The Ethereum ecosystem is once again making technological progress. Brevis's latest solution in zero-knowledge proof, Pico Prism, has officially been applied to ZK-EVM verification, gaining widespread industry recognition.



What are the core advantages of this solution? Let's look at the numbers—verification efficiency has improved by 3.4 times compared to traditional methods, and hardware costs have been cut in half. For Ethereum node validators, this means the problem of redundant computation finally has a solution, opening new opportunities for network speedup and cost reduction.

Brevis adopts a "off-chain computation + on-chain verification" architecture, where complex calculations are efficiently performed off-chain, and the verification process is moved on-chain, all without relying on third-party intermediaries. So far, the platform has generated over 288 million ZK proofs and served more than 200,000 users. These figures demonstrate the application potential of the technology in real-world scenarios.

Competition in the ZK track is becoming increasingly fierce, but Brevis has established a foothold at the infrastructure level with its dual advantages of verification speed and cost. Moving forward, how these types of technical solutions will further promote Ethereum's scalability ecosystem is worth continuous observation.
ETH-1.62%
View Original
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.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
AlwaysQuestioningvip
· 6h ago
3.4 times efficiency improvement sounds great, but can it really be implemented? I always feel like these numbers are too ideal.
View OriginalReply0
NervousFingersvip
· 01-07 15:48
Hardware costs cut in half? Now that's impressive—finally, someone is seriously building the infrastructure.
View OriginalReply0
MetaMiseryvip
· 01-07 15:43
3.4x efficiency improvement sounds good, but can it actually save money? --- Wait, cutting hardware costs in half... if that's true, it should have been rolled out long ago. --- Another "revolutionary" solution, it looks just like last year's dydx to me. --- Fast verification with low cost sounds great, but the key is whether the nodes are willing to upgrade. --- 2.88 billion proofs sound impressive, but what about the conversion rate? --- In the highly competitive ZK track, it's hard to say how long Brevis can last. --- The approach of off-chain computation with on-chain verification is outdated; the core issue is the actual adoption rate of infrastructure.
View OriginalReply0
MeltdownSurvivalistvip
· 01-07 15:35
Hardware costs cut in half directly? This number sounds good, but I don't know if the actual implementation will be another story.
View OriginalReply0
DegenWhisperervip
· 01-07 15:31
A 3.4x efficiency increase sounds great, but how many projects can actually be implemented and used?
View OriginalReply0
GhostWalletSleuthvip
· 01-07 15:31
3.4x efficiency improvement sounds great, but it only counts if it’s truly implemented. --- Cut hardware costs in half? Then why do my nodes still feel so exhausting to run? --- 200,000 users, 288 million proofs—those numbers are impressive, but how active is the ecosystem? --- The routine of off-chain computation and on-chain verification feels like every ZK project is playing the same game. --- The real test is whether Ethereum’s gas fees can be reduced; otherwise, it’s all just empty talk. --- Brevis has made good progress with this wave of technology; the key is whether the ecosystem applications can keep up. --- Intense competition is a good thing, but let’s hope it’s not just another project chasing hype. --- Let’s see if this plan can stay hot after 6 months; it’s too early to say anything now.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)