StarkNet and ZkSync are considered the two most prominent scaling solutions using Zk Rollup technology on Ethereum. However, the two projects choose two ways of building and developing ecosystems that are relatively opposite to each other. So what is the difference and which way is more effective? Everyone, let’s find out through this article.
Similarities Between StarkNet And ZkSync
The biggest similarity between these two platforms is that they both use Zk Rollup technology to solve the scaling problem on Ethereum. Besides, both projects are built by development teams that are extremely good in the field of cryptography and proof.
Recently, ZkSync successfully raised $200M, increasing the amount of this project to $458M, officially making ZkSync the Layer 2 platform that raised the most capital compared to Optimism with $178. M, Arbitrum with $123M.
However, StarkWare, the managing unit of StarkNet, in the recent capital call, the company’s valuation was up to $8B, a not small number in the crypto market, so remember that in the most recent capital call, FTX.com Valued at $30B, it can be said that StarkWare is not inferior when the number of products and coverage of StarkWare is much lower than FTX.com.
The Difference Between StarkNet and ZkSync
STARK & SNARK
Regarding transaction proof, StarkNet uses zk-STARK and ZkSync uses zk-SNARK.
|
Header
|
zk-SNARK |
zk-STARK |
|---|---|---|
|
Proof size |
288 bytes |
45 – 200 KB |
|
Evidence generation time |
2.3 s |
1.6 s |
|
Verification time |
10 ms |
16 ms |
|
Verification costs |
about 600K |
About 2.5M |
All parameters show that SNARK is superior to STARK in terms of proof size, verification time and verification cost, all of which are likely to help ZkSync bring faster speed and delivery costs. Cheaper translation than StarkNet.
If so, then STARK is a technology invented by the same team that worked and invented SNARK, isn’t it better than the old technology? The answer here is that SNARK proof is not capable of resisting the quantum devices expected to become popular in the next few years and if attacked, the security technology behind SNARK will crumble.
However, STARK is more expensive and slower but has the ability to withstand future quantum devices. Remember that quantum devices also have the potential to threaten the Bitcoin network in particular and the entire blockchain industry in general.
Even the Ethereum Foundation itself sponsored $12M for StarkWare to develop STARK, which shows the Ethereum Foundation’s interest in this technology in the future.
General assessment: SNARK brings fast transaction speed and cheaper transaction costs, however STARK brings peace of mind when used for users.
zkEVM & Warp
zkEVM was developed by ZkSync’s Matter Labs team. It can be said that Matter Labs was the first company to announce zkEVM, then Polygon and Scroll announced their own zkEVM. With zkEVM, projects on Ethereum or other EVM BLockchains can easily expand and develop on the ZkSync ecosystem.
Unlike Matter Labs, StarkWare introduces a similar product to zkEVM, the Warp tool. The way Warp works is similar to Google Translate, which can convert Sodility language into StarkNet’s Cairo. However, it is currently not possible to verify whether Warkp works effectively?
Overall assessment: Of course, in terms of EVM compatibility, ZkSync’s zkEVM is superior to StarkNet’s Warp.
ZinC and Cairo
Unlike Optimistic Rollup Chains, Zk Rollup Chains use their own programming language. Here we have ZkSync using the zinC programming language and StarkNet using Cairo.
As far as I know, ZkSync’s zinC is in the process of being upgraded to zinC. According to the shared project, it is basically quite similar to Rust.
As for Cairo, it improves programming capabilities, simplifies the work and is more rigorous than Sodility.
General assessment: Currently there is not too much information related to Cairo or Zinc. However, at the time of writing, Cairo is somewhat more popular than ZinC but this comes from StarkWare’s strategy. So for now, we cannot confirm which programming language is better.
Oriented development
|
ZkSync |
StarkNet |
|---|---|
|
zkEVM |
Cairo |
The development directions of ZkSync and StarkNet are completely different. ZkSync aims to be an EVM Blockchain while StarkNet is a non-EVM Blockchain. That means ZkSync will focus on developing zkEVM to make its compatibility level increasingly higher, and with StarkNet, there will be a plan to popularize Cairo to attract developers.
So with ZkSync and StarkNet we need different frameworks to evaluate the development of ZkSync and whether StarkNet is suitable for the market?
|
ZkSync |
StarkNet |
|---|---|
|
Is the number of outstanding projects built on ZkSync through zkEVM large and outstanding? |
Is the number of native projects large? Is there innovation? Are there any improvements compared to regular DeFi projects? |
|
Are you familiar with many famous projects on Ethereum or other EVm Blockchain? For example: AAVE, Curve Finance, Lido Finance, Uniswap, Maker DAO, Chainlink, Sushiswap,… Is there an incentive program to attract projects and users? |
Do you regularly organize offline and global hackathons to attract developers? How much is the organization? How many developers participate and how many new projects are born? Is there growth after each hackathon? |
At the present time, both ZkSync and StarkNet are relatively successful on their chosen path.
With ZkSync, Uniswap, AAVE, Curve Finance,… but the biggest names in DeFi have also officially announced the construction and development on ZkSync through zkEVM.
With StarkNet, the number of native projects began to appear, but there have not been too many innovations and improvements compared to existing DeFi protocols on the market. StarkNet also started organizing offline hackthons and was present at many international crypto events to introduce Cairo.
|
Header
|
ZkSync |
StarkNet |
|---|---|---|
|
DEX |
Balancer, 1inch, Uniswap, Cryptoswap, WardenSwap, DexChange, RapidSwap, iZiswap Pro, Zigzag Exchange,… |
MySwap, StarkSwap, Jediswap, SithSwap, Zigzag Exchange, ZKEX, |
|
Lending & Borrowing |
Standard Protocol, AAVE, Alchemix, 88 mph, InstaDApp, |
Alpha Road, xBank, zkLend. |
|
NFT & NFT Marketplace |
SpaceFi, Taker Protocol, Forward Protocol, tofuNFT, zkAnimals, zkEagles,… |
0xStark, Arcticnium, Aspect, Early Starker, Eykar, The Ninth,… |
|
Liquid Staking |
ANKR, |
– |
|
Yield Farming |
Vovo Finance, Yearn Finance, Babylon Finance, Dank Protocol,… |
Magnety, |
|
Derivatives |
SynFuture, Mux Protocol, |
ZKX |
|
Stablecoins |
Frax Protocol, Increment |
– |
|
Wallets |
Argent, Onto Wallet, Bitkeep, imToken, Zerion, OKX Wallet, MathWallet, Fox Wallet, Alpha Wallet,… |
Argent, Braavos |
|
Infastructure |
Compossable Finance, Connext, Covalent, The Graph, Razor Network,… |
Apibara, BlastApi, 10Kswap, Chainstack, Brine Finance, Comoco,… |
|
Other |
Aragon, Tide, Creaton, Depay, Trustless, Indacoin,… |
Banxa, Curve Zero,… |
Up to now, the number of projects on ZkSync is relatively overwhelming and has more complete pieces than StarkNet, this is the initial advantage of projects that are compatible with EVM. However, in the long term, if an ecosystem wants to be a place to store cash flow and permanently reside for users, projects must have real inspiration.
General assessment: ZkSync’s ecosystem is superior to StarkNet.
About user experience
At the present time, we will have some relatively subjective assessments on zkSync and StarkNet’s network, which has not really been fully maximized.
ZkSync, I personally use the Zigzag Exchange platform, it is very smooth, low cost and fast transaction speed.
On the contrary, at this time StarkNet gives users a relatively bad experience when the network is very slow. The correction is that StarkNet’s network is not as laggy as many users think, but rather slow. People imagine that StarkNet operates in the direction of “only when there are enough passengers will it run”, so according to this thinking, the more crowded the network is, the faster the transaction speed will be.
Overall assessment: Currently, ZkSync provides a better user experience than StarkNet. But we need to observe in the long term.
Summary
At the present time, it would be too hasty for us to conclude which ecosystem is better than the other or who will win the Zk Rollup race. Therefore, we should continue to monitor the development of these two ecosystems to have our own opportunities.
