The truth behind the Brevis debate: ZK Co-Processor theory is beautiful, but reality is bleak

Brevis, a project from the Celer team backed by investors like Binance Labs and Polychain, is developing a ZK Co-Processor. This system is designed to offload and verify computations using zero-knowledge proofs, ensuring results derived from on-chain data are transparent and trustworthy. Its first application, Incentra, aims to distribute token rewards fairly based on verifiable on-chain user behavior.

However, the practical adoption of this technology faces significant challenges:

Projects often lack motivation to implement transparency, as it can reduce operational flexibility and increase costs without providing direct benefits.
On-chain results don't guarantee fairness if the underlying calculation logic remains controlled by humans.
Alternative methods for accessing and computing on-chain data, such as APIs used by platforms like Dune, are often cheaper and more stable.

The article concludes that while ZK technology is theoretically powerful, its real-world utility remains limited unless it is directly tied to tangible transaction and revenue scenarios, as the current blockchain landscape is highly utilitarian.

I want to talk about Brevis, a potential coin issuance project worth paying attention to in Q4. Investors include YZi Labs (Binance Labs), Polychain, and IOSG.

The blockchain industry is becoming increasingly utilitarian, with only projects related to transactions and revenue scenarios surviving. All other scenarios have been proven false.

It's hard to say whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. After all, a good system should conform to the non-reactive nature of human nature, generating altruistic behavior from self-interested ends and avoiding the tragedy of the commons. Just like the Erasmus school, it was destined not to become a prominent school of thought.

Let's start with the main text. The core of Brevis is the ZK Co-Processor, developed by the Celer team.

Key products include:

1) Pico zkVM, a computational verification layer based on ZK

2) Brevis coChain: A hybrid PoS chain of OP and ZK

3) Incentra, a token reward distribution platform

What is ZK Co-Processor?

The concept of Co-Processor originated from GPU.

Initially, all computer calculations were handled by the CPU. With the development of graphics rendering and 3D applications, NVIDIA launched the first GPU in 1999, separating graphics calculations from the CPU.

Graphics rendering requires performing the same calculations on tens of thousands of pixels, making it a natural fit for parallel processing. GPUs use thousands of simple cores to process massive amounts of data simultaneously, making them far more efficient than CPUs at specific tasks.

GPUs are essentially specialized coprocessors that assist CPUs in handling complex tasks. Today, GPUs are widely used in AI training and inference.

The ZK Co-Processor has the same logic - separating the computing tasks from the main chain and verifying the correctness of the off-chain calculations through ZK.

1) Obtain data from the blockchain and verify its authenticity through ZK;

2) Perform calculations in other links and use ZK to prove that the calculation results are true.

So, what exactly does the ZK Co-Processor do?

The essence of this is to calculate results based on on-chain data, making them public, transparent, and verifiable. Brevis has developed an application case: Incentra.

Incentra is a transparent token incentive distribution product that uses the computing power of ZK Co-Processor to identify real users and distribute rewards based on their on-chain behavior - token holding time-weighted average balance (TWA), LP provision, lending history, etc.

It lacks a sense of surprise, right? This is the feeling I've had since I started looking at ZK Co-Processor two years ago. This may also be a common problem of the ZK project - it is very useful in theory, but no one uses it in reality.

Why?

1) Transparency and verifiability are overly idealistic. Projects and institutions lack the motivation to adopt them. Transparency and verifiability do not bring direct benefits, but rather reduce operational space and may also incur additional maintenance costs due to adaptation.

After all, between reducing selling pressure, controlling currency prices and transparency and fairness, transparency and fairness are often the least important.

Users receiving large amounts of airdrops won't care much about the project's survival, and token incentives ultimately become a zero-sum game. Just like the ending of Akira Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai," where the surviving samurai looks at the defended village and says, "They won."

It’s just that exchanges and project owners have the right to distribute, so users naturally become the group that is forced to sacrifice their interests.

2) Does having the calculation results on-chain really mean transparency and fairness? After all, the calculation logic is still written and controlled by humans.

3) There are more ways to obtain on-chain data and perform calculations than just using the ZK CoProcessor. You can also obtain it through the API and perform calculations directly. This approach, similar to Dune.com, is lower cost and more stable.

For example, the scenarios previously claimed by the ZK CoProcessor project, such as "obtaining Uniswap TWAP prices and creating trading strategies on the chain", are actually not true and have no practical applications.

Returning to the topic at the beginning of this article, if blockchain technology is too far removed from transactions and revenue, users may not pay for it. Even the moment when TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) became popular was when Phala combined it with AI MEME fair launch.

However, currently, the most prominent ZK-related project is $LINK, while other ZK-related projects, transactions, and returns are only linked to L2. If we rely solely on ideals, ZK will probably remain the domain of cryptography professors.