Conversely, what's the best token to hold if I believe ZK-Rollups are the ultimate scaling solution?

If your thesis is “ZK-Rollups become the dominant scaling architecture,” the answer depends on which part of the ZK thesis you want exposure to. There is no single guaranteed “ZK winner”; you’re essentially choosing which layer of the stack captures value. ZK rollups today include multiple approaches: EVM-compatible ZK chains, ZK-native architectures, and infrastructure layers.ethereum.org

A few possible bets:

A few ways to think about it:

If your belief is:

“All scaling happens on Ethereum via rollups.” → ETH is the cleaner macro bet.

If your belief is:

“The winning ZK rollup itself captures enormous value.” → You’re looking more at ZK-focused L2 tokens such as STRK or ZK.ZKsync+1

If your belief is:

“The future is many specialized ZK chains connected by shared infrastructure.” → Infrastructure-oriented bets become more relevant.Protofire

One important investing caveat: technical superiority does not automatically equal token value accrual. A ZK network can win adoption while its token captures little economic value, depending on token utility, fee capture, staking/security role, governance design, and supply dynamics.

So a ZK-maximalist portfolio might reasonably look at:

• Core: ETH (ZK settlement thesis)
• Higher-risk ZK upside: ZK / STRK
• Diversified infrastructure exposure: POL or other ZK ecosystem assets

That’s a framework rather than a recommendation; the “best” token depends on whether you’re betting on Ethereum, a specific rollup, or the broader ZK infrastructure layer.

If you are firmly in the camp that ZK-Rollups (Zero-Knowledge Rollups) are the ultimate, endgame scaling solution for Ethereum and the broader blockchain ecosystem, finding the "best" token to hold requires separating technical brilliance from tokenomics and value accrual.

Unlike Optimistic rollups (like Arbitrum or Optimism), which have mature fee-generating ecosystems, pure general-purpose ZK-rollup networks have historically faced a trickier reality: the native tokens of foundational ZK projects often suffer from low utility capture or heavy supply inflation/unlock pressures.tangem.com

The primary ZK-centric native tokens and ecosystem plays break down across a few strategic categories:

• Starknet (STRK): One of the most technologically ambitious ZK-rollups using its own custom virtual machine (Cairo rather than a standard EVM). It features robust cryptographic scaling design and deep backing, though its token price and market cap have faced massive dilution and unlock pressure typical of early-stage L2 heavyweights.coingecko.com
• ZKsync (ZK): A pioneer in zkEVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine equivalence) development, aiming to make deploying Solidity smart contracts on a ZK-rollup seamless. The ZK token acts as the governance and decentralized network backbone asset, though like STRK, its direct value-accrual mechanisms back to token holders are still evolving.coingecko.com+1
• Polygon (POL): While Polygon started as a sidechain, its overarching architecture heavily incorporates its Polygon zkEVM and validium scaling solutions. POL functions as the hyper-productivity token securing multiple Polygon chains, offering broader multi-chain utility than a single standalone ZK rollup.linkedin.com
• Scroll (SCROLL) or Linea (Consensys): Prominent byte-code-level zkEVM alternatives focusing heavily on developer experience and native EVM equivalence. Some of these networks either lack a mature standalone token or route value differently through ecosystem dApps.linkedin.com

The "Value Accrual" Catch

The hard truth in crypto design is that technological superiority does not automatically equal token value . Many ZK-rollups settle data back to Ethereum, and their native tokens are often used primarily for governance rather than direct protocol fee capture (gas is typically paid in ETH, not the L2 token).

Because of this, some investors argue that if ZK-rollups scale Ethereum, the ultimate "token" to hold to capture that fundamental value is still Ether (ETH) , since rollups ultimately drive their security and data-availability settlement demand directly back to the L1 asset.

If you want to narrow this down, tell me:

• Are you looking strictly for governance/native L2 tokens (STRK, ZK, etc.) or infrastructure plays?
• Are you more concerned with short-term tokenomics/unlock schedules or a multi-year thesis?

Let me know how you'd like to approach the risk profile.

If you believe ZK-Rollups become the dominant scaling architecture, the "best" token depends on which part of the ZK thesis you think captures the most value. There is no guaranteed winner, but these are the main candidates investors usually consider:

A few ways to frame the bet:

If your belief is: "Ethereum wins because ZK proves everything"

ETH is the cleanest expression. ZK rollups are designed to settle on Ethereum, so the thesis is that Ethereum becomes the base settlement and data-availability layer while L2s handle execution.ethereum.org

If your belief is: "One ZK-rollup ecosystem becomes the next AWS"

You might look at ZK or STRK.

• ZKsync (ZK) is a bet on a scalable ZK ecosystem with EVM compatibility and a network-of-chains approach.ZKsync+1
• Starknet (STRK) is a bet that STARK-based technology and specialized provable computation become strategically important.ethereum.org

If your belief is: "The winning ZK chain will be the one developers barely notice"

Then EVM compatibility matters. Projects such as zkSync, Scroll, Polygon zkEVM, and Linea are competing around different points on the EVM-equivalence spectrum.Eco+1

A concentrated ZK-rollup thesis portfolio might look something like:

• Core: ETH (settlement-layer bet)
• Higher-risk ZK infrastructure: ZK / STRK
• Optional smaller bets: POL, SCR, other emerging ZK ecosystems

The biggest question is where you think value accrues:

1. To Ethereum as the settlement layer?
2. To the dominant rollup operator?
3. To the proving technology itself?
4. To applications built on top?

Your answer changes the "best" token dramatically.

If your thesis is specifically “ZK-rollups become the dominant scaling architecture for Ethereum”, I’d distinguish between owning the technology and owning the token that captures its value.

My ranking

1. ZK (ZKsync) — probably the most direct expression of the thesis.

• ZKsync is explicitly building a network of interconnected ZK chains, and its ZK token is used for governance and protocol-level functions.ZKsync+1
• The big caveat is token dilution/unlocks: ZK has a 21B maximum supply, with team/investor allocations vesting through June 2028.ZKsync
• If you think ZKsync becomes one of the dominant ZK ecosystems, ZK is the cleanest high-beta bet.

2. STRK (Starknet) — arguably the stronger technology bet.

• Starknet is a major ZK/STARK-based L2, and STRK has actual protocol utility: fees, governance and staking.StarkNet+1
• Its staking transition gives STRK a potentially stronger value-accrual mechanism than a token that is primarily governance-oriented.StarkNet
• The downside is similar: token emissions/unlocks can create substantial selling pressure.

3. ETH — the boring but arguably best risk-adjusted answer.

• If ZK-rollups win, Ethereum doesn't lose; it becomes the settlement/data-availability layer underneath them.
• You therefore get exposure to the entire rollup ecosystem, rather than having to correctly predict which ZK-rollup wins.
• The tradeoff is that ETH has much less upside leverage to the specific ZK thesis than ZK or STRK.

The key distinction

I'd frame the bets like this:

ETH = “ZK-rollups win Ethereum scaling.” ZK = “ZKsync wins a huge share of that market.” STRK = “Starknet becomes a major ZK execution ecosystem.”

So if you force me to choose one token purely because you believe ZK-rollups are the ultimate scaling solution, I'd lean ZK for maximum thesis exposure, ETH for risk-adjusted exposure, and STRK if you have the strongest conviction in Starknet's particular architecture.

One important caveat: the technology can win while the token loses. Token value capture, dilution, fee economics, competition between ZK networks, and Ethereum's own economics matter enormously. I wouldn't treat “ZK-rollups win” as automatically implying “ZK token wins.”

If you want, I can also rank ZK vs STRK vs ETH vs POL specifically on 10-year upside, tokenomics, value capture, and risk.

If you believe ZK-Rollups are the ultimate scaling solution, the "best token" depends on which part of the ZK thesis you think captures the most value. There is no guaranteed winner—the technology can succeed while individual tokens underperform—but these are the main ways to express that bet:

1. Ethereum (ETH) — the "ZK wins, Ethereum wins" bet

Probably the highest-conviction infrastructure play.

Why:

• ZK-rollups are primarily designed to make Ethereum the settlement layer for a much larger economy.ethereum.org
• More ZK activity generally means more demand for Ethereum blockspace, blobs, security, and staking.
• You avoid picking which L2 ecosystem wins.

Risk:

• ETH may capture less of the upside than a successful L2 token if an individual ZK network becomes dominant.

2. Starknet (STRK) — the "pure ZK technology" bet

Best fit if you believe cryptographic innovation matters most.

Why:

• Starknet is built around STARK proofs and its own Cairo execution environment, giving it a differentiated technical approach.ethereum.org
• It is one of the projects most closely associated with ZK-native scaling research.Alchemy

Risks:

• Smaller developer ecosystem than EVM-compatible competitors.
• Token unlocks and valuation matter.Gate.com

3. zkSync (ZK) — the "mass adoption ZK-EVM" bet

Best fit if you think compatibility with Ethereum developers wins.

Why:

• zkSync Era aims for an EVM-compatible ZK-rollup experience, making migration easier for existing Ethereum apps.ethereum.org
• A successful ZK-EVM could become a major execution layer.

Risks:

• Competition is intense: Scroll, Linea, Starknet, and others are pursuing similar goals.ethereum.org
• Token economics may matter more than technology alone.

4. Polygon (POL) — the "ZK infrastructure platform" bet

Why:

• Polygon has invested heavily in ZK technology and Ethereum scaling infrastructure.ethereum.org
• Larger existing ecosystem and brand recognition.

Risk:

• The value capture from a broad ecosystem token can be less direct.

My ranking by ZK-rollup conviction (not a price prediction)

1. ETH — safest way to express "ZK makes Ethereum enormous"
2. STRK — highest pure-play ZK technology exposure
3. ZK — strongest "ZK-EVM goes mainstream" thesis
4. POL — broader infrastructure bet

A portfolio built around this thesis might logically overweight ETH + one or two ZK specialists, rather than trying to guess the single winning rollup. The biggest uncertainty is not whether ZK proofs are powerful—the question is which networks capture economic value from that technology.Eco+1

Not financial advice, but if someone said: "I think ZK-rollups become the dominant scaling architecture for crypto over the next decade"—the cleanest bets are probably ETH for the settlement layer and STRK/ZK for asymmetric ZK-specific upside.