o1Labs’ Co-CEO on Mina Protocol, Zero-Knowledge Proofs and Decentralization

As blockchains grow larger and more complex, questions around scalability, decentralization, and verification continue to intensify. 

Mina Protocol takes a different route. Instead of allowing the chain to grow indefinitely, it keeps its blockchain size constant by relying on recursive zero-knowledge proofs.

In this interview with CCN, Deepthi Kumar, Co-CEO of O1 Labs, the co-development team behind Mina Protocol, explains how Mina’s architecture works, what trustlessness really means in a cryptography-driven system, and why decentralization depends on more than transactions per second.

Watch the full interview here:

Mina Protocol and the Constant-Size Blockchain

Mina Protocol is often described as the “world’s lightest blockchain.” The label refers to its constant-size architecture.

Kumar, who joined o1 Labs in 2018 as one of its first protocol engineers, explains the foundation:

“Mina protocol is the most popular thing that you hear is the world’s lightest blockchain. And that’s made possible because of recursive zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs), where we recursively compose proofs about a block and at the end of the chain, you get one proof that verifies the entire chain.”

Zero-knowledge proofs are cryptographic methods that allow one party to prove that a statement is true without revealing the underlying data. 

In Mina’s design, each new block includes a proof that verifies the previous state. Over time, those proofs compress into a single succinct proof.

“So anyone who wants to verify the entire blockchain state starting from genesis, you verify that one proof that you get at the latest block,” Kumar says. 

“This architecture is made possible because of zero-knowledge cryptography.”

Instead of replaying the entire transaction history, nodes verify a compact proof. The result is a blockchain that remains small in size, regardless of how long it has been running.

zkApps: Executing Off-Chain, Verifying On-Chain

Beyond its compact chain, Mina introduces zero-knowledge applications, or zkApps.

Traditional blockchains execute smart contracts directly on-chain. Every node processes the same computation. Mina changes that model.

“In Mina’s architecture, you have something called zk-apps, which is zero-knowledge applications where the application itself is executed off-chain but verified on-chain,” Kumar explains. 

“When you execute it off-chain, you generate a proof and then you submit that proof to the chain that verifies that proof is valid, which means that whatever the computation was, that’s correct.”

SNARKs, short for succinct non-interactive arguments of knowledge, make this possible. A SNARK is a type of zero-knowledge proof that remains small and efficient to verify.

The implication is privacy. Computation happens off-chain. Only the proof reaches the blockchain.

“You don’t have to actually execute the program,” Kumar says. 

“It really enables you to build privacy-preserving applications, preserving user data, and not putting it on-chain.”

Trust in a Math-Driven System

As verification becomes more abstract and dependent on cryptography, some users may struggle to evaluate correctness and security.

Kumar argues that the system must operate in layers.

“At the end of the day, you’re writing zero-knowledge circuits that get boiled down to lower-level cryptographic operations,” she says. 

“But you abstract that away to a point where it is intuitive for users to build applications.”

On Mina, developers can use o1JS, a TypeScript-based software development kit. TypeScript is a widely used programming language for web applications.

“When developers write programs, they’re writing in a language that they know,” Kumar says.

At the lowest layer, however, cryptographic rigor remains essential.

“You need to ensure that proof systems are open source and well audited.”

The zero-knowledge ecosystem remains fragmented. Different proof systems, languages, and frameworks compete for adoption.

“We still don’t have that standardization in the ZK space,” Kumar says. 

“The ultimate goal is for people to trust these systems. Like, for example, how we trust TLS, like you see HTTPS and you’re like, okay, this is secure.”

Reaching that level of intuitive trust remains a work in progress.

Does Cryptographic Complexity Concentrate Power?

As blockchain systems grow more mathematically dense, concerns arise about power concentrating in the hands of cryptographers and protocol designers.

Kumar acknowledges the tension.

“Yes and no,” she says. “Complexity always risks centralization of understanding.”

Her solution again relies on layered abstraction.

“There are ZKVMs where people can write programs in Rust, which then build zero-knowledge applications,” she explains. 

“So you don’t need specialized skills to write these programs.”

A ZKVM, or zero-knowledge virtual machine, allows developers to write standard programs that are later converted into ZKPs.

At the protocol level, however, she stresses the importance of community governance.

“Users in the system shouldn’t have a cryptography degree or experience to be able to participate,” Kumar says. 

“The community should be able to weigh in on economic policies, ecosystem priorities, even if they cannot audit the circuits themselves.”

The goal is to prevent technical complexity from blocking participation in decision-making.

What Trustlessness Really Means

Trustlessness often carries a negative tone. Kumar reframes the concept.

“When you say trustlessness, everyone doesn’t need to do everything in order to have trust in how the system works,” she says.

In early blockchain designs, every node re-executed the same computations to avoid relying on others.

“Everyone is duplicating the same computation on their machines to not have to trust anyone else,” Kumar says.

Mina challenges that model.

“Trustlessness shouldn’t be that everyone does everything,” she explains. 

“It rather means that there’s no privileged verifier or verification is inaccessible.”

Users should be able to verify the state independently if they choose to. They should not be forced to rely on a central institution for access.

“The question is, can they independently get that state or do they rely on institutions or individuals that serve them that data,” Kumar says.

In Mina’s design, verifying a compact proof lowers the barrier to independent participation.

Scalability Is More Than Transactions Per Second

Many blockchain discussions reduce scalability to transactions per second, or TPS. Kumar rejects that narrow focus.

“Scalability isn’t just TPS,” she says. “It’s also about decentralization who can independently participate.”

Increasing throughput often raises hardware requirements. That shift can centralize the network around entities with access to advanced infrastructure.

“If you scale the system to just increase the TPS and make the nodes themselves quite compute-intensive, then you require really sophisticated hardware,” Kumar explains.

True scalability balances throughput with accessibility.

“The true scalability challenge is to create a decentralized system, which is long-term sustainable, where node operators can continue participating,” she says. “New participants can join in without having to require a city’s worth of compute.”

For Mina, constant size and lightweight verification aim to protect that balance.

Mina’s Core Aims

When asked to summarize Mina’s primary objectives, Kumar highlights accessibility and privacy.

“First and foremost, making it extremely easy for people to participate in the network,” she says.

Mina’s hardware requirements allow nodes to run on consumer devices. The team is also developing a web-based node that would allow participation directly from a browser.

“If you want to build applications, you can use o1.js, which is like a TypeScript library,” she says.

The second core aim focuses on privacy.

“We want to be able to build applications where user can protect their own data,” Kumar explains.

For example, a user could prove they are over a certain age without revealing their full identity. They could prove their balance exceeds a threshold without exposing transaction history.

“You only need to verify what is required,” she says. 

“User data remains with them, but at the same time be able to prove what is needed for them to participate in the world.”

Navigating Leadership as a Woman in Web3

Kumar joined o1 Labs in 2018 as one of its earliest engineers. Over time, she rose to the position of Co-CEO.

“My influence has been built through long-term technical contribution,” she says.

She describes o1 Labs as a culture driven by engineering rigor rather than hierarchy.

“I’ve been kind of fortunate to work in an environment where decisions are driven by engineering rigor and respect, not hierarchy or identity,” Kumar says.

However, she acknowledges that her experience does not reflect the entire industry.

“I’ve heard difficult stories from peers,” she says. “Biases in other organizations, exclusion, harassment.”

Her advice centers on environment and accountability.

“Choose the environment carefully,” Kumar says. 

“We need to take pride in our craft and not really internalize the broken system and call it out when it needs to be called out.”

She also connects diversity to protocol design.

“Homogeneous teams often miss out on certain threat models, like user perspectives,” she says. 

“It’s always in software engineering is it’s better to have diverse perspectives.”

Cryptography, Blockchain and The Future

Looking ahead, Kumar sees institutional adoption accelerating.

“A lot of finance is starting to realize the benefits and are ramping up to use blockchains,” she says, pointing to real-world assets moving on-chain and identity solutions backed by governments.

Zero-knowledge technology plays a key role in that transition.

“Using the ZK technology to prove your identity,” she says. “The use cases that are most impactful are starting to emerge.”

Efficiency remains the final hurdle.

“As the proof systems get more efficient and as you’re able to run on consumer devices, I think that’s when the adoption will really start picking up,” Kumar says.

For Mina, the mission remains consistent.

“We’re definitely continuing on this journey, making ZK, making a splash in the privacy space,” she says. 

“We want to continue building the system that enables building privacy-preserving applications.”

As blockchain matures, the debate may shift from speed to structure, from throughput to verification. 

Mina’s bet is that constant size, cryptographic proofs, and accessible verification will define the next stage of decentralization.

About the Author

Dr. Lorena Nessi

Dr. Lorena Nessi is an award-winning journalist and media technology expert with 15 years of experience in digital culture and communication. Based in Oxfordshire, UK, she combines academic insight with hands-on media practice.

She holds a PhD in Communication, Sociology, and Digital Cultures, and an MA in Globalization, Identity, and Technology.

Lorena has taught at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Nottingham Trent University, and the University of Oxford. She is a former producer for the BBC in London, with additional experience creating television content in Mexico and Japan.

Her research focuses on digital cultures, social media, technology, capitalism, and the societal impact of blockchain innovation.

She has written extensively on digital media and emerging technologies, with her work featured in both academic and media platforms. Her Web3 expertise explores how blockchain technologies shape culture, economics, and decentralized systems.

Outside of work, Lorena enjoys reading science fiction, playing strategic board games, traveling, and chasing adventures that get her heart racing. A perfect day ends with a relaxing spa and a good family meal.

[email protected] LinkedIn X.com