Ethereum Foundation puts safety first: packs a 128-bit security rule into its 2026 roadmap after zkEVM speed shock

Why the Foundation switched gears — and how fast the change came

The Ethereum Foundation has quietly but clearly changed course: instead of treating raw proving speed as the top metric for layer-2 tech, it now wants teams to prioritize security guarantees. The Foundation has asked the ecosystem to meet a 128-bit security standard by 2026, a move prompted in part by recent zkEVM research that cut proving time from minutes to seconds. That sudden speed win exposed a new set of trade-offs: when proving gets extremely fast, teams must make sure the math behind the proofs still blocks real-world attacks.

For developers and token investors, the rule matters. It sets a firm deadline, raises the baseline for what counts as production-grade cryptography, and changes the economics of rollups and prover providers. The Foundation’s message is plain: you can chase lower latency, but not at the expense of cryptographic strength.

From 16 minutes to 16 seconds — what changed in zk proofs, and what ‘128-bit’ really means

To follow the debate, you don’t need a PhD in math. Here are the key ideas in plain language.

A zkVM is a virtual machine that can run smart contracts and emit zero-knowledge proofs showing that the computation was done correctly without revealing all inputs. A zkEVM is specifically designed to match Ethereum’s rules, so rollups can prove batches of transactions off-chain and post concise proofs on-chain. The time it takes to create a proof is called proving time. For years, proving could take many minutes for a realistic batch of transactions; recent algorithm and implementation work has compressed that to seconds in some experiments.

Why the huge speed-up? Work on more efficient polynomial operations, better parallelism, and tailored circuits for EVM semantics let provers crunch the same logical steps much faster. In practice, this means a prover that once needed 16 minutes to stand up a proof can now finish in 16 seconds for the same workload — a leap that changes user experience and product design.

But speed is only half the story. The Foundation’s 128-bit demand is about cryptographic strength. When people talk about “128-bit security,” they mean it should be infeasible for an attacker to beat the system using at most about 2^128 operations — far beyond practical brute force now. It’s a shorthand for a safety margin: higher bit levels make classical attacks impractical and give a buffer against future advances, including modest quantum threats or clever math shortcuts.

Faster proving can expose weak corners. Some shortcut techniques assume that certain mathematical operations are cheap to reverse or that certain random values are hard to predict. When proof systems get extremely optimized, they sometimes lean on components that trim cost but also reduce the effective security level. The Foundation’s point is that those trade-offs have to be explicit, measured, and bounded — and that any system in production should hit a 128-bit floor.

What the 128-bit rule actually requires by 2026 — who’s in scope and how enforcement could work

The Foundation set a clear timeline: by 2026, deployed zk-based clients and proving systems that want to claim compatibility or be recommended for wide use should meet a 128-bit security profile. That covers three main pieces:

• Prover cryptography: the prover stacks that generate zk proofs should use primitives and parameter choices that yield at least 128-bit classical security for all core primitives (field sizes, hash functions, and so on).
• Verifier and on-chain specs: the proofs and verification circuits submitted on-chain must match the same security profile; lightweight verifier shortcuts that lower security won’t be acceptable.
• Client compatibility and libraries: reference clients, SDKs, and libraries should default to secure parameters and expose auditing hooks so third parties can test compliance.

The Foundation has signalled it will not be a formal regulator with fines but will use softer levers: public audits, recommended client lists, and integration priorities for ecosystem grants and infrastructure support. Projects that fail independent testing or that ship insecure default parameters risk being dropped from Foundation tooling, grant tracks, and community rollup recommendations — all meaningful penalties in this ecosystem.

To assist the transition, the Foundation expects tooling and test suites to mature: provers should be able to produce reproducible security proofs and benchmarked performance numbers. The emphasis is on measurable claims rather than vague assurances.

Who wins and loses: market implications for ETH, rollups and infrastructure providers

The rule is a market signal. It both raises the bar and reshuffles near-term economics.

For ETH price sensitivity: the policy should be neutral-to-positive in the medium term. Stronger security standards reduce tail risk for settlement on Ethereum and could boost institutional comfort with rollups — a goodwill effect that helps long-term demand for blockspace. Short-term, however, any costly migration or parameter changes could slow adoption and reduce fee capture across rollups, which can pressure sentiment.

For rollup tokens and projects: teams that already prioritize conservative crypto choices will gain credibility. Projects that built around extreme latency wins — shaving every possible millisecond and using experimental primitives — now face either a costly retool or a reputational hit. Expect a split: conservative rollups that market security as a feature, and aggressively low-latency projects that either pivot or remain niche.

For prover and infrastructure vendors: companies that sell hardened prover stacks, secure RNG, audited libraries, and developer support stand to win. They can charge premiums for assured-compliant proofs. Conversely, providers that focused solely on throughput and cheap hardware may need fresh investment to upgrade to secure parameter sizes, raising their costs and likely their prices for rollup clients.

Operationally, the rule raises the cost base. Larger field sizes and stronger hash choices can increase memory and CPU footprints. Some latency-sensitive products will either accept slightly higher proof latencies or invest in more powerful hardware. In sum: security-first design trades cheaper, faster deployments today for lower systemic risk tomorrow.

Ecosystem reaction — developers, rollups and auditors weigh in

Responses across the community have been mixed but pragmatic. Many core developers welcomed the clarity: a clear floor removes a source of fragmentation and makes auditing easier. Major rollups signalled support for safety-first messaging but warned that tooling and prover vendors must provide clear migration paths to avoid service disruption.

Auditing firms said the mandate aligns with best practices and will simplify certification work, though they noted that proving compliance in messy production environments is non-trivial. A number of smaller teams expressed concern about increased costs and longer development cycles — they’ll need bridge funding or community help to meet the 2026 deadline.

Investor checklist — what to watch next and how to size the risk

If you invest in this space, think of the 128-bit rule as both a catalyst and a constraint.

• Short-term catalysts: look for formal test suites, Foundation-backed audit reports, and infrastructure partners announcing “128-bit compliant” tiers. Each of these items can calm markets and lift confidence.
• Cost signals: watch prover vendors’ pricing and hardware announcements. A sudden jump in infrastructure costs will pressure margins for rollups and could slow throughput-driven growth stories.
• Adoption readouts: prioritize projects that publish clear migration timelines and progress against the Foundation’s test benches. Those that move early become safer bets; slow movers become execution risks.
• Regime scenarios: if the rule succeeds, expect fewer novel cryptographic incidents and greater institutional uptake — a tailwind for ETH and mature rollups. If many projects fail to comply or cut corners, the rule could split liquidity and raise fragmentation risks.

My view: the Foundation’s move is constructive for long-term credibility. It raises near-term costs, especially for latency-first players, but reduces existential risk for the network. For investors, favor projects and vendors that communicate a clear, tested path to 128-bit compliance — those are the most likely to keep market share and avoid sudden technical liabilities.

Sources

• cryptoslate.com