### Introduction

In recent years, the advancement of blockchain technology has garnered global attention, with ZK-Rollup technology emerging as an innovative solution for scaling issues. Following the culmination of the Starknet super airdrop, the focus has shifted globally towards zkSync. As a prominent ZK-Rollup technology, zkSync leads in several data indicators, warranting high market expectations. This article delves into the technological nuances of OP-Rollup versus ZK-Rollup, the technological advancements of zkSync, its market strategy, and potential impacts on the future of blockchain technology.

### OP-Rollup vs. ZK-Rollup: A Technical Comparison

OP-Rollup and ZK-Rollup have been at the forefront of blockchain technology discussions over the past couple of years. A significant advantage of ZK-Rollup is the absence of a 7-day challenge period, which stems from the capability of ZK technology to swiftly transition transaction states between Layer2 and the mainnet, ensuring the validity of each transaction. In contrast, OP-Rollup assumes the optimism of Layer2 submitted transactions, with a 7-day challenge window to secure Layer2 transactions from malicious activities.

In practice, Layer2 users are particularly sensitive to the immediate transaction state transformation feature only in the withdrawal scenario. Most common interactions like Swap, Transfer, etc., are completed within Layer2, merely submitting partial transaction data and status updates to the mainnet. Hence, the perception of the 7-day challenge period among users is relatively weak.

However, over time, the OP-Rollup camp has seemingly relaxed its focus on the critical security mechanism of the 7-day challenge period, with few Battle-Tested challenge cases emerging. This relaxation might increase the potential for malicious activities exploiting the 7-day challenge period, especially as the number of Layer2 Sequencer node submissions increases. Despite OP-Rollup's performance in market and ecosystem data operations, its security mechanism flaws cannot be overlooked.

### zkSync's Technological Advantages

After the boojum upgrade, zkSync has shown excellent performance. The transition from SNARK to STARK proofs is part of its technological advancement. More importantly, gas fees have been reduced as anticipated, realizing the vision of more users leading to cheaper gas. According to Growthpie data, zkSync has maintained lower gas fees compared to the four major Layer2 platforms over the past two months, with an average gas consumption of approximately $0.12 per transaction, outperforming both Arbitrum and Optimism. Notably, during the stress test phase, while other platforms experienced a rise in gas fees due to a surge in transaction volume, zkSync's TPS reached new heights, and its gas fees even decreased.

The post-Cancun upgrade deployment of Blob blocks will further consolidate zkSync's advantage in gas fees. This is primarily because:

1. The cost structure of OP-Rollup is almost entirely dependent on data storage and verification costs submitted to the mainnet. The use of Blob blocks, which increases data storage and hence reduces gas costs, is market-driven. However, the demand for Blob's usage rights might increase the overall gas price, reducing the expected benefits of shared gas fees.

2. ZK-Rollup, while also experiencing increased total gas consumption due to the demand for Blob blocks, doesn't need to store all raw data on the mainnet. The newly freed storage space will accommodate more compressed SNARK proofs, further increasing the TPS of ZK Layer2 to the mainnet, thereby reducing the average gas cost compared to OP.

Moreover, with the continual algorithmic optimization and hardware acceleration of general-purpose, lightweight solutions like @RiscZero and @ProjectZKM, the cost of the ZK off-chain Prover system is also reducing continuously.

### zkSync's Market Strategy and Collaboration

zkSync has been actively collaborating with NFT communities such as @pudgypenguins, @apecoin, and @moonbirds. This collaboration is evidenced in their official communications and live Spaces, highlighting terms like Account Abstraction, Paymaster Function, Onboarding New Users, Gaming, and User Experience (UX).

It's evident that zkSync is guiding the market to view ZK technology from a long-term perspective, reflecting their value proposition as a comprehensive Layer2 chain: continuously driving incremental markets and users to the mainnet.

Recent discussions around the potential impact of PayMaster have been intriguing. Account Abstraction has always been a focal point for zkSync. Based on the Paymaster Function, project developers can subsidize gas for users directly. This implies that a large number of ZK ecosystem projects might initiate a subsidy war on gas fees based on Paymaster, stimulating and attracting more quality ecosystem projects. This could also trigger a surge in development within the zkSync ecosystem, amid internal competition.

The slow development of the ZK ecosystem has often been criticized due to the high technical barrier of ZK circuit technology and the cognitive gap in ZK data structures and algorithm optimization. Starknet's move to Tokenomics was aimed at accelerating the resolution of this issue through market-driven incentives.

As per L2beat data, Starknet's TVL rapidly climbed from 10th rank to the 4th following the STRK airdrop, with a 6-fold increase in total value locked (TVL), reaching $1.3 billion. The significance and value of Tokenomics are evident. If zkSync also adopts a Tokenomics strategy, incentivized by official support and combined with a Paymaster-based gas subsidy war, the flourishing expectations for the ZK ecosystem are promising.

### zkSync's Hyperchain Strategy vs. Optimism's Superchain Strategy

Both zkSync's Layer3 Hyperchain and Optimism's Superchain are long-term strategies aimed at elevating their brand stature through Stack strategies.

Currently, SuperChain focuses on Layer2 strategic alliances, aiming to build many new Layer2 projects based on the OP Stack open-source technology framework. Ultimately, the goal is to achieve a superchain architecture through shared Sequencer components.

In contrast, Hyperchain is more flexible, advancing both Layer2 and Layer3 simultaneously. It uses Layer2 strategies to expand allies with significant demand for Prover systems and captures high-frequency application markets in gaming and other sectors with Layer3 application chains.

The application chain market is crucial for ZK technology. The native technical features of ZK Layer2, such as high TPS, low gas fees, and enhanced interaction experience, determine that ZK might not have an edge in pure financial DeFi applications. However, considering a highly scalable market with an ultimate UX experience and focusing on gaming applications, the potential of ZK-Rollup is considerably magnified.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, ZK technology forms the foundational infrastructure for the next generation of mass adoption. It's a core catalyst in the fierce competition among upcoming application chains. While OP-Rollup may have sparked a trend with Tokenomics and one-click chain launch strategies before the Cancun upgrade, the post-upgrade landscape of technology, market, and ecosystem factors will likely propel ZK-Rollup to the forefront of the Layer2 market.

Letting Starknet's bullets fly for a while, zkSync is poised to make a powerful impact. Indeed, ZK is the endgame.