Moonax

$SPACE
•  価格は約0.009246 (+56.16% 24時間の参考に対して可能性がありますが、最近のキャンドルは放物線的な上昇を示しています)。
•  連続した強い緑のキャンドルを伴う急な上昇チャネル。
•  価格はすべての移動平均を大きく上回っています (MA7 約0.00889, MA25 約0.00778, MA99 約0.00693) → 明確な強気スタック。
•  ボリュームのスパイクはブレイクアウトをサポートし、最近のバーは高くなっています。
•  24時間の高値近く (~0.00948)、小さなウィックは潜在的な疲労または継続的な押し上げを示唆しています。
•  バイアス: 非常に攻撃的な強気 – クラシックなポンプフェーズ、高いボラティリティ、モメンタムロングが好まれますが、急激な反転に注意してください。

Here’s an updated comparison of Aztec Network and zkSync, now enhanced with the latest available quantitative metrics (as of mid-February 2026). Metrics are sourced from platforms like L2BEAT, DeFiLlama, project updates, and ecosystem reports. Note that Aztec is in an early post-TGE phase (launched February 12, 2026), with the Ignition Chain live but full user activity and private smart contracts still ramping up in the Alpha/Beta phases. zkSync is more mature, with established mainnet usage.
Total Value Secured / TVL
~$2.4M (Aztec v1 legacy/privacy payments) to low/no significant mainnet TVL yet (pre-full adoption)
~$401M (ZKsync Era, canonically bridged + native) leads dramatically in capital locked; Aztec’s TVL is minimal as it’s pre-mainnet user activity and focuses on privacy apps without broad DeFi migration yet. Projections for Aztec: $100-200M in Q1 2026 with bridges/adoption.
Transactions Per Second (TPS)
Theoretical: ~100 TPS (simple transfers), ~30 TPS (complex DeFi/private ops) due to client-side proving latency
Theoretical: 15,000+ TPS (Atlas upgrade, Airbender prover); Observed/peak: up to thousands in bursts; Average daily: lower (e.g., ~0.26 TPS in some reports, but scalable to high volumes) far superior in raw scalability and throughput for high-volume use cases; Aztec trades speed for full end-to-end privacy (client-side proofs add overhead).
Activity / User Operations
Very low/no daily UOPS reported (network produces empty blocks pre-full tx volume; testnet throttled to 0.2 TPS)
Rollups overall ~1.95K UOPS past day; zkSync contributes meaningfully but trails leaders like Base/Arbitrum has real, sustained activity (millions of txs historically); Aztec’s activity is near-zero as it’s in early rollout — expect growth post-Alpha hard fork.
Total Transactions Processed
Low (Ignition Chain: 75,000+ blocks, mostly empty/consensus; no major user tx volume yet)
Hundreds of millions historically; continues high-volume processing
has proven scale; Aztec is pre-mass adoption.
Block Production / Uptime
75,000+ blocks on Ignition Chain (since Nov 2025); 99%+ uptime, zero downtime during Ethereum upgrades
High uptime; Elastic Network with 1-second soft confirmations
Both strong on reliability/decentralization, but zkSync handles real traffic.
Fees / Cost per Tx
Adaptive “mana” system (paid in $AZTEC); privacy adds overhead (higher than public rollups)
Near-zero to very low (~$0.0001–$0.004 in benchmarks)
wins on cost-efficiency for transparent ops; Aztec’s privacy premium makes it more expensive but justified for confidential use.
Token Market Metrics
Market Cap: ~$58-64M; FDV: ~$200-215M; Circulating: ~2.88B / Total: 10.35B; 60%+ staked
Higher market cap historically (varies); supports custom gas tokens
Aztec’s inflationary emissions and unlocks create dilution risk; zkSync more mature token utility.
Decentralization / Nodes
185+ operators, 3,657 sequencers; modest hardware (8-core CPU, 16GB RAM)
Decentralized sequencers via ZK Stack; broad operator participation
Both emphasize decentralization from launch (Aztec no centralized sequencer).
Scalability & Performance → zkSync dominates with 15,000+ TPS capability post-Atlas upgrade and real-world high-throughput support (e.g., for RWAs, gaming, DeFi). Aztec’s privacy-first design caps it at lower TPS (~30-100), prioritizing confidentiality over speed — suitable for private DeFi/identity but not mass-market volume yet.
Adoption & Capital → zkSync’s ~$400M+ TVS reflects strong ecosystem traction (e.g., SyncSwap, institutional RWAs). Aztec’s low TVL/activity shows it’s still in bootstrap mode post-TGE — strong for niche privacy (e.g., private wallets, DEXes) but needs mainnet Beta and apps to drive inflows.Trade-offs → Aztec offers true programmable privacy (encrypted states, selective disclosure) at the cost of performance and current adoption. zkSync provides EVM-native scaling, low fees, and interoperability (Elastic Network) but privacy is optional/limited (e.g., via Prividium for institutions).Risks → Aztec faces dilution (emissions, unlocks) and slow ramp-up; zkSync competes in crowded scaling space but has proven metrics.Bottom line: zkSync is the clear leader in quantitative metrics (TVL, TPS, activity) for general-purpose scaling in February 2026. Aztec excels in privacy innovation but lags in on-chain usage and value secured — making it a higher-risk, higher-reward bet if privacy demand surges (e.g., regulatory/enterprise needs). Monitor Aztec’s Alpha phase milestones for potential catch-up in activity/TVL.

Overview
Aztec Network and zkSync are both zero-knowledge (ZK) rollup Layer 2 (L2) solutions on Ethereum, aimed at enhancing scalability while inheriting Ethereum’s security. However, they diverge in focus: Aztec prioritizes programmable privacy for transactions and smart contracts, positioning itself as a “private world computer” with end-to-end confidentiality. [29] [0] zkSync, developed by Matter Labs, emphasizes user-centric scalability, EVM compatibility, and interoperability across a network of chains, with growing institutional adoption for real-world assets (RWAs) and compliance. [30] [9] Both use ZK proofs (SNARKs in zkSync’s case, PLONK—a SNARK variant invented by Aztec’s team—in Aztec’s), but Aztec integrates privacy natively, while zkSync treats it as a secondary feature. [5] [8]
Technology and Architecture
• Aztec: A hybrid public-private ZK-rollup with a decentralized consensus layer (Ignition Chain, live since November 2025, with 75,000+ blocks and zero downtime). It features a dual execution model: Private Execution Environment (PXE) for client-side proofs and Aztec Virtual Machine (AVM) for public logic. Developers use Noir, a Rust-like language for privacy-focused contracts, enabling mobile-native proofs in ~5 seconds. The network is fully permissionless, with no centralized sequencers or TEEs, and supports hardware like 8-core CPUs for nodes. [29] [18] It uses a UTXO/account hybrid for privacy but can suffer higher latency from per-transaction proofs. [20]
• zkSync: An EVM-compatible validity rollup (now expanded to the Elastic Network of 18+ interoperable ZK chains via ZK Stack). It includes components like Prividium (permissioned validium for off-chain data), ZK Gateway for faster settlement, and Airbender (RISC-V prover for subsecond proofs). Consensus uses ChonkyBFT for 1-second soft confirmations, with full EVM equivalence and support for Solidity. It offers modular choices like custom gas tokens and focuses on trustless cross-chain atomicity without bridges. [30] [9] [6]
• Comparison: zkSync is more EVM-native, making it easier to port existing Ethereum apps with minimal changes, while Aztec requires Noir for its privacy-centric model, which introduces a steeper learning curve but enables unique encrypted logic. [3] [12] zkSync’s architecture scales publicly with high throughput, whereas Aztec’s hybrid design adds privacy layers, potentially at the cost of speed in some scenarios. [1] [19]
Privacy Features
• Aztec: Privacy is core and programmable, hiding sender/recipient identities, transaction amounts, and even asset types. It supports flexible, partial privacy (e.g., public trades with private balances) via encrypted state and zkSNARKs. Applications include private DeFi (e.g., Nemi DEX), NFTs (e.g., Raven House), and identity (e.g., ZKPassport for selective disclosure). [29] [0] [7]
• zkSync: Privacy is optional and secondary, with features like Prividium for institutional compliance (selective disclosure, KYC/AML enforcement) and user-level proofs. It supports meta-transactions and low-cost privacy but lacks native end-to-end encryption for all logic. [30] [5]
• Comparison: Aztec is privacy-first by default, making it the only true “ZK-ZK rollup” for confidentiality (beyond just validity proofs), while zkSync prioritizes scalability over privacy, adding it as a long-term goal rather than a built-in feature. [8] [13] [18] This makes Aztec better for sensitive apps like private finance, but zkSync more suitable for transparent, high-volume use cases. [24]
Scalability and Performance
• Aztec: Processes in seconds on devices, with rollups settling in minutes. It achieves scalability via ZK proofs but focuses on privacy over raw TPS; current network handles empty blocks pre-full user activity, with modest node requirements. [29] [0] Testnet performance shows high disk/CPU usage (25-40 GB/day), with provers needing fast NVMe SSDs. [23]
• zkSync: Leads with 434 TPS theoretical throughput (second-lowest block time among rollups), 58% of Ethereum’s ZK proof volume, and targets 10,000+ TPS at $0.0001/tx by 2025. Elastic Network enables 1-second finality and 15,000+ TPS sequencing, with 700M+ transactions processed and $4B+ TVL secured. [30] [9]
• Comparison: zkSync outperforms in raw scalability and cost-efficiency (e.g., 90%+ fee reductions for DeFi), making it ideal for high-volume apps like gaming and RWAs. [3] [4] Aztec’s privacy overhead can introduce latency, but it excels in secure, low-visibility environments. [20] [13]
Tokenomics
• Aztec ($AZTEC): Total supply 10.35B, circulating ~2.88B post-TGE (Feb 12, 2026). Raised 19,476 ETH from 16,700 participants; 48.3% to team/investors (locked 12 months, vest over 24). Used for staking (200K min for sequencers, 60%+ staked), governance, fees (mana system), and rewards (70% to sequencers, 30% to provers). Infinite supply via emissions; FDV ~$200-215M, market cap $58-64M. [29] [22]
• zkSync ($ZK): Total supply 21B, circulating ~$687M market cap. Used for governance (three-body model), fees, and staking. Supports custom gas tokens; launched in 2024 with strong DeFi traction (TVL $650M+ by mid-2023). [30] [2]
• Comparison: Both are inflationary, but Aztec’s high team allocation (36-month unlocks) and lack of airdrops have drawn criticism for dilution and low incentives compared to zkSync’s more mature, battle-tested model. [14] [22] zkSync’s token has broader utility in its expansive network.
Team and Funding
• Aztec: Founded 2017 by Zac Williamson (PLONK co-inventor) and team of cryptographers. Raised $164M+ (e.g., $100M Series B from a16z, Paradigm). Over 70 people, focused on ZK R&D. [21] [15]
• zkSync: Founded 2019 by Matter Labs; raised significant funding (e.g., $50M from a16z). Known for EVM innovations and institutional partnerships (e.g., Deutsche Bank, UBS). [30] [0]
• Comparison: Aztec’s team excels in privacy cryptography (e.g., influencing zkSync via shared MPC ceremonies), while zkSync’s has broader scaling expertise. [9] [19]
Adoption and Ecosystem
• Aztec: Early-stage with projects like Azguard wallet, Nemi DEX; strong developer growth via Noir. Community mixed: praise for tech, criticism for launch (e.g., no airdrop, 30% presale losses). [29] [22] [26]
• zkSync: Mature with 700M+ txs, $4B+ TVL, 9.97M addresses; leads RWAs ($2B+, 27% market). Ecosystem includes DeFi (SyncSwap), gaming (Xsolla), and institutions (Fidelity, Sygnum). [30] [2] [3]
• Comparison: zkSync has exponential growth and proven demand (e.g., 1M+ depositors), while Aztec is pre-full functionality, focusing on niche privacy apps but lagging in TVL and tx volume. [27] [17]
Roadmap
• Aztec: Post-TGE focus on Alpha hard fork (Q1 2026) for user txs; Beta for ecosystem growth; Mainnet 1.0 for production. Emphasizes governance and decentralization. [29] [28]
• zkSync: Q2 2025 ZK Gateway mainnet; 2025 targets 10K TPS; expands Elastic Network for RWAs and sovereign chains (e.g., UAE ADI). [30]
• Comparison: zkSync’s roadmap is more aggressive on performance and adoption, while Aztec’s prioritizes privacy milestones. [6]
Risks and Challenges
• Aztec: Dilution from emissions/unlocks, unproven demand (empty blocks), regulatory scrutiny on privacy, complex tech slowing adoption. [22] [14]
• zkSync: Competition in scaling (e.g., from Optimism), deprecation of older versions (Lite shutdown 2026), and bridging small wallets dominating activity. [17] [2]
• Comparison: Aztec faces more criticism on token economics and hype vs. delivery, while zkSync risks over-reliance on institutional narratives in volatile markets. 
Conclusion
Aztec stands out for its deep privacy integration, ideal for confidential DeFi and enterprise apps, but it’s earlier-stage with potential dilution risks. zkSync excels in scalability, EVM ease, and real-world traction (e.g., RWAs), making it more accessible for broad adoption. Choose Aztec for privacy-critical use cases; zkSync for high-performance, interoperable scaling. Both contribute to Ethereum’s evolution, but zkSync currently leads in metrics and maturity.

$AZTEC
Overview of Aztec Network
Aztec Network is a decentralized, privacy-preserving Layer 2 (L2) solution built on Ethereum, designed to enable programmable privacy for smart contracts and transactions. Unlike traditional blockchains where all data is public, Aztec allows developers to create applications with optional privacy at various levels, from identities and transactions to entire smart contracts. It positions itself as a “private world computer,” extending Ethereum’s capabilities while inheriting its security. The network emphasizes end-to-end privacy without relying on centralized sequencers, trusted execution environments (TEEs), or backdoors, making it suitable for real-world applications like private DeFi, NFTs, and identity solutions.   Founded in 2017, Aztec has evolved from early concepts in zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs to a fully operational L2, with significant backing from top investors.

Technology and Key Features
Aztec’s core technology is a zk-rollup that bundles transactions into cryptographic proofs verified on Ethereum, enabling scalability and privacy. Key innovations include:
•  Programmable Privacy: Developers can mix public and private states in smart contracts. For instance, a DEX could execute trades publicly while keeping user balances private. This is achieved through a dual-environment model: the Private Execution Environment (PXE) for client-side private proofs and the Aztec Virtual Machine (AVM) for public logic.
•  Noir Programming Language: A Rust-like language for writing privacy-focused contracts, ranked among the fastest-growing developer ecosystems. It supports fast iteration and mobile-native proofs (e.g., ~5 seconds on devices).
•  Ignition Chain: Launched in November 2025 as Ethereum’s first decentralized L2, it handles consensus and block production. As of February 2026, it has produced over 75,000 blocks with 99%+ uptime, zero downtime (even during Ethereum’s Fusaka upgrade), and participation from 185+ operators and 3,657 sequencers across five continents.
•  Proving System: Built on PLONK (invented by Aztec’s team), a universal SNARK system widely adopted in the ZK ecosystem. Future enhancements include collaborative proving (coSNARKs) for shared private computations.
•  Hardware Requirements: Validator nodes need modest specs (8-core CPU, 16 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, 25 Mbps bandwidth), promoting accessibility and decentralization.
The network supports projects like Azguard (private wallets), Nemi (private DEX), Raven House (non-custodial NFTs), and ZKPassport (selective identity revelation). Privacy is flexible and practical, addressing blockchain’s transparency issues for enterprise and DeFi adoption.   
Team and Backers
Aztec’s team includes cryptographers and engineers who pioneered key ZK advancements, such as PLONK and Noir. Co-founders Zac Williamson, Joe Andrews, Tom Pocock, and Arnaud Schenk started with on-chain financial services but pivoted to privacy infrastructure. The Aztec Labs and Foundation teams do not run sequencers or participate in governance, ensuring community-driven operations.
The project has raised over $164 million across rounds, including a $100 million Series B led by a16z, with participation from Paradigm, ConsenSys, HashKey Capital, Variant Fund, and notable individuals like Vitalik Buterin. This institutional support underscores confidence in Aztec’s long-term vision, though some critics note the focus on “academic experiments” over immediate revenue.   

Tokenomics
The native token, $AZTEC, has a total supply of 10.35 billion and a circulating supply of approximately 2.88 billion as of launch. It serves multiple roles:
•  Staking and Security: Requires a minimum of 200,000 $AZTEC to run a sequencer (no fractional staking yet). Delegators can stake to earn block rewards (70% to sequencers, 30% to provers per epoch of 32 blocks). Over 30 million $AZTEC have been distributed via rewards, with 60%+ of tokens already staked post-TGE.
•  Governance: Token holders vote on proposals, such as the TGE (passed January 26, 2026, with 100% approval). Progressive decentralization shifts control to the community.
•  Transaction Fees: Uses an adaptive “mana” system for fees, paid in $AZTEC.
•  Allocation: Investors and team hold ~48.3% (27.26% investors, 21.06% team), locked for 12 months then vesting over 24 months (total 36 months), with no staking allowed during locks. Community sale: ~50% of capital raised from public participants. No airdrop at launch—every holder has a cost basis. Emissions are inflationary via staking rewards, with no hard max supply cap.
•  Launch Details: TGE occurred February 12, 2026, raising 19,476 ETH from 16,700 participants in an on-chain sale. Liquidity via Uniswap V4 pool with 273 million $AZTEC and matching ETH. Current market cap ~$58-64 million, FDV ~$200-215 million.
Critics highlight potential dilution from emissions and unlocks, but the locked insider supply and high staking rates (reducing sell pressure) are seen as positives for short-term stability.    

Roadmap and Development
Aztec’s phased rollout prioritizes security and decentralization:
•  Ignition (Q4 2025): Consensus layer bootstrap, stable with 90,000+ blocks.
•  Alpha (Q1 2026): First governance-led hard fork, enabling user transactions and private smart contracts. Frequent upgrades expected.
•  Mainnet Beta: Requires 99% uptime; focuses on ecosystem growth via grants and hackathons.
•  Mainnet 1.0: Full production readiness post-Beta.
•  Future: Enterprise adoption, bridging traditional data to blockchain, and expanded governance.
The network is already live, producing blocks, but currently handles empty ones without full user activity. Beta launch is imminent, with progressive privacy features rolling out through 2026.   
Market Position and Adoption
Aztec differentiates in the crowded L2 space by focusing on privacy, a growing need amid DeFi’s transparency risks and regulatory scrutiny. It competes with zkSync, Starknet, and privacy-focused projects like Miden or Nightfall, but stands out with decentralized sequencing from day one and strong ZK pedigree. Adoption drivers include developer growth (Noir’s popularity) and partnerships (e.g., LayerZero for bridging). Listings on Coinbase, Bybit, KuCoin, Gate, MEXC, and others post-TGE signal exchange confidence.
Community sentiment is mixed: Bullish views emphasize tech strength and privacy narrative (e.g., “every smart contract will be private”), while bearish ones cite high FDV, market timing (launch during volatility), and unproven demand (empty blocks). Privacy demands in DeFi could drive long-term growth, with projections tied to mainnet adoption.    
Risks and Challenges
•  Volatility and Dilution: Infinite supply via emissions and 36-month unlocks could pressure price. Pre-TGE participants saw ~30% losses due to ETH volatility.
•  Adoption Hurdles: Network is pre-full functionality; needs to prove real-world demand beyond hype.
•  Regulatory Risks: Privacy tech could face scrutiny in a post-FTX era.
•  Competition: Overfunded infra projects dilute focus; Aztec must deliver on revenue-generating apps.
•  Market Timing: Launch amid bearish sentiment led to underwhelming debut (e.g., -50% from public sale FDV).
Despite these, Aztec’s decentralized ethos and locked supplies mitigate some sell-off risks.   

Conclusion
Aztec Network’s fundamentals are robust, rooted in cutting-edge ZK tech, a proven team, and a clear privacy thesis that could capture growing demand in DeFi and enterprise blockchain. With strong decentralization, institutional backing, and a community-focused token model, it has potential for long-term value if adoption follows. However, inflationary emissions, unproven transaction volume, and market volatility pose near-term headwinds. Overall, it’s a high-conviction play on privacy infrastructure, but investors should monitor Alpha phase milestones for execution proof.

Instead of fragmentation (each rollup = its own sequencer silo), a shared sequencer acts as a neutral, public-good layer in the middle:
1.  Multiple rollups opt-in and send their transactions (or transaction bundles/blocks) to the shared sequencer network.
2.  The shared sequencer network runs consensus (e.g., a fast BFT-style protocol) to agree on a unified, fair order of transactions across all participating rollups.
3.  It produces ordered batches/blocks with proofs of availability and ordering.
4.  Each rollup receives the confirmed order, applies it to its own state, and posts compressed data/proofs to Ethereum L1 (or another DA layer) for settlement.
This creates a single global ordering timeline that multiple chains can reference.
Key Benefits
•  Decentralization & Liveness — No single operator can censor or halt one rollup without affecting the network; uses economic security from many nodes/validators.
•  Interoperability & Composability — Transactions can have atomic dependencies across different rollups (e.g., “execute swap on Rollup A only if it succeeds on Rollup B”). Enables synchronous cross-rollup actions like cross-chain arbitrage, multi-chain DeFi, or seamless bridging without slow async messaging.
•  MEV Mitigation & Fair Ordering — Unified ordering reduces harmful MEV (like sandwich attacks across chains) and can implement fair mechanisms (e.g., auctions for ordering rights).
•  Efficiency — Shared infrastructure avoids redundant sequencing nodes per rollup; scales horizontally as more rollups join.
•  Faster Confirmation — Often sub-second to few-second soft confirmations, with fast finality.
Trade-offs / Challenges
•  Performance — Must handle very high throughput and low latency for many chains → requires optimized consensus (e.g., HotStuff variants).
•  Adoption — Rollups must integrate (via API or contract changes) and trust the shared layer.
•  Revenue — Rollups give up some sequencing fees/MEV; some designs use marketplaces where rollups sell sequencing rights to builders/sequencers.
•  Data Availability — Often pairs with a modular DA layer (not Ethereum calldata for everything, to save cost).#CPIWatch #CZAMAonBinanceSquare #WhaleDeRiskETH #USRetailSalesMissForecast #BTCMiningDifficultyDrop