Sustainability Atlas
Cybersecurity & Digital Trust·14 min read··...

Interview: the builder's playbook for Privacy-preserving analytics & zero-knowledge proofs — hard-earned lessons

A practitioner conversation: what surprised them, what failed, and what they'd do differently. Focus on auditability without leakage, compliance workflows, and threat models.

The zero-knowledge proof market reached $1.28 billion in 2024 and is projected to surge to $8.52 billion by 2033, growing at a 22.1% CAGR. Yet the technology that enables proving statements without revealing underlying data remains notoriously difficult to implement correctly. We spoke with engineers, cryptographers, and security architects who have deployed ZKP systems in production to understand what actually works—and what they wish they had known before writing their first circuit.

The privacy-enhancing technologies market now exceeds $3.2 billion annually, with zero-knowledge proofs representing the fastest-growing segment at 25.7% CAGR. Enterprises from Apple to JPMorgan are moving beyond pilot projects into production deployments. But the gap between cryptographic theory and operational reality remains substantial. Here's what practitioners are learning in the trenches.

Why It Matters

Data breaches exposed 4.5 billion records in the first half of 2024 alone, with the average cost per breach reaching $4.88 million—a 10% year-over-year increase. Regulatory frameworks including GDPR, CCPA, and the EU's upcoming AI Act impose escalating penalties for data mishandling. The fundamental tension between data utility and privacy protection has become untenable for organisations that need to analyse sensitive information across organisational boundaries.

Privacy-preserving analytics and zero-knowledge proofs offer a paradigm shift: enabling computation on encrypted data, verification without disclosure, and compliance without exposure. The technology allows financial institutions to share fraud signals without revealing customer data, healthcare providers to collaborate on research without compromising patient privacy, and supply chains to prove provenance without exposing trade secrets.

For engineers building data infrastructure, the stakes extend beyond compliance. The BFSI sector alone represents 27.9% of privacy-enhancing technology spending, with zero-knowledge KYC projected to grow from $83.6 million in 2025 to $903.5 million by 2032—a 40.5% CAGR. The question is no longer whether to adopt these technologies, but how to implement them without the catastrophic failures that have plagued early adopters.

Key Concepts

Understanding the landscape requires distinguishing between complementary but distinct technologies that practitioners often conflate:

Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) allow one party (the prover) to convince another (the verifier) that a statement is true without revealing any information beyond the statement's validity. A ZKP for identity verification might prove you're over 18 without revealing your birthdate, or prove you have sufficient funds without disclosing your balance.

zkSNARKs (Zero-Knowledge Succinct Non-Interactive Arguments of Knowledge) produce compact proofs (200-300 bytes) with fast verification, but require a trusted setup ceremony. They dominate 75% of current privacy-focused blockchain deployments due to lower gas costs and mature tooling.

zkSTARKs (Zero-Knowledge Scalable Transparent Arguments of Knowledge) eliminate trusted setup requirements and provide quantum resistance through hash-based cryptography, but generate larger proofs (100-200 KB). They're gaining traction for applications prioritising long-term security.

Homomorphic Encryption (HE) enables computation directly on encrypted data. Apple's Swift Homomorphic Encryption library, open-sourced in October 2024, powers Private Cloud Compute for Apple Intelligence—enabling server-side ML inference without the server ever accessing decrypted queries.

Secure Multi-Party Computation (MPC) allows multiple parties to jointly compute a function over their inputs while keeping those inputs private. The UK Cyber Defence Alliance uses MPC to enable four major banks and the Metropolitan Police to share fraud intelligence without exposing raw financial data.

The critical insight practitioners emphasise: these technologies are complementary, not competing. Production systems increasingly combine multiple primitives—using ZKPs for attestation, HE for encrypted computation, and MPC for collaborative analysis.

What's Working

Apple Private Cloud Compute

Apple's deployment of homomorphic encryption for cloud AI represents the most ambitious production implementation to date. Launched in late 2024, Private Cloud Compute processes Apple Intelligence queries using the Brakerski-Fan-Vercauteren (BFV) scheme with post-quantum 128-bit security. The client device encrypts queries locally; Apple's servers perform ML inference on ciphertext and return encrypted results that only the client can decrypt.

"They've proven that FHE can operate at consumer scale without unacceptable latency," notes a principal engineer at a competing cloud provider. "The architectural decisions—custom silicon, vertical integration, limited operation types—create a template that's difficult but not impossible to replicate."

The implementation required Apple to develop new SIMD vectorisation techniques for homomorphic operations, integrate with their secure enclave infrastructure, and optimise for specific ML inference patterns. Engineering effort was measured in thousands of person-years across cryptography, systems, and hardware teams.

UK Cyber Defence Alliance Fraud Detection

The Cyber Defence Alliance (CDA), comprising Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, and NatWest working with the Metropolitan Police, deployed a privacy-preserving intelligence sharing platform developed with Duality Technologies. The system enables collaborative identification of fraud patterns, money laundering signals, and cyber threats without any party exposing raw customer data.

"Traditional approaches required either trusting a central aggregator or accepting severely limited collaboration," explains a technical lead familiar with the project. "MPC lets us run queries across combined datasets—identifying accounts appearing in multiple suspicious transaction patterns—without any bank learning specifics about another bank's customers."

The platform processes millions of transaction records daily with sub-second query latency. Key architectural decisions included pre-computed correlation indices for common query patterns and tiered trust models distinguishing between routine analytics and sensitive investigations.

zkSync Era and Layer 2 Scaling

Matter Labs' zkSync Era processed over 580 million transactions in 2024, demonstrating zkSNARK scalability at Ethereum Layer 2. The system bundles thousands of transactions into cryptographic proofs verified on mainnet, achieving 90-95% gas fee reductions while maintaining Ethereum's security guarantees.

"Our biggest surprise was operational," admits a zkSync infrastructure engineer. "Cryptographic correctness we could achieve through careful implementation. The challenge was building reliable proving infrastructure that maintains liveness under adversarial conditions while managing $28 billion in locked value."

The system runs on custom prover clusters capable of generating proofs for batches of 1,000+ transactions in under 10 minutes. Redundancy, geographic distribution, and sophisticated monitoring were harder problems than the cryptography itself.

What's Not Working

Trusted Setup Ceremonies

zkSNARK systems requiring trusted setups remain operationally problematic. The Zcash Sapling ceremony involved 90 participants and took months to coordinate; any single dishonest participant could theoretically forge proofs undetectably. While multi-party computation ceremonies distribute trust, they introduce coordination overhead, social attack surfaces, and existential concerns about long-term parameter security.

"We spent more engineering time managing ceremony logistics than writing circuit code," recalls a former Aztec Protocol developer. "Then you're left explaining to security auditors why your system's integrity depends on events that happened years ago with participants who can't be verified."

Practitioners increasingly recommend zkSTARK-based approaches for new deployments despite higher proof sizes, particularly for applications with long operational lifespans where quantum computing threats become relevant.

Circuit Development Complexity

Writing correct ZKP circuits remains extraordinarily difficult. Circuits express computations as constraint systems—R1CS for SNARKs, AIR for STARKs—that bear little resemblance to conventional programming. A single constraint error can create soundness vulnerabilities allowing proof forgery.

"We audited a DeFi protocol that had passed two previous security reviews," describes a ZK-specialised auditor. "The bug was in constraint ordering within a Merkle proof verification—the circuit would accept proofs for non-existent accounts. Standard code review practices don't transfer; you need auditors who think in constraint systems."

The industry response includes higher-level domain-specific languages (Circom, Noir, Cairo) and formal verification tools, but the talent pool remains severely constrained. Practitioner estimates suggest fewer than 500 engineers globally can competently develop production ZKP systems.

Performance Overhead

Homomorphic encryption operations remain 100-10,000x slower than plaintext equivalents, limiting practical applications. While hardware acceleration is emerging—Fabric Cryptography's custom VPU, FPGA implementations, GPU-accelerated libraries—current deployments require careful operation limiting.

"We built an encrypted analytics pipeline that worked beautifully in development," shares a healthcare tech CTO. "Then we tried processing real patient cohort sizes. What took 3 seconds on plaintext took 8 hours encrypted. We had to fundamentally redesign around approximate HE schemes and pre-aggregation."

Practitioners recommend starting with the smallest feasible encrypted computation, using hybrid architectures that minimise encrypted operations, and planning for 3-5 year performance improvement curves when scoping projects.

Integration with Existing Infrastructure

Privacy-preserving systems often require rearchitecting data pipelines, authentication flows, and audit mechanisms. The assumption that PETs can be "bolted on" to existing analytics infrastructure leads to failed implementations.

"Our original proposal was adding ZK attestations to our existing data warehouse exports," explains an enterprise architect at a Fortune 500 financial services firm. "We discovered that meaningful privacy guarantees required controlling data from ingestion through processing. The ZK layer became maybe 20% of the project; re-plumbing data infrastructure was the other 80%."

Key Players

Established Leaders

  • Apple — Deployed production homomorphic encryption in Private Cloud Compute. Open-sourced Swift Homomorphic Encryption library implementing BFV scheme with post-quantum security.

  • Microsoft — SEAL library remains the most widely-used HE implementation. Confidential AI platform launched 2024 combining TEEs, MPC, and FHE for enterprise deployments.

  • StarkWare — Pioneer in zkSTARK technology, developed Cairo programming language. Powers Starknet Layer 2 and StarkEx infrastructure processing billions in DeFi volume.

  • Matter Labs — Operates zkSync Era, the largest zkSNARK-based Layer 2 by transaction volume. Open-sourced Boojum proving system achieving significant performance improvements.

  • Duality Technologies — Enterprise-focused privacy-preserving computation platform. Powers UK Cyber Defence Alliance deployment and partners with major healthcare organisations.

Emerging Startups

  • Aztec Network — Developing encrypted smart contract platform combining zkSNARKs with private execution. Raised $100 million Series B from a16z in 2022.

  • Zama — Created Concrete-ML compiler for privacy-preserving machine learning. Achieved breakthrough FHE neural network inference performance in July 2024.

  • Aleo — Building programmable private applications platform. Partnered with Google Cloud for validator infrastructure in February 2025.

  • RISC Zero — Developed general-purpose zkVM enabling zero-knowledge proofs for arbitrary computation. Targeting verifiable computation use cases beyond blockchain.

  • Fabric Cryptography — Building custom VPU hardware specifically designed for FHE acceleration. Addresses fundamental performance barrier to FHE adoption.

Key Investors & Funders

  • Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) — Led $100 million Aztec round; extensive portfolio in ZKP infrastructure including Matter Labs.

  • Paradigm — Major investments in StarkWare ($100 million) and multiple ZK-focused protocols.

  • EU Horizon Programme — Funded CARRIER project for privacy-preserving healthcare analytics using combined MPC, HE, and federated learning.

  • DARPA — DPRIVE programme investing in FHE acceleration hardware and software optimisation.

  • Sequoia Capital — Backed Aleo, Zama, and multiple privacy-preserving computation startups.

Action Checklist

  1. Audit your data exposure surface: Map every location where sensitive data is processed, stored, or transmitted. Identify which operations could theoretically be performed on encrypted or anonymised data versus those requiring plaintext access.

  2. Start with attestation, not computation: ZKP deployments succeed more often when focused on proving properties about data (age verification, credential possession, compliance status) rather than performing complex encrypted computation.

  3. Invest in circuit auditing: Budget 30-50% of cryptographic engineering time for formal verification and third-party audits. The constraint systems underlying ZKPs require specialised review methodologies that differ fundamentally from code security.

  4. Choose zkSTARKs for new long-lived systems: Unless proof size constraints are critical, the transparency and quantum resistance of STARKs outweigh the maturity advantages of trusted-setup SNARKs for systems expected to operate beyond 2030.

  5. Prototype with existing libraries before custom development: OpenFHE, Microsoft SEAL, and snarkjs provide production-ready primitives. Custom circuit development should begin only after confirming standard building blocks are insufficient.

  6. Plan for hybrid architectures: Pure encrypted computation remains impractical for most applications. Design systems that minimise the encrypted surface area—performing preprocessing and aggregation in the clear where privacy constraints permit.

  7. Build operational expertise before production: Run proving infrastructure, key management, and ceremony coordination in staging environments for 6-12 months before production deployment. Operational failures outnumber cryptographic failures by orders of magnitude.

  8. Engage regulators early: Privacy-preserving technologies interact with data protection requirements in nuanced ways. Proactive regulatory engagement prevents discovering compliance gaps after deployment.

FAQ

Q: What's the realistic timeline for implementing zero-knowledge proofs in an enterprise context? A: Practitioners consistently report 12-24 months from concept to production for well-scoped deployments, with significant variance based on circuit complexity and organisational readiness. The Cyber Defence Alliance deployment took approximately 18 months from initial architecture to production, with 6 months focused on cryptographic implementation and 12 months on data pipeline integration, governance frameworks, and operational procedures. Teams without prior ZKP experience should budget additional time for capability building—the learning curve for constraint-based programming is steep. Starting with attestation use cases (proving properties without revealing data) rather than general encrypted computation reduces timeline risk substantially.

Q: How do we handle auditability requirements when using privacy-preserving analytics? A: This is the most common design tension practitioners encounter. Zero-knowledge proofs excel at selective disclosure—you can design systems that prove computation correctness and regulatory compliance without revealing underlying data. The UK CDA implementation includes audit trails proving which parties participated in which queries, timestamps, and aggregate result ranges, all without exposing individual bank data. For financial services applications, work with regulators to establish which audit artifacts provide equivalent assurance to plaintext access. Many jurisdictions accept cryptographic proofs of computation integrity as valid audit evidence when properly documented. Build audit requirements into circuit design from the start; retrofitting auditability into existing ZKP systems is technically difficult.

Q: What are the security considerations for threat models in ZKP systems? A: Threat models for ZKP systems differ fundamentally from conventional applications. Cryptographic security (soundness, zero-knowledge property, quantum resistance) is necessary but not sufficient. Practitioners highlight three underappreciated threat vectors: (1) Side-channel attacks on proving infrastructure—timing, power analysis, and memory access patterns can leak private inputs even when cryptographic protocols are secure; (2) Implementation bugs in constraint systems—circuit errors that don't affect functionality can completely compromise soundness; (3) Trusted setup compromise for SNARK-based systems—while multi-party ceremonies distribute trust, the assumption that at least one participant was honest cannot be verified retrospectively. Production deployments require defence in depth: formal verification of circuits, hardware security modules for key management, and architectural isolation of proving infrastructure.

Q: How do we evaluate build vs. buy decisions for privacy-preserving infrastructure? A: The build/buy calculus heavily favours using established platforms for all but the most specialised requirements. Enterprise deployments at organisations without dedicated cryptography teams should start with managed services—Duality Technologies for MPC, Aztec/Aleo for programmable privacy, zkSync/Starknet for blockchain applications. Custom development makes sense only when: (1) existing platforms don't support required operations; (2) performance requirements exceed platform capabilities; (3) regulatory or sovereignty requirements preclude third-party infrastructure. Even then, practitioners recommend building on open-source primitives (OpenFHE, snarkjs, Winterfell) rather than implementing cryptographic protocols from scratch. The talent market for ZKP engineers remains extremely constrained—fewer than 500 practitioners globally can develop production systems—making recruiting for in-house teams challenging and expensive.

Q: What performance improvements should we expect in the next 3-5 years? A: Hardware acceleration is the primary driver of near-term improvement. Fabric Cryptography's VPU, FPGA implementations achieving fully packed CKKS bootstrapping, and GPU-accelerated FHE libraries have demonstrated 100-200x speedups over CPU baselines. Practitioners expect encrypted computation overhead to decrease from current 1,000-10,000x to 10-100x by 2028 for common operations. Proving time for ZK circuits is improving at approximately 2x annually through algorithmic optimisation and parallelisation. The trajectory suggests FHE-based ML inference at near-real-time latencies by 2027, and ZKP generation costs dropping from current $0.006 per transaction to under $0.001 by 2030. Plan system architectures assuming order-of-magnitude performance improvements on 3-year cycles, but design for graceful degradation if improvements lag projections.

Sources

Privacy-preserving analytics and zero-knowledge proofs represent a fundamental shift in how organisations can handle sensitive data—enabling utility without exposure, compliance without centralisation, and collaboration without trust. The technology has matured from academic curiosity to production readiness, with Apple, major financial institutions, and blockchain infrastructure processing billions of operations. For engineering teams, the path forward requires respecting the technology's genuine complexity while recognising that the infrastructure for building privacy-preserving systems exists today. The practitioners who will capture disproportionate value are those building expertise now, before regulatory mandates and competitive pressure force rushed implementations.

Topics

privacypreservingadditionalitydata governancecritical infrastructureidentitycapex

Related Articles