Vision
May 22nd, 2024
## min read

Decentralization is not a meme: Part 1

What do we mean by “decentralization”? Why Aztec takes decentralization seriously? In this post, we explore Aztec’s efforts around protocol decentralization: sequencer, prover, and upgrade mechanism.

Share
Written by
Lisa A.
Edited by

Many thanks to Cooper, Prasad, Rafal, Mahima, and Elias for the review.

Contents

  • What do we mean by “decentralization”?
  • Why Aztec takes decentralization seriously
  • Aztec’s efforts around protocol decentralization: sequencer, prover, and upgrade mechanismsome text
  • Request for proposal (RFP)
  • Sequencer
  • Prover
  • Conclusion

1) What do we mean by “decentralization”?

Decentralization in blockchain is one of the most speculative topics, often thought about as a meme.

Source
Source

The questions around decentralization are:

  • Which components should be decentralized (both at the blockchain and application layers)?
  • To what extent?
  • Is decentralization of a specific part of the network a must-have or just a nice-to-have?
  • Will we die if a specific part of the network is not decentralized?
  • Is it enough to have a decentralization roadmap or should we decentralize for real?

The goal of this article is to shed some light on what we mean by decentralization, why it matters, and how decentralization is defined and provided in the context of the Aztec network.

Before we start figuring out the true meaning of decentralization, we should note that decentralization is not a final goal in itself. Instead, it is a way to provide rollups with a number of desired properties, including:

  • Permissionlessness (censorship resistance as a consequence) – anyone can submit a transaction and the rollup will process it (i.e. the rollup doesn’t have an opinion on which transactions are good and which are bad and can’t censor them).
  • Liveness – chain operates (processes transactions) nonstop irrespective of what is happening.
  • Security – the correctness of state transition (i.e. transactions' correct execution) is guaranteed by something robust and reliable (e.g. zero-knowledge proofs).

In the case of zk-rollups, these properties are tightly connected with “entities” that operate the rollup, including:

  • Sequencer – orders and executes transactions –> impacts permissionlessness and liveness.
  • Prover – generates proof that the transactions were executed correctly –> impacts security and liveness.
  • Governance mechanism (upgrade mechanism) – manages and implements protocol upgrades –> impacts security, liveness, and permissonlessness.

Even though we said at the beginning of the article that decentralization is a speculative topic, it’s not overly speculative. Decentralization is required for permissionlessness, censorship resistance, and liveness, which are required to reach the system’s end goal, credible neutrality (at least to some extent). “Credible neutrality” means the protocol is not “designed to favor specific people or outcomes over others” and is “able to convince a large and diverse group of people that the mechanism at least makes that basic effort to be fair”.

Credible neutrality is a crucial element for rollups as well, which is why we're prioritizing decentralization at Aztec, among other things. Progressive decentralization is not an option; Decentralization from the start is a must-have as the regulatory, political, and legal landscapes are constantly changing.

In the next section, we will dive into the specifics of Aztec’s case, looking at its components and their levels of decentralization.

2) Why Aztec takes decentralization seriously

Aztec network is a privacy-first L2 on Ethereum. Its goal is to allow developers to build dapps that are privacy-preserving and compliant (in any desired jurisdiction!) at the same time.

For Aztec, there are two levels of decentralization: protocol and organizational.

At the protocol level, Aztec network consists of a number of components, such as the P2P transaction pool (i.e. mempool), sequencer, prover, upgrade mechanism, economics, Noir (DSL language), execution layer, cryptography, web SDK, rollup contract, and more.

For each of these, decentralization might have a slightly different meaning. But the root reason why we care about it is to provide safety for the developers and users ecosystem.

  • For the rollup contract and upgrade mechanism, the question is who controls the upgrades and how we can diversify this process in terms of quantity and geography.
    A good mechanism should defend the protocol from forced upgrades (e.g. by the court). It should also mitigate the sanctions risk, isolating this risk at the application level, not the rollup level.
  • For sequencer and prover, we also need quantity and geographical decentralization as well as a multi-client approach where users can choose a vendor from a distributed set that may have various different priorities.
  • For economic decentralization, we need to ensure that “the ongoing balancing of incentives among the stakeholders — developers, contributors, and consumers — will drive further contributions of value to the overall system”. It covers the vesting of power, control, and ownership with system stakeholders in such a way that the value of the ecosystem as a whole accrues to a broader array of participants.
  • For all software components, such as client software, we need to ensure that copies of the software are distributed widely enough within the community to ensure access, even if the original maintainers choose to abandon the projects.

When it comes to long-term economic decentralization, the desired outcome is power decentralization, which in turn can be achieved through geographical decentralization.

In the context of geographical decentralization, we particularly care that:

  • diversification among different jurisdictions mitigates the risk of local regulatory regimes attempting to impose their will.
  • when reasoning about extremes and black swan events, having a global system is attractive from the point of view of safety and availability.
  • intuitively, a system that privileges certain geographies cannot be considered neutral and fair.

For more thoughts on geographical decentralization, check out the articleDecentralized crypto needs you: to be a geographical decentralization maxi” by Phil Daian.

3) Aztec’s efforts around protocol decentralization: sequencer, prover, and upgrade mechanism

The decentralization to-do list is pretty huge. Decentralization mechanism design is a complex process that takes time, which is why Aztec started working on it far in advance and called on the most brilliant minds to collaborate, cooperate, design, and produce the necessary mechanisms that will allow the Aztec network to be credibly neutral from day one.

Request for proposal (RFP)

Since last summer, we’ve announced a number of requests for proposal (RFPs) to invite the power of community and the greatest minds in the industry to find a range of solutions for the Aztec network protocol design:

Everyone was welcome to craft a proposal and post it on the forum. For each of the RFPs, we outlined a number of protocol requirements that will decentralize and diversify each part of Aztec, making it robust and credibly neutral.

For each RFP, we got a number of proposals (all of them are attached in the RFPs’ comments). Proposals were discussed on the forum by the community and analyzed in detail by partners (e.g. Block Science) and the Aztec Labs team.

In this section, we will describe and briefly discuss the chosen proposals.

Sequencer Selection

Some of the desired properties

There are a number of desired properties assigned to the sequencer. These include:

  • Permissionlessness sequencer role – any actor who adheres to the protocol can fill the role of sequencer.
  • Elegant reorg recovery – the protocol has affordance for recovering its state after an Ethereum reorg.
  • Denial of services – an actor cannot prevent other actors from using the system.
  • L2 chain halt – there is a healing mechanism in case of block proposal process failure.
  • Censorship resistance – it’s infeasibly expensive to maintain sufficient control of the sequencer role to discriminate on transactions.

Other factors to be considered are

  • How the protocol handles MEV
  • How costly it is to form a cartel
  • Protocol complexity
  • Coordination overhead – how costly it is to coordinate a new round of sequencers

Sequencer mechanism

The chosen sequencer design is called “Fernet” and was suggested by Santiago Palladino (“Palla”), one of the talented engineers at Aztec Labs. Its core component is randomized sequencer selection. To be eligible for selection, sequencers need to stake assets on L1. After staking, a sequencer needs to wait for an activation period of a number of L1 blocks before they can start proposing new blocks. The waiting period guards the protocol against malicious governance attacks.

Block proposal mechanism

Stage 0: Score calculation

  • In each round (currently expected to be ~12-36ss), staked sequencers calculate their round-based score, derived from a hash over RANDAO and a public key.

Stage 1: Proposal

  • Based on the calculated scores, if a sequencer determines its score for a given round as likely to win, it commits to a block proposal.
  • During the proposal stage, the highest ranking proposers (i.e. sequencers) submit L1 transactions, including a commitment to the Layer-2 transaction ordering in the proposed block, the previous block being built upon, and any additional metadata required by the protocol.

Stage 2: Prover commitment – estimated ~3-5 Ethereum blocks

  • The highest ranking proposers (i.e. sequencers) make an off-chain deal with provers. This might be a vertical integration (i.e. a sequencer runs a prover), business deal with a specific 3rd party prover, or a prover-boost auction between all of the third party proving marketplaces.
    On the sequencers' side, this approach allows them to generate proofs according to their needs. On the network side, it benefits from modularity, enjoying all proving systems innovations.
  • Provers build proofs for blocks with the highest scores.
  • This stage will be explicitly defined in the next section dedicated to the proving mechanism.

Stage 3: Reveal

  • At the end of the proposal phase, the sequencer with the highest ranking block proposal on L1 becomes the leader for this cycle, and reveals the block content, i.e. uploads the block contents to either L1 or a verifiable DA layer.
  • As stages 0 and 1 are effectively multi-leader protocols, there is a very high probability that someone will submit a proposal (though it might not be among the leaders according to the score).
    In the event that no one submits a valid block proposal, we introduce a “backup” mode, which enables a first-come, first-served race to submit the first proof to the L1 smart contracts. There is also a similar backup mode in the event that there is a valid proposal, but no valid prover commitment (deposit) by the end of the prover commitment phase or should the block not get finalized.
  • If the leading sequencer posts invalid data during the reveal phase, the sequencer for the next block will build from the previous one.

Stage 4: Proving – estimated ~40 Ethereum blocks

  • Before the end of this phase, it is expected for the block proof to be published to L1 for verification.
  • Once the proof for the highest ranking block is submitted to L1 and verified, the block becomes final, assuming its parent block in the chain is also final.
  • This would trigger new tokens to be minted, and payouts to the sequencer, prover commitment address, and the address that submitted the proofs.
  • If block N is committed to but doesn't get proven, its prover deposit is slashed.

The cycle for block N+1 can start at the end of the block N reveal phase.

How Fernet meets required properties

How Fernet meets required properties

Property
How Fernet addresses it
Permissionlessness sequencer role
Anyone who locked some funds on L1 can propose a block after a waiting period. 
Elegant reorg recovery
On L2, reorg is not possible as a new block can be proposed strictly after the previous block was finalized. However, L1 reorg might impact L2.
L2 chain halt
Relying on the Ethereum copy of Aztec network state between the last finalized epoch and the current safe block.
Censorship resistance
In order to censor a transaction, it must be the case that an entity can “guarantee” that they are repeatedly selected as sequencer while the transaction to be censored is awaiting processing. The VRF selection process will prevent such a guarantee.
MEV
For the public domain, MEV is extracted by the sequencer responsible for the current slot. In the private domain, there is no direct MEV extraction. However, there might be some probabilistically extracted MEV, though its feasibility will depend on the dapps landscape deployed on the chain.
Protocol complexity: engaged mechanisms can be adjusted over time because of modularity
The Aztec protocol design assumes modularity, allowing it to choose any prover and DA mechanisms and adjust them later if needed. 
Cost for private and public function calls
For public functions, call costs depend directly on the specific executed opcodes (as for any other rollup). For private function calls, there is a fixed cost for every state update and proof verification.

For a detailed analysis of the protocol's ability to satisfy the design requirements, check this report crafted by an independent third party, Block Science.

Prover

Context

In the previous section, we mentioned that at stage 3 proofs are supplied to the blocks. However, we didn’t explicitly define the specific prover mechanism.

To design a prover mechanism, Aztec also initialized an RFP after the sequencer mechanism was chosen to be Fernet (as described in the previous section).

Without going into too much detail, one should note that the Aztec network has two types of proofs: client-side proofs and rollup-side proofs. Client-side proofs are generated for each private function and submitted to the Aztec network by the user. The client-side proving mechanism doesn’t have any decentralization requirements, as all the private data is processed solely on the user’s device, meaning it’s inherently decentralized. Covering client-side proof generation is outside the scope of this piece, but check out one of our previous articles to learn more about it.

The Aztec RFP “Decentralized Prover Coordination” asked for a rollup-side prover mechanism, the goal of which is to generate proofs for blocks.

In particular, it means the sequencer executes every public function and the prover creates a proof of each function’s correct execution. That proof is aggregated into a kernel proof. Each kernel proof is aggregated into another kernel proof and so on (i.e. as a chain of kernel proofs). The final kernel proof is aggregated into a base rollup proof. The base rollup proofs are aggregated into pairs in a tree-like structure. The root of this tree is the final block proof.

Desired properties
There is a row of desired properties assigned to the prover mechanism. Among those:

  • Permissionlesness – anyone can run an Aztec prover.
  • The prover of each block can be recognized to be rewarded or slashed by the protocol.
  • Recovery mechanism in case provers stop supplying proofs.
  • Flexibility for future cryptography improvements.


Prover mechanism

The chosen prover mechanism is called “Sidecar” and was suggested by Cooper Kunz.

  • It is a minimally enshrined commitment and slashing scheme that facilitates the sequencer outsourcing proving rights to anyone, given an out-of-protocol prover marketplace. This allows sequencers to leverage reputation or other off-protocol information to make their choice.
  • In particular, it means anyone can take a prover role. For example, it can be a specialized proving marketplace, or a vertically integrated sequencer’s prover, or an individual independent prover.
  • After the sequencer chooses its prover, there is a Prover Commitment Phase by the end of which any sequencer who believes they have a chance to win block proposal rights must signal via an L1 transaction the prover’s Ethereum address and the prover specifies its deposit.
  • After the prover commits, the block content is revealed by the sequencer. Going with this specific order (i.e. first prover commitment then revealing block content) allows one to mitigate potential MEV-stealing (if sequencers have to publish all data to a DA layer before the commitment) and proof withholding attacks (i.e. putting up a block proposal that seems valid but never revealing the underlying data required to verify it).
  • The prover operates outside of Aztec protocol and the Aztec network. Hence, after the prover commitment stage, the protocol simply waits a predetermined amount of time for the proof submission phase to begin.

How Sidecar meets required properties

How Sidecar meets required properties

Property
How Sidecar addresses it
Permissionlessness
Anyone can run a prover.
Prover recognizability
Prover posts commitment to L1.
Recovery mechanism
Reorgs are not possible within the current design. 
Flexibility
There is no hard commitment to one specific proving system. 

Conclusion

Decentralization is neither a sentiment nor a meme. It’s one of the core milestones on the way to credible neutrality. And credible neutrality is one of the core milestones on the way to a long-lasting, secure, and robust Ethereum ecosystem.

If the network is not credibly neutral, the safety of users’ funds cannot be long-term guaranteed. Furthermore, if the network is not credibly neutral, the developers building on top of the network can’t be sure that the network will be there for them tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, in a year, in ten years, etc. They have to trust the network team that they are good, reliable people, and will continue maintaining the network and will fulfill all their promises. But what if that is not the case? Good intentions of a small number of people are not enough to secure hundreds of dapps, the thousands of developers building them, and the millions of users using them. The network should be designed in a credibly neutral way from the first to the last bit. Without compromises, without speculation, without promises.

That is what we are working on at Aztec Labs: systematically decentralizing all of the network’s components (e.g. sequencer and prover) with the help and support of a wide community (e.g. through RFP and RFC mechanisms) and top-notch partners (e.g. Block Science).

That is why, especially in the early days, Aztec prioritizes safety over other properties (e.g. impossibility of reorg attacks by design and unrolling upgrade mechanism allowing sequencers to have enough time to battle-test the mechanism before any assets come to the network).

Besides technical and economical decentralization, Aztec also considers its legal aspect that comes in the form of a foundation that is a suitable vehicle to promote decentralization.

If you want to contribute to Aztec’s decentralization – fill in the form.

This was the first part of the piece on Aztec’s decentralization. In the second part (coming soon), we will cover the upgrade mechanism.

Sources:

Read more
Aztec Network
Aztec Network
7 Aug
xx min read

Alpha V5 Proving System Vulnerability

Status

Core contributors identified a critical vulnerability affecting the V5 Alpha proving system on 27 July 2026 through internal AI-assisted auditing.

V5 remains Alpha software. Critical findings can arise during this phase, and the audit process exists to identify them before broader deployment. This finding places V5 funds, applications, and contract state at risk.

Treat funds and applications on V5 as exposed to a protocol-level failure until contributors complete incident response work and operators carry out the required network actions.

What we are disclosing

An attacker may be able to exploit a flaw in the current V5 proving system by constructing a proof that passes verification for a transaction the network should reject. If accepted, that transaction could produce a state transition outside the rules V5 intends to enforce.

Contributors cannot determine whether anyone exploited the flaw before this finding. The affected system lacks the information needed to distinguish ordinary accepted transactions from transactions accepted through the flawed proving path. Historical chain activity cannot establish whether exploitation occurred or quantify its impact.

Application safeguards

We expect application teams to prepare safeguards in the coming weeks.

Those safeguards may include changes to application controls, deployment procedures, user flows, and migration plans. We expect each team to assess its contracts and determine which protections fit its architecture and users.

We expect teams planning a V5 deployment to pause that work until contributors publish further guidance. We expect teams with live contracts to review their ability to limit user exposure, isolate affected functionality, and move users to fresh deployments if needed.

We expect applications that maintain administrative or emergency controls to assess whether those controls can reduce user risk during the incident timeframe.

Next steps

Core contributors are working with operators, application teams, and bridge operators as applications add security guards around affected flows.

The findings from this incident will inform the V6 release, including circuit updates that prevent the network from accepting proofs tied to an affected proving system.

V5 launched as Alpha software, with V6 planned for later in 2026. Contributors will publish a security roadmap covering the remaining work and release path.

Known vulnerability status

Reviewers have not identified other high-severity or critical V5 Alpha vulnerabilities at this time.

Internal and external human audits have completed, and contributors continue AI-assisted auditing. Alpha is the period for identifying faults before production deployment.

Community
Community
4 Aug
xx min read

Dark Forest Aztec Game Goes Live

Dark Forest is a real-time strategy game played across a procedurally generated universe where most of the map is hidden. You cannot see rival players, their planets, or their fleets. You only know what you have explored. Everyone shares one universe, and nobody has the full picture.

In most onchain games, every position and every move is public, because the chain is public. Dark Forest used zero-knowledge proofs to break that assumption: players prove their moves are valid without revealing where those moves came from. The result is a game of hidden information running on a public network.

Dark Forest Aztec ports the original Dark Forest 0.6 to Aztec. It keeps the gameplay from the original and rebuilds the privacy layer on Aztec's programmable privacy.

A note before diving in: this is early, experimental software on Aztec Alpha V5. Treat it as an alpha and play accordingly.

The universe you cannot see

You start on a single home planet with almost the entire map dark. To find anything you mine the universe, running a client that explores coordinates and reveals what sits there: unclaimed planets, resources, and eventually the edges of other players' territory.

You are never handed a view of the board. You earn it one region at a time, and everyone else works under the same fog.

What is hidden on Aztec

Your home coordinates and your fleet movements are private state, expressed as first-class private notes on Aztec. Your location and where you send energy stay hidden, enforced in the contracts by zero-knowledge cryptography.

What sits onchain is a set of cryptographic commitments. Instead of storing every planet's full details in the open, the contracts store Poseidon2 hashes of entity state. When you make a move, your client supplies the full state, the contract checks it against the stored hash, applies the change under zero-knowledge constraints, and writes a new hash back. Full game state lives offchain and gets rebuilt from public logs by an indexer, which is what renders your map without exposing every player's position.

So you can prove you made a legal move from a planet you own without revealing where that planet is. Aztec applies the same principle to private payments and private contracts.

How you play

Four actions carry the game.

Explore. Your explorer sits in the bottom left. Set it running and it uncovers the map around you, surfacing planets, resources, and other players.

Send energy. Most planets produce energy. Click and drag from a planet you own toward a target to capture or weaken it.

Route silver. Asteroid fields produce silver. Move it to your planets and spend it on upgrades, or send it to a Spacetime Rip to convert it into score.

Hunt artifacts. Some planets hold artifacts. Your Gear ship discovers them. Once harvested, you deposit them on planets to boost stats.

Four stats drive most decisions.

Energy is the core resource. Planets generate it over time up to a capacity, and you spend it on everything: claiming planets, reinforcing your own, attacking rivals. Two details matter. Moves are taxed, so a flat percentage of a planet's total capacity burns every time you send energy, which discourages small frequent moves. And energy decays over distance, so send it too far and almost nothing arrives. A common rule of thumb is to let a planet fill to about 75%, then send it down to about 25%.

Defense reduces the damage incoming energy does when it lands. Higher-level planets often have lower defense, but they hold much more energy, so they still take more to capture. Defense matters most on front lines.

Range sets how far a planet can send energy. It governs how fast you expand and how efficiently you move energy inside your own empire, since shorter relative distances mean less decay. Good range also lets you strike deep into an opponent's territory.

Speed sets how quickly a move arrives. Usually secondary, though a fast strike can land before a rival reacts, and some playstyles reward capturing many nearby planets quickly.

Planets can also be upgraded with silver and enhanced with artifacts. Space types carry different multipliers, from mild Nebula to punishing Dead Space, so where a planet sits changes how it plays.

How scoring works

There is a scoreboard, and territory alone does not win it. This round scores two activities: discovering artifacts with your Gear ship, and withdrawing silver through Spacetime Rips.

Point values from the in-game help page:

  • Each unit of silver withdrawn: 1
  • Common artifact: 2,000
  • Rare: 10,000
  • Epic: 200,000
  • Legendary: 3,000,000
  • Mythic: 20,000,000

Silver accrues one point at a time. A single Mythic artifact is worth twenty million of them, so artifact hunting decides rounds and silver withdrawal sets your floor.

Silver has two competing uses. Spend it on upgrades and your planets get stronger, extending range and hardening defense. Withdraw it through a Spacetime Rip and it becomes scored points, but it is gone. Every unit is a choice between building the empire and banking points.

Upgrades tend to win early, since a stronger empire reaches more asteroid fields and finds more artifacts. Late in a round that calculation flips, because a planet you never use is worth less than points already scored.

Artifacts do both jobs at once. They score on discovery, and once deposited they boost a planet's stats, which makes the next expedition easier.

Why you explore

Nothing happens until you find something to act on. Your explorer turns dark space into planets you can capture, asteroid fields you can mine, and artifact-bearing planets you can raid. Sitting still means no new energy, no silver, no score.

Exploring also buys information. The map you have uncovered is an advantage nobody else holds. Knowing where high-level planets sit, which asteroid fields are unclaimed, and where space types shift lets you plan further ahead than someone still working through their starting region.

You find other players as a byproduct. There is no player list. You explore outward until your revealed region touches territory someone already owns: a planet in another player's colors, sitting where you were about to expand. Their home coordinates stay private, so you learn something narrow. Someone is here, roughly this direction, holding this much. You infer the rest, and you have no way of knowing whether they found you first.

What happens when you run into someone

You have three broad options.

Stay quiet and keep growing. Nothing forces you to engage. Keep exploring elsewhere, keep routing silver, keep upgrading. Your positions stay private, so silence costs you only time, which is what you want if they are stronger. The risk is that they are doing the same thing faster.

Fortify the border. If the contact sits somewhere you cannot lose, spend energy hardening the planets facing them. Defense is worth most where an attack will actually land. This keeps the option to fight without committing to one.

Attack. Send enough energy to overwhelm the target's defense and the planet becomes yours, along with its production and its position as a staging post. Higher-level planets are the prize and take proportionally more to crack.

Attacking costs more than energy. A move that lands tells your rival where you strike from, and that you are close enough to be worth answering. Retaliation can then come from directions you have not explored, launched from planets you cannot see.

Multiplayer in practice

Everyone plays one shared universe in real time. No turns, no lobbies. Energy regenerates whether you are watching or not, moves stay in flight while you sleep, and rivals expand while you are away from the screen.

Most strategy games let you watch a threat approach. Here you tend to see the consequences: a planet you owned this morning in someone else's colors, an incoming move you notice once it is already close.

That produces a particular kind of paranoia. You are trying to find everyone else while avoiding being found, and every expansion is a strategic bet that the space ahead is empty.

Information becomes tradeable, because it is scarce. Players compare notes, warn each other about aggressive neighbors, and agree who expands where, then break those agreements when the scoreboard makes it worth breaking.

Why it matters beyond the game

A fully onchain game where players cannot see each other's positions is hard to build, and building it well says something about the platform underneath.

Hidden state, private notes, and client-side proving are the same building blocks behind private applications across Aztec. Dark Forest is a way to watch them work.

Getting started

Dark Forest Aztec is playable now as an alpha. Expect a learning curve; the original was famous for it. DFArchon maintains onboarding material and a community for new players. Round One is live. The universe is dark, and everyone else is out there somewhere. Go find them, quietly.

Play Now

Follow the Builders

DFArchon on X

Source and docs

Aztec Network
Aztec Network
22 Jul
xx min read

How Gas Works on Aztec

Gas on Aztec

Gas on Aztec is known as Fee Juice and is used to pay for transaction costs. This is the same as $ETH on Ethereum. Some apps will handle transaction costs for you under the hood, but if you are using a browser extension wallet, you will not be able to send transactions without it. Fee Juice can be obtained by bridging the $AZTEC token on Ethereum to the Aztec Network L2. This means that under the hood, all activity that happens on Aztec is underpinned by the $AZTEC token bridged into the network. Some bridges like Shield (by human.tech) handle this for you, allowing you to allocate a portion of your bridged transaction to convert into Fee Juice and land in your wallet automatically.

Public vs Private Assets

Assets and transactions on the Aztec Network can be either public or private. If you bridge publicly, your tokens will arrive as public, traceable tokens visible to all. Privately bridging, on the other hand, will give you private assets that are visible only to you. These assets can then be sent privately to another user or wallet without ever revealing who you are, what tokens were sent, how many, or who the recipient is.

Public vs Private Gas

Like tokens on the Aztec Network, Fee Juice (gas) can also be public or private. The reason for this is that even if what you are sending is private, the gas you spend to execute that transaction could still be visible if you are using public Fee Juice, potentially revealing transaction patterns and activity. Private Fee Juice keeps your entire transaction footprint hidden. When you send a private transaction, you can use private Fee Juice, and when you send a public transaction, you can use public Fee Juice, which means your transaction costs are always aligned with the type of transaction you're making.

Fee Juice in Apps

Aztec has native fee abstraction, which means apps could let you pay for transactions in any token you want, or cover your fees entirely. Apps like Nyx may choose to cover part or all of a user's transaction costs, or allow you to pay in tokens that are convenient for you. This means you will most likely never see Fee Juice in an app; instead, you'll pay in whatever makes sense for what you're doing, on your terms. Similarly, you might never even see an Aztec wallet at all, because the app itself becomes your interface that you connect to using your MetaMask wallet.

Fee Juice in Browser Wallets

If you're using a browser extension like Azguard, you'll manage Fee Juice directly in your wallet alongside your private and public balances, converting between tokens as needed to cover transaction costs.

When you bridge tokens in, you'll need enough Fee Juice to cover the cost of your first transaction, then you'll need to monitor how much Fee Juice you have available to make transactions. Browser wallets will allow you to send either publicly or privately to other users and will default to using either public or private Fee Juice depending on the type of transaction. Both private Fee Juice and public Fee Juice will appear by default in your token list.

Wrapping up

How you handle Fee Juice depends on where you're transacting: apps can abstract it away entirely and let you pay in any token, while a browser wallet like Azguard puts it in your hands to manage across public and private balances. Match your gas to your transaction, keep private activity private down to the fee, and you move on your terms.

Aztec Network
Aztec Network
21 Jul
xx min read

Introducing Alpha V5

The Aztec Network today activated Alpha V5, a major protocol upgrade passed by token-holder governance and executed onchain. Alpha V5 reduces private-transaction proving times by more than 2x compared to the previous version, lowers the cost of a fully private transaction by roughly 50%, resolves the critical issues found in V4, and sees the first wave of apps go live. Users can now send private transactions and earn yield on Aave simply by connecting their Ethereum wallets on Nyx, bridge from Ethereum to Aztec using Shield or TRAIN, privately collect NFTs on RavenHouse, or play Dark Forest Aztec, a hidden-information strategy game in a universe that lives entirely onchain. 

"Alpha V5 continues Aztec's work at the frontier of client-side proving, with cryptographic breakthroughs that cut proving times by more than half this release," said Zac Williamson, Co-founder, Aztec Foundation. "We believe Aztec is now the fastest system in the world for proving a fully private transaction entirely on a user's own device, and every release moves the industry closer to private transactions at public transaction speeds."

As the only decentralized L2, Aztec is the credibly neutral privacy layer for Ethereum. Aztec allows anyone to write smart contracts that include both private and public aspects – every private transaction is proven on the user's own device, so no operator, sequencer, or intermediary can see the data. The Alpha V5 proving improvements come from cryptographic advances that make this client-side proving faster than any prior release. The network remains in alpha, but with V5 it is ready for teams to begin building and deploying applications.

Performance - 2.5 second fully private transactions 

Making private transactions practical comes down to how quickly a proof can be generated on a user's own device, without offloading that work to a server that would learn what the user is doing. On Alpha V5, proving a private token transfer natively now takes approximately 2.5 seconds on a consumer laptop, down from 5.2 seconds on V4, and about 6.8 seconds in a browser, down from 12.5 seconds. Across every measured transaction flow, client-side proving times improved by approximately 2x compared with V4.

Bench machine: an M2 MacBook (12 cores, throttled to 8). "Native" runs Aztec's C++ proving binary; "WASM" runs the same prover in a browser engine (Node on V8).

Alpha V5 lowers ECDSA signature-verification cost by approximately 2x, speeds up Poseidon2 hashing by approximately 3x, and reduces the protocol circuit gate count by approximately 50% (gate count is the number of individual operations a proving circuit must perform, and it is the main driver of how long a proof takes to generate). Each of these lowers the amount of work a device performs to prove a transaction, and the reduction in gate count in particular compounds across every proof the network generates.

Apps - send, receive, and earn privately on Ethereum

Alpha V5 launches the first wave of apps on a network where privacy is built into the protocol rather than managed by an operator. On other networks that claim privacy, transactions still pass through an operator or node that reads them in plaintext, or depend on a viewing key that a third party holds, so users rely on someone else to protect their data and to decide when it gets disclosed. On Aztec, every private transaction is proven on the user's own device, so the app, the sequencer, and any operator never need to see the underlying data. Nyx is one of these apps, allowing users to privately send transactions and privately earn yield on Aave. 

"On Ethereum, everything you do is public. That's why we built Nyx: a private account governed by your Ethereum wallet", said Nikhil, Co-founder of Nyx. "Now you can send, receive and earn in private. Nyx was the first app live on the Aztec Alpha, and we're excited to expand participation to more users with the added stability of Alpha V5."

Other apps on Alpha V5 include Azguard and Nethermind (wallets), Shield, TRAIN, and RavenHouse (bridges), and the Aztecscan block explorers. Also launching is Dark Forest Aztec, a game where users explore a universe, control planets, manage planetary energy, expand territory, and launch attacks through strategic play with private state and hidden actions.

Dark Forest Aztec private universe-building gameplay

Lower costs, higher security 

Transaction fees on Aztec come from two main sources: the cost of proving a transaction and the cost of verifying the rollup proof on Ethereum. Alpha V5 reduces both. It lowers the network's proving-cost parameter by 50%, and it reduces the L1 gas required to verify a rollup proof by approximately 40%. Because rollup proofs are verified on Ethereum and that cost is shared across all transactions in a batch, the L1 reduction lowers fees for every user, while the lower proving-cost parameter reduces the per-transaction proving fee directly. Together, these bring the average cost of a fully private token transfer to under a $0.05 transaction cost.

Alpha V5 also hardens the network on several fronts. It resolves critical vulnerabilities found in Alpha V4 along with additional bugs discovered since launch. Aztec's bug bounty program on Cantina also drew more than 234 security researchers to participate. The network remains in alpha, and further bugs may surface as usage grows, but each release has closed the issues found in the last and strengthened the protocol against new ones. With the critical V4 issues resolved and these safeguards in place, Alpha V5 is stable enough for teams to begin building and deploying applications.

Availability

Alpha V5 is live now, view the Alpha V5 landing page for a full list of features, performance updates, and live apps to explore. 

About Aztec

Aztec is the only decentralized, privacy-first Layer 2 on Ethereum. Developers write private and public logic in the same smart contract, and private functions are executed and proven on the user's own device, so no operator sees the underlying data. The protocol is upgraded through onchain governance, and the network settles to Ethereum. For more information, visit aztec.network.