Stas Breadless 🇺🇦 ∎

A big step forward for the digital assets industry and U.S. banking. ZKsync × @BitGo partner to deliver a production-ready solution for tokenized deposits, combining secure custody with private, compliant blockchain settlement. Built for banks. Ready for deployment.

Today marks a new chapter for U.S. banking. The Cari Network, developed alongside five regional banks, is building a new platform to bring tokenized deposits onchain. Secure. Private. Within the regulatory perimeter. Powered by ZKsync’s Prividium.

ZK = Incorruptibility with Privacy and Scale

Today, we are celebrating a key milestone for ZKsync. The ZKsync token being MiCA ready enables institutions, enterprises and exchanges to partner with ZKsync with confidence, supported by regulatory clarity and accessible documentation. Read the ZK Token Token White Paper 👇

Thrilled to co-lead @grvt_io $19M Series A with @further, @eigencloud and @500GlobalVC. Built on the ZKsync Stack, @grvt_io redefines onchain finance by delivering perps & strategies that are fast, secure, private & scalable. The time for ZK-powered DeFi is now.

@omw_to_the_moon So it can be subject to the side channel attacks? The post seems contradictory to the initial claim at the top of the thread, i.e. that the the privacy has not been broken

The speedup is linear in terms of CPUs used. So if you were to get access to the TEE's memory during its proof generation, then privacy may be leaked, but not before or after.

Client side proof delegation on Aztec is almost here 👀 Uses TEEs. But wait don’t TEEs various side channel attacks? So did we just destroy Aztec’s privacy? Nope! 🧵

Ready to prove Ethereum in seconds on a single GPU? Introducing ZKsync Airbender: The world’s fastest open-source RISC-V zkVM ⚡️

@donnoh_eth @gluk64 By default the same level of native bridging will be supported as for L1->L2 bridging now. So typically no action will be needed from users. But if someone would want to bridge + maintain complex logic (like fee on transfer tokens), the dev would have to implement this logic

@gluk64 no ElasticERC20 needed?

The elastic network interop is getting real! Try it out by swapping tokens between 2 testnets—with a brand new ZKsync SSO wallet. This first version is relatively slow (~10 seconds, because it must wait for each transaction to complete on its chain), but it will work for ALL tokens (ERC20 and NFTs) and ALL chains on the ever expanding elastic network, not just a few trusted ones.

ZKsync is building Web3 without compromise. The 2025 technical roadmap for the elastic network is now live — let's get into it 🧵👇

A problem that no ChatGPT that I have ever had access to was able to solve (5th grader olympiad math homework)

.@coinbase integration with @zksync Era opens up more opportunities to access the Elastic Chain. Over a dozen ZK Chains have announced plans to launch this year, like @Treasure_DAO, @AbstractChain, @LensProtocol, @grvt_io, & @ZKcandyHQ. ZK is the Endgame!

The ZKsync governance system is live on mainnet! Builders, users, researchers, devs, network operators, token holders and more--our diverse community now steers the ship. ZKsync is fully decentralized and controlled by its community. 🧵👇 Read the full post here: blog.zknation.io/zksync-governa…

ZK technology belongs to the community. Full stop. We applied for ZK-related trademarks to ensure that the term “ZK” can be used freely in the context of “ZK Sync”, “ZK Stack” and other related names. Like it or not, trademarks are the only legal tool available for this today. “A common misconception is that having a trademark means you legally own a particular word or phrase and can prevent others from using it. However, you don’t have rights to the word or phrase in general, only to how that word or phrase is used with your specific goods or services." (*) That said, we are committed to finding an appropriate structure for the ZK trademark that is accessible to everyone building ZK tech. We invite other ZK projects to join this effort. ZK technology, and the term ZK in particular, is and must always remain a public good, freely available to all. (*) uspto.gov/trademarks/bas…

@high_byte @rel_zeta_tech the EVM project was a bit of an experiment on top of the native zkEVM, but the contracts calling is the same. Basically when a call is done, we read the bytecode hash from storage, magically open the bytecode and later on prove that hash(bytecode) = bytecodehash

@rel_zeta_tech in zksync we implemented evm on top of the zkvm bytecodes (basically solidity since there zksolc compiles to the zkvm) and iirc the hash is included in the transaction fields and fetching the code is a precompile. maybe @stasbreadless can explain better how it's done.

Do the current zk-evm's allow a contract calling another contract? How do they handle that? Or is it easy cause a contract calling another contract gets compiled somehow to evm bytecode?

What do you think?

Only the future will tell how it will play out! This is not a sprint, and definitely shouldn’t be treated as one. The @safe team is asking for the inclusion of the EIP-5003 that would allow moving all users to smart accounts: safe.global/blog/eip-3074-…

It can distract the road to full account abstraction support! I see two paths for account abstraction: - EOAs never migrate to SA, the hybrid approach wins the adoption, but - The 🤏 difference between native AA and EIP-4337 and the new tooling can help transition to native AA.

What does it mean for native account abstraction? EOAs with similar capabilities as EIP-4337 accounts allows for better standardization. The benefits include ⇒ more users for AA ⇒ better standardization ⇒ better tooling, and more But, one caveat might be…

Removing the reliance on msg.sender == tx.origin is hard hence the approach should be decided in coordination with other rollups.

Rollups dilemma with EIP-3074 ⇒ msg.sender != tx.origin With the current logic of EIP-3074, EOAs in use-cases mentioned above, the “key recovery” and “paid tx” users will not be able to access the original account, only the aliased one.

Now, the EOAs and EIP-4337 accounts are at the same level, both can do: ⇒ custom logic ⇒ sponsored tx However, contracts can never be the transaction initiators. You’ll always need a relayer + additional costs for the EOA that starts tx