Introduction

Ethereum’s scaling roadmap has long centered on the proliferation of Layer-2 rollups. These off-chain execution environments, connected to Ethereum via bridges and proof systems, offer higher throughput while anchoring security in Layer-1. Yet the current landscape of rollups, despite significant progress, remains encumbered by architectural complexity and fragmented trust models. The emergence of "Native Rollups" represents a critical evolution. These systems propose a tighter integration with Ethereum's base layer, enabling rollups to directly leverage the native execution engine through a new system primitive: the EXECUTE precompile. This model aspires to simplify rollup development, remove bespoke trust assumptions, and establish a more seamless path to scalability.

The Problem with EVM-Equivalent Rollups

Current EVM-equivalent rollups are designed to simulate Ethereum’s environment without fully inheriting its execution semantics. To achieve this, developers must implement custom verification logic, such as fraud proofs or zero-knowledge SNARK verifiers, often introducing thousands of lines of complex, security-sensitive code. Any divergence from Ethereum’s canonical execution, especially within zero-knowledge proving circuits, can result in inconsistencies between what is verified and what should be verifiable. This discrepancy creates latent security risks. Most rollups mitigate these risks by employing centralized sequencers and security councils, a governance structure that contradicts the ethos of trust minimization.

Furthermore, these rollups are not intrinsically EVM-equivalent. They must manually adapt to each Ethereum upgrade, introducing delays and governance overhead. Verifying SNARK proofs on-chain also remains computationally expensive, discouraging frequent settlement and diminishing the real-time security Ethereum aims to offer.

The Native Rollup Architecture

Native Rollups propose a radically simplified alternative. Instead of custom verification systems, they utilize the EXECUTE precompile—a proposed function that exposes Ethereum’s L1 execution logic directly to rollups. The precompile accepts four inputs: the pre-execution state root, the post-execution state root, a trace of executed transactions, and the total gas consumed. Validators then use this trace to verify that the claimed post-state matches what would result from executing the transaction trace against the pre-state, consuming the specified gas amount.

This approach repositions rollups as extensions of Ethereum, not merely systems that interact with it. Rather than re-implementing Ethereum's execution model, rollups can delegate verification to L1 validators via a standardized interface. By aligning execution semantics across layers, the EXECUTE precompile effectively creates a shared execution environment for Ethereum and its rollups, simplifying composability and interoperability.

Stateless Verification and Execution Efficiency

One of the enabling innovations behind Native Rollups is stateless verification. Traditional Ethereum validators must store the full state of the chain to validate blocks, a task that incurs significant storage costs. Stateless verification, by contrast, allows validators to verify execution without persistent state by relying on cryptographic state access proofs. These proofs define the relevant subset of the state that a transaction interacts with, allowing validators to confirm its correctness without requiring full historical context.

For Native Rollups, this method transforms state transition verification from a data-intensive process into a computationally efficient one. Particularly in the zero-knowledge variant, validators verify succinct cryptographic proofs of correctness rather than re-executing transaction logic. This mechanism reduces computational load and improves scalability; however, validators still require access to execution traces, which introduces new demands on the data availability infrastructure.

Optimistic vs Zero-Knowledge Native Rollups

Native Rollups can follow either optimistic or zero-knowledge models, each with distinct trade-offs. Optimistic Native Rollups assume validity by default and only resort to Ethereum for data availability during disputes. They process transactions off-chain and fall back to on-chain execution during fraud challenges. Because the EXECUTE precompile allows for fine-grained re-execution of disputed segments rather than entire batches, this model improves dispute efficiency. However, finality is delayed due to challenge periods, which impose opportunity costs on capital efficiency.

In contrast, ZK Native Rollups prove correctness upfront using zero-knowledge proofs, enabling near-instant finality. These systems must post complete transaction data to Ethereum, allowing validators access to execution traces. Although more data-intensive, this design enables real-time composability and capital efficiency, essential for high-throughput applications and instant liquidity bridges.

While ZK systems are more expensive to operate, their fast settlement enables new protocol designs that circumvent the limitations of time-delayed finality. However, much depends on advances in recursive SNARK proving. If batch verification of EXECUTE calls through recursive SNARKs dramatically reduces costs, optimistic systems could eventually replace fraud proofs with lightweight re-execution, narrowing the cost-performance gap with ZK designs.

Implementation and Validator Dynamics

Validators in Native Rollup systems play a unique role. They do not rely on a single standardized zero-knowledge proof system. Instead, they independently verify execution traces using zk clients they trust. This diversity in verification systems introduces resilience, as validators are not dependent on a single proving architecture. However, it also necessitates the generation of multiple proof formats for a single transaction trace, one for each zk client in the network.

This approach introduces operational complexity but reflects Ethereum’s broader philosophy of neutrality and modularity. The consensus layer only standardizes state access proofs, leaving zk proof format decisions to individual validators. In cases where some validators use less popular zk systems, they may rely on altruistic or paid third-party provers to produce the necessary proof variants.

Execution traces are shared over peer-to-peer networks. Validators verify the correctness of these traces either through re-execution or through validation of associated SNARK proofs. In either case, the EXECUTE precompile confirms that the post-state results from a valid transformation of the pre-state.

Development Roadmap and Technical Hurdles

Deployment of Native Rollups requires multiple Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs), including formalizing the EXECUTE precompile and supporting mechanisms like one-slot delayed execution to mitigate centralization risk from fast finality races. Early rollups using re-execution will operate under strict gas constraints, limiting throughput until SNARK-based validation becomes practical.

Several technical challenges remain. Native rollups generate additional data availability overhead compared to optimistic rollups, particularly in the form of trace data required for each state transition. Deposit and withdrawal interfaces must also be standardized, and only rollups with strict EVM equivalence can adopt this model. Existing L2s with modified execution environments would need substantial architectural refactoring.

Despite these hurdles, support for the Native Rollup vision is growing. Succinct’s CEO, Uma Roy, has highlighted the synergy between zkVM infrastructure and Native Rollups, pointing to platforms like ethproofs.org as important tools for benchmarking zk performance and driving infrastructure readiness.

Integration, Composability, and Future Ecosystem Design

Native Rollups have the potential to eliminate many of the silos that fragment today’s Ethereum L2 ecosystem. By aligning rollup execution with Ethereum’s L1 semantics, composability across rollups becomes not just possible but native. Smart contracts and assets could seamlessly move across rollups without additional trust assumptions or bridging complexity. Real-time composability becomes feasible, a key requirement for modular financial protocols.

Rollup interoperability is also advancing through shared sequencing layers and standardized settlement frameworks. These developments, when combined with Native Rollup architecture, create the foundation for a more unified execution environment across Ethereum.

However, not every rollup will transition to this model. Performance-focused rollups using alternative data availability or enterprises seeking control over execution parameters may opt for independent stacks. The rollup ecosystem will likely bifurcate into three categories: enterprise rollups with Web2-like control, high-performance rollups with specialized configurations, and Native Rollups deeply integrated with Ethereum.

Conclusion

Native Rollups represent a pivotal shift in Ethereum’s scaling strategy, embedding execution validation within the protocol rather than building parallel systems. Through the EXECUTE precompile, they enable rollups to inherit Ethereum’s security guarantees without replicating its complexity. Stateless verification and zk-based enforcement offer new efficiency frontiers while preserving flexibility and decentralization.

Despite clear benefits, significant implementation challenges persist. Upgrading existing rollups, achieving reliable real-time proving, and handling diverse validator zk clients require coordinated innovation. Yet the foundational premise remains compelling: a simplified, trust-minimized rollup design that turns Ethereum into a cohesive multi-execution environment.

By reducing technical debt, eliminating redundant governance mechanisms, and aligning incentives across infrastructure layers, Native Rollups may ultimately redefine what it means to scale Ethereum. They embody the next logical step in Ethereum’s rollup-centric vision, transforming rollups from adjacent systems into first-class participants in the protocol’s execution layer.

Loading...