the protocol level. Network nodes gain the ability to verify the correctness of actions according to uniform rules without expanding the set of data available to them. In such an architecture, Zero-Knowledge Proofs become a basic tool that makes it possible to combine an open ledger with limited and controlled disclosure of information about users and processes inside the ecosystem.

What Does ZK-SNARK Stand For?

ZK-SNARK is a specific type of Zero-Knowledge Proof whose name encodes its key properties:

• Zero-Knowledge;
• Succinct;
• Non-interactive;
• Argument of Knowledge.

Zero-Knowledge indicates that the proof doesn't reveal the hidden data and doesn't leak any additional information about it beyond the fact that the statement is correct. Succinct means that the proof is small in size and that network nodes can verify it significantly faster than the original computation it represents. Non-interactive emphasizes that the prover generates the proof once, and the verifier can then check it many times without any additional message exchange. Argument of Knowledge fixes the requirement that a participant can practically never construct a valid proof without real knowledge of the hidden witness, that is, the internal data that makes the statement true.

Taken together, these properties define the profile of ZK-SNARK as a protocol: compact proofs, fast verification, no need for interactive dialogue, and a cryptographic guarantee that there is real knowledge behind the proof rather than random guessing. This combination makes ZK-SNARK a natural candidate for use in blockchain networks where nodes must verify large numbers of proofs under limited resources.

How ZK-SNARKs Work 

The architecture of a ZK-SNARK relies on several basic roles and data types. The prover generates the proof, and the verifier checks it. The developer describes the statement as a statement over public inputs – this is the part of the information that all participants see: aggregated results, hashes of sets of operations, and parameters that are important for the protocol. The hidden part that ensures that the statement is true is commonly called the witness; it includes private values, internal states, and any data that must not end up in the public ledger.

• Engineers typically divide the work of the scheme into several stages.
• At the setup stage, they generate the system parameters for the chosen scheme and class of computations. In classical ZK-SNARKs, these parameters include a trusted setup, and the security of all subsequent proofs directly depends on how correctly and honestly the participants carried out this procedure.
• At the proof generation stage, the prover, given the public inputs and the witness, constructs a proof that the hidden data satisfies all constraints.
• At the ZK verification stage, the verifier, having only the public inputs, the proof, and the system parameters, checks the correctness of the proof and doesn't gain access to the hidden values.

A developer can't directly embed an arbitrary computation into a ZK-SNARK. Instead, they represent the logic in a form convenient for verification, usually as arithmetic circuits or a system of constraints (circuits/constraints). They break the computation down into primitive operations and the connections between them, and the protocol interprets this set as a system of conditions that must be checked. This approach makes it possible to formalize and verify very complex functions, but at the same time forces developers to account for the cost of each operation in terms of ZK-Proof systems and to design logic so that it can be efficiently translated into circuits without excessive growth in proof size and in the resources required for generation and verification.

SNARK vs STARK: Comparing ZK-Proof Systems

Within ZK-Proof systems, SNARK and STARK solve similar problems but rely on different cryptographic constructions and set different trade-offs for the protocol. SNARK schemes are built on pairing-friendly elliptic curves and a structured reference string that teams obtain once as a result of a trusted setup for the chosen class of computations.

STARK schemes use hash-based cryptography, commitments, and special verification protocols (for example, FRI) and translate them into a non-interactive form; teams don't perform a separate trusted ceremony and accept a trust model based on the hardness of hash functions and the correctness of the protocol's construction.

In terms of performance profile, SNARK and STARK behave differently. SNARK schemes provide compact proofs and almost constant ZK verification costs even as computation complexity grows, which aligns well with gas and calldata constraints in networks at the Ethereum layer and in ZK rollups. In STARK schemes, the proof size and bandwidth requirements grow more noticeably, but the team can scale heavy computations by allocating more powerful provers while maintaining a stable security level as the load increases. Thus, already at the architectural level, some protocols adopt an SNARK profile and minimize proof size and verification cost, while others deliberately choose a STARK profile and pay for it with additional traffic and storage.

In practice, these differences determine how teams design and evolve the protocol. In SNARK scenarios, they fix the class of supported computations in advance and adapt the trusted setup, tools, and prover infrastructure to it. In STARK scenarios, they build the stack around a single scheme and scale it by choosing the computation trace length and the resources allocated to proof generation. As a result, the choice between SNARK and STARK comes down to the profile of the ZK-Proof system: which primitives the team is ready to use, what volume of data and computation the infrastructure can realistically handle, and how frequently it plans to expand or change the supported classes of computations inside the protocol.

Get our detailed breakdown on Crypto API: ​​How the Crypto Space Works Under the Hood

ZK-SNARKs in Web3: Privacy and Ethereum Scaling

Now, let's look in more detail at how ZK-SNARK contributes not only to security and privacy but also to the scaling of blockchain-based solutions.

ZK-SNARKs for Privacy in Web3

Protocols that rely on ZK-SNARK for privacy build state around commitments and nullifiers rather than around open balances. The client forms a set of hidden input data, describes the desired state change, computes the witness, and creates a proof that the new configuration satisfies all rules. Only tree roots, hashes, and service markers go into the global state, not the actual values. Network nodes read the updated root and verify the ZK-SNARK, but don't gain access to the user's internal parameters. In this way, zero-knowledge technology moves correctness checking to the cryptographic level and eliminates the need to reveal sensitive information in the shared ledger.

A separate layer of logic is responsible for deciding which data the owner is willing to reveal and to whom. Different keys are often used for operations, history viewing, and audits, and the state format makes it possible to reveal individual elements without disclosing the entire ownership structure and all past steps. A user can prove ownership of assets, participation in a vote, or fulfillment of a certain condition without showing their full transaction trail. An auditor, after receiving limited access, checks only the set of facts that the parties consider acceptable and relies on the same ZK-Proof systems as the validating nodes.

In such a design, privacy in Web3 stops depending on a single operator or storage. Verifying nodes don't decide what to disclose; they only validate proofs and update the aggregated state. Control over data disclosure is held by the owners of the corresponding keys and the applications they choose. This is how truly decentralized privacy is formed: the protocol distributes control over access to information among participants while preserving the overall level of verifiability expected from a public blockchain.

ZK Rollups and Ethereum Scaling

In ZK rollups, the team separates execution and consensus. The execution layer accepts transactions, applies protocol logic to them, maintains a local state, and records the execution trace. After a series of operations, the operator collects a batch, computes the new state root, and generates a ZK-SNARK that links the old and new state through a system of constraints. Along with the proof, the operator publishes the minimally necessary data for state reconstruction in a contract on the base network.

The rollup contract in Ethereum receives the package, checks the input data formats, and runs ZK verification. If the proof passes verification, the contract accepts the new root as the current state of the layer and records the changes as part of Ethereum scaling. Most of the computation and storage remains outside L1, while the base network assumes the role of an arbiter that only confirms the correctness of state transitions. The parameters of the chosen ZK-SNARK scheme determine how many transactions the operator fits into one batch, how frequently it publishes updates, and what share of the final fee paid by the user comes from the verification cost.

ZK verification sets requirements for the rollup infrastructure. Nodes that track L2 must be able to keep up with incoming proofs and the associated data, and clients that reconstruct state on their own must be able to extract the necessary fragments from the published information. If the team chooses a scheme with heavier proof generation, it shifts the main load to the operators who build the batches. If it opts for maximally compact proofs and fast ZK verification, it simplifies the work of observers and validators but tightens the requirements for implementing the scheme and optimizing execution.

Where Zero-Knowledge Technology Is Used in Web3 Today

Zero-knowledge technology has already formed several well-established types of solutions in Web3. In one case, teams design an L1 so that it initially works with commitments and ZK-SNARK: transaction formats, storage structure, and client wallets take into account the need to generate proofs, store viewing keys, and manage private states. The user interacts with the network through a client that gathers context, forms the witness and proofs, and the chain sees only aggregated values and hashes.

In another case, separate layers are built on top of existing networks. These solutions accept transactions, execute them in their own environment, aggregate results, and publish a ZK-SNARK plus the data needed for state reconstruction into a contract on the base network. ZK rollups and related L2 projects use this approach when they want to increase throughput and reduce L1 load without abandoning their consensus model. The user continues to perceive themselves as working with the Ethereum ecosystem, but a significant part of the computation and verification moves into an additional layer that relies on ZK-Proof systems.

A third direction is being developed by services that connect multiple networks and applications. They collect data from different sources, check conditions locally, build a ZK-SNARK for a specific statement, and pass the proof into a protocol that makes a decision. Such constructions are used for voting, identity, proof-of-solvency, and other scenarios where it is important to compress external information into a short confirmation suitable for on-chain verification.

In each of these variants, the choice of a particular ZK-Proof system and the method of ZK verification directly affect what level of privacy in Web3 the user receives, what requirements the infrastructure imposes on nodes, and what the actual cost of interacting with protocols that use zero-knowledge technology turns out to be.

Get our detailed breakdown on Blockchain Interoperability: Future of the Cross-Chain Communication.

Web3 Security and Risks of Zero-Knowledge Technology

Zero-knowledge technology also changes the threat model in Web3. The protocol stops relying only on operator honesty and infrastructure correctness and forces every significant step to be accompanied by a strict cryptographic proof. The team fixes the set of invariants it considers critical and moves them into the space of ZK-Proof systems. As long as the prover correctly generates proofs and verifying nodes consistently reject everything that doesn't pass verification, the protocol maintains state integrity even in a partially untrusted execution environment.

This approach provides several direct benefits for Web3 security. The team can fix the rules for handling assets and state in such a way that participants cannot bypass them through local code or configuration changes. Any attempt to step outside the scheme either breaks the proof or requires compromising the cryptographic primitives themselves. The protocol gets a single criterion for acceptable behavior: nodes check not the operators' motivation but the conformity of actions to the predefined constraints. Developers form separate classes of conditions for users, infrastructure, and auditors, and attach different types of proofs to them while preserving the common level of verifiability.

At the same time, zero-knowledge technology introduces its own risks that can't be ignored. In schemes with a trusted setup, the team creates and uses structured parameters that essentially act as key material for the entire subsequent life of the protocol. If someone retains access to the internal secret or violates the generation procedure, they gain the ability to issue proofs that pass verification but don't reflect actual rule execution. In an environment with financial assets, this leads to the risk of hidden issuance, bypassing limits, or unauthorized state changes. A team that chooses this model assumes responsibility for the initialization procedure, its repetition, and the transparent handling of parameters.

The next layer of risk is related to how developers describe logic in circuits and connect it to the rest of the system. Every missed invariant, swapped index, incorrect range check, or incorrectly formed set of public inputs becomes a vulnerability that cannot be compensated for by network robustness or operator reputation. An external observer sees only that the proof passes verification, but doesn't see which conditions the team included in the scheme and which it left outside. Therefore, any system that relies on ZK-Proof systems requires the same level of discipline in circuit design and verification as in developing the blockchain core or the virtual machine engine.

Auditing creates a separate challenge. The team must provide auditors with smart contracts, network logic, circuit descriptions, implementations of cryptographic proofs, security-parameter specifications, and update processes. Any change in the classes of supported computations, target security depth, or state structure requires a new analysis cycle. The number of specialists who can fully read and verify such constructions is limited, and each audit iteration must be planned in terms of time and resources. If the team ignores this factor, it effectively deploys a system whose security foundations are understood by a narrow circle of developers, while the rest of the participants accept it on trust.

As a result, zero-knowledge technology strengthens Web3 security but doesn't remove responsibility for design and operations. ZK-SNARK and other ZK-Proof systems make it possible to fix rules rigidly and narrow the space for arbitrary operator actions, but at the same time, they create a new layer of critical infrastructure in which every design, implementation, or operational error immediately becomes part of the attack surface. A protocol truly benefits from such schemes only if the team builds a full-fledged development, testing, auditing, and risk-management lifecycle around them.

You don't have to be an engineer to understand the key components of crypto projects, evaluate them comprehensively, and realize their true potential, capabilities, and risks. Get the DYOR Crypto Checklist: Evaluate Crypto Projects Before Investing.

Conclusion

Zero-Knowledge Proofs, and more specifically ZK-SNARK in combination with other ZK-Proof systems, ultimately become the foundation that supports privacy in Web3, real variants of Ethereum scaling, and a significant part of Web3 security. It is not enough for this technology simply to be present: what matters is how the protocol uses it to fix rules for handling data and state, which classes of statements it pushes to the cryptographic layer, and which it still leaves in the zone of organizational agreements and trust in the infrastructure.

In practice, a sound analysis of any network or protocol that relies on Zero-Knowledge Proofs always comes down to several checks. First, you analyze which specific type of ZK-Proof system has been chosen and what trade-offs it introduces in terms of proof size, generation and verification costs, dependence on a trusted setup, and the update plan. Then you look at what real level of privacy the stack provides: which data remain in the open, how access control to private fragments is organized, which disclosure scenarios the team has formalized, and which it has left to operators' discretion. A separate layer of analysis concerns Web3 security: how transparently the project fixes invariants in the circuits, how it structures the process of implementation verification, and who in the ecosystem is capable of independently rechecking these decisions.

Thus, it doesn't follow that zero-knowledge technology automatically makes a network reliable or promising. It defines a new class of tools that strengthen well-designed protocols and, at the same time, quickly punish superficial solutions. If a team clearly explains what roles Zero-Knowledge Proofs and ZK-SNARK play in the architecture, which constraints they introduce, and which risks are being brought under control, you are dealing with a stack that is worth working with further; if the technology appears only as a generic statement without a clear connection to privacy, scaling, and security, that is a signal to be especially cautious.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is a ZK-SNARK in Crypto?

A ZK-SNARK in crypto is a Zero-Knowledge Proof scheme that makes it possible to prove the correctness of a computation without revealing the input data. It is important because it can provide a very compact proof that the network verifies much faster than the original computation itself.

How Do ZK-SNARKs Work?

The developer describes the logic as an arithmetic circuit or a system of constraints and runs a setup that creates the public parameters. The prover takes the public inputs and the private witness and uses them to build a proof that all constraints are satisfied. The verifier uses only the public inputs, the proof, and the parameters to check correctness without learning the private data.

What Does ZK-SNARK Stand For?

ZK-SNARK stands for Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-interactive Argument of Knowledge. Zero-Knowledge means that the proof doesn't reveal the secret data, Succinct that the proof is short and can be verified quickly, Non-interactive that a single message from the prover to the verifier is sufficient, Argument of Knowledge that without real knowledge of the witness, it is almost impossible to generate a valid proof.

How Are ZK-SNARKs Used in Ethereum?

In the Ethereum ecosystem, ZK-SNARKs are used primarily in zk-rollups and zkEVM, where they prove the correctness of large batches of L2 transactions to an L1 contract. In addition, they are applied in individual protocols for private transfers, on-chain verification of off-chain computations, and for state proofs in bridges and identity systems.

What Is the Difference Between ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs?

A ZK-SNARK typically relies on pairings over elliptic curves, requires a trusted setup, and provides very small proofs with cheap verification, but is based on more complex assumptions. A ZK-STARK is built on hash-based primitives, doesn't require a trusted setup, and looks better over the long term and in a post-quantum context, but its proofs are larger and require more bandwidth.

Are ZK-SNARKs Used for Privacy or Scaling?

They are used for both privacy and scaling. In private protocols, a ZK-SNARK hides values and relationships between participants, and the network sees only rule correctness. In scaling solutions, it makes it possible to execute transactions off L1, pack them into batches, and confirm them with a single proof, which reduces the load on the base network.

Which Blockchains Use ZK-SNARK Technology?

ZK-SNARK is at the core of private L1s in the family of designs that follow the Zcash model. Filecoin uses it extensively for data-storage proofs. Around Ethereum, many zk-rollups and zkEVMs rely on ZK-SNARK to prove their states, and there are also new L1s that initially design their state and transactions around this scheme.

Are ZK-SNARK Transactions Anonymous?

They can hide amounts, recipient addresses, and ownership structure, but anonymity entirely depends on the protocol design and user behavior. Network metadata, usage patterns, and additional fields in transactions can de-anonymize a user even if the proof itself doesn't reveal the transfer graph.

Why Are ZK-SNARKs Important for Web3?

A ZK-SNARK makes it possible to preserve cryptographic verifiability while reducing the volume of public on-chain data and computation. As a result, Web3 protocols can implement private assets and identity, move heavy computations off-chain, and still confirm the result on a shared layer rather than in a separate trusted service.

Is Zero-Knowledge Technology Safe and Secure?

The basic theory of zero-knowledge and modern ZK-Proof systems is considered cryptographically robust if the assumptions hold. The real risks lie in the trusted setup, in circuit design, in implementation, and in update processes, so the security of such systems depends on engineering quality, testing, and auditing just as rigidly as the security of consensus and the virtual machine.