As Ethereum moves toward enshrining ZK clients, what does governance look like for zkVMs? 🟢 At House of ZK’s @eth_proofs Summit, this panel unpacked how multiprover security, formal verification, and open proof markets challenge today’s governance models as zkVMs inch closer to L1 enshrinement. Speakers explored how Ethereum can upgrade provers and verifiers without fragmenting consensus - balancing decentralization, performance, and collective control in a fast-moving ZK landscape. Featuring: 🔹 @alexanderlhicks, Researcher at @ethereumfndn 🔹 @mpfzajac, Head of Research at @NethermindEth 🔹 @zkLumi, Senior Product manager at @arbitrum 🔹 @alicelingl, Host at @HouseofZK Also available on YouTube ▶️

Key takeaways from the panel "Governance, Upgradeability, and Consensus Implications" at our @eth_proofs Summit during @BerBlockWeek 👇 1️⃣ zkVM Governance Is Inevitable • L1 inclusion raises critical questions: who approves upgrades, and how are verifier/prover changes governed? • Ethereum’s existing AllCoreDevs process may need adaptation to handle ZK-specific complexity. 2️⃣ Multiprover Systems Boost Safety • Hybrid models (ZK + attestations + fraud proofs) guard against faulty circuits or malicious upgrades. • Multiprover designs help maintain liveness even when provers fail. 3️⃣ Formal Verification Becomes Mandatory • Every change - circuit, verifier, or proof system - must be re-verified for correctness. • Adds cost and time, but ensures technical integrity at L1 scale. 4️⃣ Open zkVM Landscape Defies Standardization • The design space is still wide open, and there may never be one canonical zkVM. • @ethereum may opt for flexible verifier selection at the client level, raising coordination complexity. 5️⃣ Centralization Risk • Real-time proving is resource-intensive, limiting who can participate. • Without new incentive models or protocol adjustments, block production may concentrate among well-funded provers.