# ZK Rollups as Parachains

**URL:** <https://forum.polkadot.network/t/zk-rollups-as-parachains/2229>\
**Category:** Tech Talk\
**Created:** [March 5, 2023, 11:32pm UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/zk-rollups-as-parachains/2229 "2023-03-05T23:32:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 16

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![librelois](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.polkadot.network/librelois/32/48_2.png) [@librelois](https://forum.polkadot.network/u/librelois)\
**Post date:** [May 3, 2023, 3:37pm UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/zk-rollups-as-parachains/2229/16 "2023-05-03T15:37:45Z")

</div>

> [@burdges](#):
>
> Agnostic code cannot be native of course

It would seem so, I watched a risc0 presentation (seen thanks to [this forum post](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/exploring-alternatives-to-wasm-for-smart-contracts/2434/21)) and they claim to have made a zkVM agnostic that can prove the execution of any arbitrary code as long as it compile to RISK-V.

They have already published all the code on [github](https://github.com/risc0/risc0), and there are examples in rust, including 1 to prove a wasm execution: [https://github.com/risc0/risc0/tree/main/examples/wasm](https://github.com/risc0/risc0/tree/main/examples/wasm)

Maybe such a solution could be adapted for a new type of parachains that are natively zkRollup?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/zk-rollups-as-parachains/2229)._