Why does ZK feel bolted on in so many protocols? Most projects treat it as an afterthought—layering proofs onto systems built without cryptography in mind from day one.
But look at the Miden protocol: ZK isn't grafted on. It's baked into everything. The VM, the execution layer, how state transitions work—all architected from the ground up with proof generation as a first-class citizen, not an afterthought.
That's the difference between retrofitting zero-knowledge and building it from the foundation up.
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.
6 Likes
Reward
6
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ClassicDumpster
· 01-08 18:56
Most projects are indeed post-implementation ZK; approaches like Miden, which are designed from the ground up with this in mind, are the right way to go.
View OriginalReply0
SleepyArbCat
· 01-08 18:55
Most projects are indeed ZK patchwork... Only projects like Miden, which consider proof generation from the underlying design, are truly serious.
View OriginalReply0
GasGrillMaster
· 01-08 18:54
Most projects are really just forcibly added ZK later; a bottom-up design approach like Miden is more in line with the true essence.
Why does ZK feel bolted on in so many protocols? Most projects treat it as an afterthought—layering proofs onto systems built without cryptography in mind from day one.
But look at the Miden protocol: ZK isn't grafted on. It's baked into everything. The VM, the execution layer, how state transitions work—all architected from the ground up with proof generation as a first-class citizen, not an afterthought.
That's the difference between retrofitting zero-knowledge and building it from the foundation up.