On March 30, 2026, the Ethereum Layer2 project Linea, which has been running for nearly three years, announced a decision that could rewrite its technical narrative: to gradually abandon the old way of directly arithmetic-izing the EVM and shift towards a new architecture based on RISC-V. Prior to this, Linea chose to "reproduce" the execution logic of the EVM using circuits in pursuit of high compatibility with Ethereum semantics, but frequent hard forks on the Ethereum mainnet have led to the accumulation of heavier technical debt, with each upgrade almost meaning a complete rewrite of key constraint modules from scratch. The core conflict brought to the forefront is a question that the entire zkEVM track cannot avoid: whether the underlying architecture should remain conservative or be rewritten, in the ideal of adhering to Type-1 level compatibility versus the reality of pursuing performance and research and development efficiency.

Three Years of Arithmetic Road Held Back by Hard Forks

Linea initially chose EVM arithmetic in order to transport the Ethereum execution environment as faithfully as possible, translating EVM opcodes and state transition processes into arithmetic constraints that can be understood by the proof system. This route is logically pure: as long as the EVM remains the core semantics of Ethereum, a Rollup can achieve the highest level of semantic compatibility and security inheritance by building a complete EVM circuit. Over the past three years, Linea has built its constraint language and proof and aggregation stack around this route, attempting to "hard weld" ZK proofs onto the EVM without sacrificing compatibility.

However, according to official statements from Linea, the reality is much harsher: each Ethereum hard fork means that the constraint module must be completely rewritten. Minor adjustments in consensus rules, opcode semantics, and even gas pricing on the main chain manifest as systemic overhauls of the circuits in the arithmetic system. As Ethereum enters a frequent iteration cycle, the development team has been in a long-standing battle against complexity, with technical debt accumulating like a snowball, raising maintenance costs and delivery risks together.

From an engineering perspective, this is an unsustainable state. Arithmetic-izing the EVM earned Linea narrative points for being "Type-1 oriented," but in another dimension, it slowed the iteration pace: development resources were constantly redirected towards "chasing the main chain versions," severely squeezing the space for actual performance optimization, development experience, and new function innovation. Each time the mainnet proposed the next round of upgrade plans, for an arithmetic route like Linea's, it was not just a compatibility test, but once again a structural "renovation" at the circuit layer. In this high-pressure technical debt environment, continuing down the original path itself has become a gamble.

From Piling Sand to Structuring RISC-V with Minimalism

Linea's bet on RISC-V reconstructs its ZK stack in a way that is closer to "structuring a skeleton." RISC-V, as an open instruction set, is characterized by minimalism: about 32 registers and around 40 basic instructions, with clear instruction semantics and predictable combinations. Compared to the EVM instruction set, which is designed around a specific virtual machine and constantly augmented by new proposals, RISC-V seems to dismantle the execution environment back to a streamlined, clearly defined hardware abstraction layer.

The key reason given by Linea is: under RISC-V, "the proof system's execution trajectories are narrower and can be constructed in real-time." For ZK systems that need to provide verifiable proofs for each step of the execution process, a "narrow" trajectory means more linear state transitions and fewer complex branches, making proof circuits easier to abstract into a unified template, rather than being dragged down by various historical burdens and exceptions. The path from execution to proof becomes shorter, allowing developers to iterate their virtual machines and language layers around this stable RISC-V skeleton without having to redo the entire circuit each time Ethereum makes a change.

In contrast, EVM arithmetic was like "piling sand" to build a house on the complex and variable EVM semantics: each opcode and edge case had to be translated into constraint language, creating a constraint system that is inherently large and highly coupled, with each Ethereum hard fork equating to pouring another bucket of water on the sand pile. The approach based on RISC-V establishes as simple and stable a skeleton as possible before constructing the execution environment adapted to Ethereum above it. The adaptation logic on constraint language, proof, and aggregation stack is fundamentally different between the two: the former treats Ethereum itself as the "true body," while the latter regards RISC-V as a standardized intermediary layer.

It is worth noting that Linea did not choose to "start from scratch." According to disclosures, it will retain the existing zkC constraint language, as well as the Vortex and Arcane proof/aggregation stacks. This means that the focus of the migration is on reconstructing the execution layer and the circuit mapping method, rather than entirely rewriting the entire ZK infrastructure from zero. By retaining these components that have already been refined in production environments, Linea aims to find a middle ground between architectural shift and engineering risk: restructuring the execution skeleton without completely nullifying the accumulation over the past three years in the ZK stack.

The Bet of Trading Performance for Compatibility: A Retreat from Type-1 Ideals

In the narrative of Ethereum scaling, Type-1 has always been regarded as the ideal type: Rollups are almost entirely aligned with the semantics of the Ethereum mainnet at the semantic level, and any contract that can run on L1 can run on L2 without adaptation. The state and security are also inherited to the strongest degree. Linea's early bet on EVM arithmetic is essentially a following of this ideal — faithfully reproducing the EVM and approaching the main chain's "native execution environment" through circuit proofs.

However, as Ethereum enters a high-frequency upgrade rhythm, the insistence on Type-1 gradually transforms into a high-risk gamble on the engineering side. Maintaining a massive circuit system that evolves alongside the main chain semantics means the team must endure dual uncertainties: keeping pace with the upgrade rhythm of the Ethereum community while balancing proof efficiency and security. Linea's choice of RISC-V acknowledges this reality: in the face of actual maintenance costs and proof efficiency, treating "complete semantic isomorphism" as a rigid goal could compromise the long-term sustainability of a Rollup team.

Researchers in the industry have already described Linea's move as a "significant strategic shift for the zkEVM track." The signals it releases are very direct: zkEVM does not necessarily equate to arithmetic-izing every single aspect of the EVM; the so-called "EVM compatibility" can be rewritten and reinterpreted on a more abstract execution layer. Future routes may differ between two extremes: one end is zk projects that continue to cling to the EVM circuits, trying to stay as close to the Type-1 ideal as possible; the other end is like Linea, stepping back to rewrite architecture at the execution layer for more controllable proof trajectories and engineering sustainability, seeking a balance point of "practical compatibility + performance advantages."

For other zkEVM projects, this represents a choice with a demonstrative effect that is not easy to replicate. Following RISC-V means accepting a distance from the Type-1 narrative, in order to build their own abstract execution layer; clinging to EVM circuits requires being prepared to deal with long-term "patching" under technical debt and hard fork pressure. Linea has taken the lead in submitting this choice, but the evaluation of its outcome will require time to judge over the coming technical cycles.

Synchronizing with Ethereum or Racing Ahead: The Imaginary Space for RISC-V Collaboration

Linea's turn is not an isolated event. In a larger context, the Ethereum Foundation is also exploring RISC-V directions, trying to incorporate it as part of a future execution environment or research platform. This provides a potential collaborative coordinate for Linea's current choice: if the main chain and some Rollup projects align on the same set of instruction set abstractions, the potential for cross-layer upgrades, unified toolchains, and reuse of research outcomes would be greatly amplified.

At the same time, it is necessary to carefully delineate boundaries: as of now, available public information does not present any direct endorsement or specific cooperation model from the Ethereum Foundation regarding Linea's route. The overlap between the two in RISC-V is closer to a technical directional "synchronization" or potential collaborative possibility, rather than an official collaboration that has already materialized. Avoiding the misinterpretation of this directional resonance as an established interest community is a basic caution that must be maintained when interpreting this architectural shift.

If at some point, the Ethereum main chain and mainstream Rollups achieve a higher degree of isomorphism at the RISC-V level, the cost landscape brought by hard forks will also be rewritten: upgrades will no longer represent independent "overhauls" of each circuit but a unified evolution around the same basic instruction set. Under such a system, Rollup teams can focus more on their own execution environments and proof optimizations, instead of facing off against complexity and historical baggage in isolation during each upgrade cycle.

However, this direction is still quite far from being confirmed. The bet on RISC-V may allow pioneers like Linea to gain a first-mover advantage in future enshrined rollup competitions — receiving native main chain support more quickly or sharing research outcomes; it may also potentially become a burden before standards have been established — if ultimately the main chain chooses a path on the RISC-V stack that deviates from the current implementation, the costs for migration and compatibility could rise again. What Linea is doing now is making a proactive bet before the uncertain pattern is settled.

From Engineering Dilemma to Track Shuffle: Linea's Self-Rescue and Bet

In summary, Linea's transition from EVM arithmetic to RISC-V is not a simple "chasing a trend," but rather a proactive reconstruction choice stemming from engineering survival pressure. After three years of confrontation with technical debt and complexity, the team realized that continuing to push along the original path would long consume them in passive maintenance; thus, by betting on RISC-V as a narrower, more predictable execution trajectory, they seek a more stable fulcrum for their ZK stack. This is a tactical retreat under real constraints, yet it reserves new imaginative space for the scaling competition in the coming years.

In an architecture where "the proof system's execution trajectory is narrower and can be constructed in real-time," Linea has the opportunity to redistribute resources previously consumed by maintenance costs back to performance optimization and product iteration. A more linear execution path means that the circuits are easier to abstract, the optimization space for the aggregation stack is larger, and support for new functions may also accelerate. Whether these dividends can be realized in practical performance and developer experience still needs to be validated over time, but directionally, Linea has already extracted itself from the passive dynamic of "chasing Ethereum to change circuits."

More broadly, this decision is also reshaping the narrative focus of Ethereum Layer2: shifting from an early obsession with "perfect compatibility" to a pragmatic approach of "rewriting architecture for ZK." In the future scaling puzzle, who will still insist on viewing Ethereum as the only semantic prototype, and who will, like Linea, reconstruct a more ZK-friendly skeleton at the execution layer will determine the different equilibrium points concerning compatibility, performance, and research efficiency across the entire ecosystem.

The open question remains: as more and more projects are forced to make different choices between compatibility and efficiency, who will become the "core outsourced execution layer" of the next generation of Ethereum? Will it be a few teams that hold steadfast to the Type-1 narrative, incurring high engineering costs, or pioneers like Linea who dare to bet on a new framework in instruction sets and execution environments? The market has yet to provide an answer to this question, and Linea's shift to RISC-V may just be the beginning of this round of track reshuffling.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。