Polygon zkEVM Explained: Complete Guide to Zero-Knowledge Scaling

Ethereum processes 15 transactions per second. Polygon zkEVM processes over 2,000—with the same security guarantees and full EVM compatibility. According to L2Beat data, Polygon zkEVM has secured over $130 million in total value locked since its mainnet beta launch in March 2023, making it one of the fastest-growing Layer 2 solutions in the ecosystem.

But here’s the part most explainers miss: Polygon zkEVM isn’t just another scaling solution. It’s the first zkEVM to achieve “Type 2” equivalence—meaning developers can deploy existing Ethereum smart contracts without changing a single line of code while gaining 100x throughput and 90% lower fees. The signal here cuts through the noise of dozens of Layer 2 solutions flooding the market.

This guide breaks down exactly how Polygon zkEVM works, why it matters for DeFi’s future, and how you can start using it today—backed by on-chain data and real performance metrics.

What Is Polygon zkEVM?

Polygon zkEVM is a Layer 2 scaling solution that uses zero-knowledge proof technology (specifically zkSNARKs) to bundle thousands of transactions into a single proof that gets verified on Ethereum’s mainnet. Think of it as a high-speed express lane that periodically reports back to the main highway—except this express lane can handle 140x more traffic while maintaining the same security standards.

Unlike optimistic rollups (like Arbitrum and Optimism) that assume transactions are valid unless challenged, zkEVMs use cryptographic proofs to guarantee correctness immediately. This eliminates the 7-day withdrawal period common to optimistic solutions and provides instant finality backed by Ethereum’s security.

The Zero-Knowledge Breakthrough

Zero-knowledge proofs allow one party to prove something is true without revealing any underlying information. In Polygon zkEVM’s case, the network proves that thousands of transactions were executed correctly—without Ethereum having to re-execute each one.

Here’s the efficiency gain in numbers:

According to Polygon’s performance data, the network has processed over 20 million transactions since launch with 99.9% uptime—a critical signal of technical maturity that separates viable scaling solutions from experimental ones.

How Polygon zkEVM Works: Technical Architecture

Understanding Polygon zkEVM requires breaking down three core components that work together to achieve scalable, secure computation.

1. The Sequencer: Transaction Ordering

The sequencer is the network component that receives transactions from users, orders them, and executes them to produce new state updates. Currently, Polygon operates a centralized sequencer (a common pattern in early-stage L2s), though decentralization is on the roadmap for 2026.

When you submit a transaction to Polygon zkEVM:

• The sequencer adds it to a pending transaction pool
• Transactions are ordered (typically first-come, first-served)
• The sequencer executes transactions in batches of 500-1,000
• A new state root is calculated representing the post-transaction state

Performance signal: According to DeFiLlama’s real-time data, the Polygon zkEVM sequencer maintains 2-3 second block times even during high-traffic periods, compared to Ethereum’s 12-second blocks.

2. The Prover: Zero-Knowledge Proof Generation

After the sequencer executes a batch of transactions, the prover generates a cryptographic proof that these transactions were executed correctly according to Ethereum’s rules. This is the computationally intensive “magic” that makes zkEVMs possible.

The proof generation process:

• Takes the initial state, transactions, and final state
• Generates a zkSNARK proof (currently using Polygon’s proprietary proving system)
• Compresses execution of 1,000+ transactions into a ~200KB proof
• Proof generation takes 30-60 minutes depending on batch size

Technical breakthrough: Polygon’s team has reduced proof generation time by 85% since the testnet phase through hardware acceleration and algorithm optimizations. According to their Q4 2025 update, proof costs have dropped from $5 per batch to under $0.50—making the economics of zkEVMs finally viable.

3. The Verifier: Ethereum Settlement

The final component is a smart contract on Ethereum that verifies the zkSNARK proofs and updates the canonical state. This is where the “security inheritance” happens—Polygon zkEVM’s security is mathematically tied to Ethereum’s.

The verification process:

• Prover submits the zkSNARK proof to Ethereum
• Verifier contract checks the proof (takes ~400,000 gas)
• If valid, the new state root is accepted as canonical
• Users can now exit funds based on this state

Cost efficiency signal: Verifying a batch of 1,000 transactions costs roughly $50 in gas fees (at 30 gwei), meaning per-transaction settlement cost is just $0.05—dramatically cheaper than settling each transaction individually on L1.

Type 2 EVM Equivalence: Why It Matters

The term “Type 2 zkEVM” refers to a classification system proposed by Ethereum researcher Vitalik Buterin. Understanding this hierarchy is crucial for evaluating different zkEVM solutions:

Type 1 (Ethereum-equivalent): Completely identical to Ethereum, no changes whatsoever. Perfect compatibility but slowest proof generation.

Type 2 (EVM-equivalent): Equivalent to the EVM but with minor modifications to make proof generation faster. This is where Polygon zkEVM sits.

Type 3 (EVM-compatible): Mostly equivalent but removes some features for speed. Some contracts may need modifications.

Type 4 (Transpiling): Compiles Solidity to a different language. Requires rewriting contracts.

Why Type 2 Is the Sweet Spot

Polygon zkEVM achieves Type 2 equivalence by making minimal changes to how Ethereum’s EVM operates—primarily optimizations to the gas metering system and some cryptographic primitives. According to testing by Polygon’s team:

• 99.5% of existing Ethereum smart contracts work without modification
• Developer tools (Hardhat, Foundry, Remix) work out of the box
• Existing audits remain valid (no new security surface)
• Wallet infrastructure (MetaMask, WalletConnect) requires zero changes

Real-world validation: Major DeFi protocols including Uniswap V3, Aave, and Balancer have deployed on Polygon zkEVM with zero code changes and full feature parity. This isn’t theoretical compatibility—it’s battle-tested in production with millions in TVL.

For more context on how Layer 2 solutions compare across different metrics, see our comprehensive Layer 2 scaling solutions comparison guide.

Polygon zkEVM vs. Other Layer 2 Solutions

The Layer 2 landscape in 2026 is crowded with competing approaches. Here’s how Polygon zkEVM stacks up against major alternatives based on live network data:

Data sources: L2Beat, DeFiLlama, November 2025

Key Differentiators

1. Immediate Finality vs. Challenge Period

The most significant practical difference is withdrawal times. Optimistic rollups require a 7-day challenge period before users can withdraw funds to Ethereum. Polygon zkEVM’s cryptographic proofs eliminate this wait—funds are withdrawable once the proof is verified on L1 (typically 30-60 minutes).

Real-world impact: For DeFi traders and liquidity providers, this means capital efficiency is 168x better (7 days vs. 1 hour). According to data from Dune Analytics, the average Arbitrum user keeps 73% of their funds locked in the L2 to avoid withdrawal delays—creating significant opportunity cost.

2. Security Model

Optimistic rollups assume transactions are valid unless someone proves fraud (which requires running a full node and actively monitoring). zkRollups prove validity cryptographically—no trust assumptions required.

The signal institutions watch: Major DeFi protocols increasingly require validity proofs rather than fraud proofs for large liquidity pools. According to conversations with DeFi protocols managing $100M+ TVL, zkRollup security models command 20-30% higher capital allocations due to reduced trust assumptions.

3. EVM Compatibility

Polygon zkEVM’s Type 2 equivalence provides stronger compatibility than most competitors:

• zkSync Era: Type 4 (requires custom compiler)
• StarkNet: Type 4 (uses Cairo language, not Solidity)
• Polygon zkEVM: Type 2 (direct Solidity compatibility)
• Optimistic rollups: Type 2-2.5 (nearly equivalent)

For developers choosing where to deploy in 2026, this compatibility spectrum directly impacts development time, audit costs, and composability with existing protocols.

Real Performance: On-Chain Data Analysis

Theory is one thing—actual network performance is what matters. Here’s what on-chain data reveals about Polygon zkEVM’s real-world usage patterns:

Transaction Volume Trends

According to Dune Analytics data for Q4 2025:

• Daily transactions: 150,000-300,000 (peak: 450,000 on October 15)
• Unique active addresses: 80,000-120,000 daily
• Average transaction value: $147 (median: $34)
• Failed transaction rate: 0.3% (industry low)

Growth trajectory: Transaction volume has grown 340% quarter-over-quarter since mainnet launch, indicating strong product-market fit beyond speculative activity.

Cost Analysis

Real transaction costs from Polygon zkEVM block explorers:

Critical nuance: These costs assume moderate Ethereum gas prices (30 gwei). During network congestion (100+ gwei), the savings become even more dramatic—often 99.5%+ reduction.

Protocol Deployments

Major protocols that have deployed on Polygon zkEVM include:

• DEXs: Uniswap V3, QuickSwap, Balancer
• Lending: Aave V3, Compound (planned)
• Bridges: Official Polygon bridge, LayerZero, Across
• Infrastructure: Chainlink, The Graph, Gelato

TVL distribution (per DeFiLlama): 45% in DEXs, 30% in lending, 15% in bridges, 10% in other protocols.

This diversified protocol ecosystem is a key signal—successful L2s need more than just DEXs to achieve sustainable growth. For comparison on how different DeFi protocols are performing across L2s, check our analysis of best DeFi protocols 2026.

How to Start Using Polygon zkEVM (2026 Guide)

Getting started with Polygon zkEVM takes about 10 minutes if you already use Ethereum. Here’s the step-by-step process:

Step 1: Configure Your Wallet

Add Polygon zkEVM network to MetaMask or your preferred wallet:

Network Details:

• Network Name: Polygon zkEVM
• RPC URL: https://zkevm-rpc.com
• Chain ID: 1101
• Currency Symbol: ETH
• Block Explorer: https://zkevm.polygonscan.com/

Most wallets now include Polygon zkEVM in their default network list—look for it under “Add Network” or “Custom Networks.”

Step 2: Bridge Assets

The official Polygon zkEVM bridge (bridge.zkevm.polygon.technology) supports:

• ETH (most common)
• WETH, USDC, USDT, DAI (stablecoins)
• Major ERC-20 tokens

Bridge process:

1. Connect your Ethereum wallet
2. Select asset and amount to bridge
3. Approve transaction on Ethereum (one-time)
4. Confirm bridge transaction (costs ~$5-10 in gas)
5. Wait for proof generation (30-60 minutes)
6. Claim on Polygon zkEVM (costs ~$0.10)

Alternative bridges with faster settlement:

• LayerZero: 5-10 minute bridging via liquidity pools
• Across Protocol: Optimistic bridging with 2-minute average times
• Orbiter Finance: Specialized for smaller amounts

Cost comparison: Official bridge is cheapest for amounts over $1,000. Third-party bridges are more cost-effective for smaller amounts due to their per-transaction fee structure.

Step 3: Get Test Funds (Optional)

Before bridging real assets, test with the Goerli zkEVM testnet:

• Faucet: https://faucet.polygon.technology/
• Testnet RPC: https://rpc.public.zkevm-test.net
• Test tokens available: ETH, USDC, USDT

Step 4: Interact with DeFi Protocols

Popular starting points on Polygon zkEVM:

For traders:

• QuickSwap: Native DEX with concentrated liquidity
• Uniswap V3: Familiar interface, full feature parity
• Balancer: Weighted pools and composable stable pools

For yield farmers:

• Aave V3: Lending and borrowing with 4-8% APY on stablecoins
• Gamma: Automated liquidity management for Uniswap V3
• Beefy Finance: Yield optimizer with auto-compounding

For NFT users:

• Polygon zkEVM NFT marketplaces launching in Q1 2026
• Current activity focused on commemorative mints and on-chain art

Advanced Use Cases: DeFi Strategies on Polygon zkEVM

Beyond basic trading and transfers, Polygon zkEVM enables sophisticated DeFi strategies that are economically unviable on Ethereum L1 due to gas costs.

Strategy 1: High-Frequency Yield Optimization

The opportunity: Automated yield strategies that compound returns multiple times daily become profitable when transaction costs drop from $50 to $0.50.

Implementation:

1. Deposit stablecoins into Aave V3 on Polygon zkEVM
2. Use a yield optimizer (Beefy, Yearn) to auto-compound interest
3. Compounding 4x daily increases APY by 0.5-1.2% vs. manual claiming

Real returns (based on November 2025 rates):

• Base Aave USDC APY: 5.2%
• With daily compounding: 6.1%
• With 4x daily compounding: 6.4%
• Cost of compounding: ~$1.50/month vs. $1,500/month on L1

Risk considerations: Smart contract risk, bridge risk during deposit/withdrawal. Stick to audited protocols with proven track records.

For more on maximizing DeFi yields across different protocols, see our guide to optimizing DeFi yields.

Strategy 2: Arbitrage Between L2s

The opportunity: Price discrepancies between Polygon zkEVM, Arbitrum, Optimism, and other L2s create arbitrage opportunities—but only profitable at low transaction costs.

Setup requirements:

• Funds on multiple L2s
• Fast bridge access (LayerZero, Across)
• Price monitoring (DexScreener, DEX APIs)

Example trade flow:

1. Detect USDC/ETH price difference between Polygon zkEVM and Arbitrum
2. Execute trade on cheaper L2
3. Bridge assets (2-5 minutes with optimistic bridges)
4. Execute opposite trade on expensive L2
5. Repeat when profitable opportunities appear

Profitability threshold: Need 0.15%+ price difference to cover bridge fees and slippage. Occurs 20-30 times daily according to MEV bot data.

Advanced note: Professional arbitrageurs use flash loans and atomic cross-chain swaps to remove bridge timing risk. This requires smart contract development skills but can scale to six-figure monthly revenue.

Strategy 3: Liquidity Provision with Active Management

The opportunity: Uniswap V3’s concentrated liquidity is more profitable on L2s because you can actively rebalance positions without gas costs destroying returns.

Implementation:

1. Provide liquidity to major pairs (ETH/USDC, MATIC/ETH)
2. Set tight ranges (±2-5% from current price)
3. Rebalance daily or when price moves out of range
4. Use Gamma or Arrakis for automated management

Historical performance (Q4 2025 data):

• Passive wide-range LP: 12% APY
• Active narrow-range LP (manual): 28% APY
• Automated active LP (Gamma): 22% APY
• Rebalancing cost: $5-10/month vs. $500-1,000/month on L1

Risk warning: Impermanent loss risk increases with narrow ranges. Best suited for stable pairs or trending markets. For understanding IL mechanics, reference our impermanent loss calculator guide.

Security Considerations and Risk Analysis

No technology is risk-free. Here’s an honest assessment of Polygon zkEVM’s security trade-offs based on audits and real-world testing.

Smart Contract Risks

Audit history: Polygon zkEVM has undergone audits by:

• Hexens (Q2 2023)
• Spearbit (Q3 2023)
• Internal security team (ongoing)

Known vulnerabilities: None critical. Medium-severity issues identified in early versions were patched before mainnet launch.

Ongoing monitoring: OpenZeppelin Defender monitors the zkEVM contracts for unusual activity. No security incidents reported since mainnet launch.

Bridge Security

The official Polygon zkEVM bridge is a critical component that holds all bridged assets. Security measures include:

• Multi-signature governance (8-of-13 threshold)
• Time delays on upgrades (7-day minimum)
• Third-party monitoring by ChainSecurity
• Bug bounty program (up to $2M for critical vulnerabilities)

Historical bridge hacks in the industry: Optimistic rollup bridges have lost $600M+ to exploits since 2020. zkRollup bridges have had zero successful exploits—the cryptographic proof requirement creates a stronger security model.

Risk mitigation: Never keep more on L2 than you’re willing to have locked for 7+ days in worst-case scenarios (though Polygon zkEVM has an emergency exit mechanism).

Sequencer Centralization

Currently, Polygon operates the zkEVM sequencer centrally. This creates two potential risks:

1. Censorship: Polygon could theoretically refuse to include certain transactions
2. Downtime: If sequencer goes offline, the network stops processing transactions

Mitigations in place:

• Forced transaction mechanism: Users can submit transactions directly to L1 if censored
• Planned decentralization: Multiple sequencer operators coming in 2026
• Emergency fallback: L1 can take over sequencing if main sequencer fails for 24+ hours

Historical performance: 99.9% uptime since launch. No censorship incidents. Compare this to optimistic rollups which have had sequencer downtime periods of 2-8 hours.

Zero-Knowledge Proof Risks

Proving system bugs: If the zkSNARK proof system has flaws, invalid state transitions could be accepted. This is the “unknown unknown” risk that keeps security researchers awake.

Mitigations:

• Polygon uses well-studied cryptographic primitives (not experimental)
• Multiple independent implementations of verifiers being developed
• Formal verification of critical components ongoing
• $2M+ bug bounty focused specifically on proof system

Track record: No successful attacks on zkSNARK systems in production (though academic vulnerabilities have been discovered and patched in research phase).

For deeper context on evaluating smart contract security, see our guide to reading smart contract audits.

The Economics of Polygon zkEVM

Understanding the token economics and incentive structures helps predict long-term sustainability—a critical factor often overlooked in scaling solution comparisons.

Fee Structure

User fees: You pay transaction fees in ETH on Polygon zkEVM. These fees cover:

• Sequencer operational costs (10-20% of fees)
• Proof generation costs (30-40% of fees)
• L1 data availability costs (30-40% of fees)
• Protocol treasury (10-20% of fees)

Fee dynamics: Unlike some L2s, Polygon zkEVM doesn’t use a separate token for gas fees. This eliminates the need to acquire and hold another asset, reducing friction for users.

MATIC Token Role

MATIC (Polygon’s native token) doesn’t directly secure zkEVM but plays several important roles:

1. Governance: MATIC holders vote on protocol upgrades
2. Staking: Validators stake MATIC to participate in sequencing (post-decentralization)
3. Fee burns: A portion of zkEVM fees may be used to buy back and burn MATIC

Market data (November 2025): MATIC trades at $0.73 with a market cap of $7.2B, making it a top-15 cryptocurrency by market cap. TVL across all Polygon chains: $1.8B.

Profitability Analysis

According to Polygon’s transparency reports, the zkEVM operates at near break-even at current usage levels:

Monthly economics (estimated Q4 2025):

• User fees collected: ~$400K
• Proof generation costs: ~$180K
• L1 settlement costs: ~$120K
• Operational costs: ~$80K
• Net margin: ~$20K (5%)

Scale economics: Proof costs stay relatively flat while fees scale linearly with usage. At 3x current transaction volume, the network would generate meaningful profits that could fund further development or be distributed to token holders.

Roadmap: What’s Coming in 2026

Polygon’s zkEVM roadmap provides signals about where the technology is headed:

Q1 2026: Performance Improvements

Target metrics:

• Proof generation time: 10-15 minutes (down from 30-60 minutes)
• Proof costs: $0.25 per batch (down from $0.50)
• TPS: 3,000+ (up from 2,000+)

Technical approach: Hardware acceleration using GPUs and FPGAs for proof generation. Early testing shows 3-4x speedups.

Q2 2026: Sequencer Decentralization

Implementation plan:

• Phase 1: 3-5 trusted sequencer operators
• Phase 2: Open validator set with MATIC staking
• Phase 3: Leader rotation and MEV mitigation

Why it matters: Decentralized sequencing eliminates single points of failure and censorship concerns. Critical for institutional adoption.

Q3 2026: Advanced Features

Planned additions:

• Native account abstraction (ERC-4337 support)
• Volitions (hybrid data availability)
• Cross-L2 messaging (direct communication with other zkEVMs)

Impact: These features position Polygon zkEVM as infrastructure for the next generation of dApps requiring sophisticated user experiences.

Q4 2026: Ecosystem Expansion

Focus areas:

• Gaming applications (high-throughput, low-cost)
• SocialFi platforms (micro-transactions)
• On-chain order books (DEX infrastructure)

Early signals: Major gaming studios in discussions to deploy on zkEVM due to transaction throughput capabilities. SocialFi apps launching in Q2 2026.

Comparing zkEVM Approaches: Polygon vs. zkSync vs. Scroll

The zkEVM space features multiple competing implementations. Understanding their differences helps evaluate which solution fits specific use cases.

Polygon zkEVM: Type 2 with Proprietary Proving

Strengths:

• Excellent EVM compatibility (99.5% of contracts work unchanged)
• Fast proof generation through custom hardware acceleration
• Strong ecosystem support from Polygon’s existing network
• Proven team with track record of shipping

Weaknesses:

• Centralized sequencer (though decentralization planned)
• Smaller TVL than some competitors
• Proprietary proving system (less academic scrutiny)

Best for: Developers who want to deploy existing Ethereum contracts with minimal changes and need fast finality.

zkSync Era: Type 4 with Custom VM

Strengths:

• Largest zkEVM by TVL ($800M+)
• Very low transaction costs ($0.08 average)
• Strong developer tooling
• Account abstraction built-in

Weaknesses:

• Requires custom compiler (not true EVM)
• Some Solidity features unsupported
• More complex for developers migrating from Ethereum

Best for: New projects willing to adapt code for optimal performance and features.

Scroll: Type 2 with Community Focus

Strengths:

• Academic rigor in design (Ethereum Foundation collaboration)
• Open-source proving system
• Strong focus on decentralization
• Growing ecosystem

Weaknesses:

• Newer than competitors (mainnet Q3 2023)
• Smaller ecosystem and TVL
• Higher transaction costs than some alternatives

Best for: Projects prioritizing decentralization and open-source infrastructure.

Data-Driven Comparison

Data: L2Beat, DeFiLlama, November 2025

Common Misconceptions About Polygon zkEVM

Clearing up confusion helps separate signal from noise in the crowded L2 narrative:

Myth 1: “Polygon zkEVM is just Polygon PoS rebranded”

Reality: These are completely separate networks. Polygon PoS is a side chain with its own validator set. Polygon zkEVM is a true Layer 2 rollup that inherits Ethereum’s security through cryptographic proofs. They share branding and the MATIC token but are architecturally distinct.

Why it matters: Polygon zkEVM has stronger security guarantees than Polygon PoS because it’s validated by Ethereum mainnet.

Myth 2: “Zero-knowledge proofs mean transactions are private”

Reality: “Zero-knowledge” refers to the mathematical property that you can prove something without revealing how you know it. In Polygon zkEVM, all transactions are still public on the blockchain—the “zero-knowledge” part applies to how the network proves transaction validity to Ethereum.

Privacy note: If you want transaction privacy, look at solutions like Aztec or Aleo, not general-purpose zkEVMs.

Myth 3: “zkEVMs are always slower than optimistic rollups”

Reality: While optimistic rollups can process transactions slightly faster (4,000 TPS vs. 2,000 TPS), zkEVMs provide faster finality. When you factor in the 7-day withdrawal period for optimistic rollups, zkEVMs are dramatically faster for practical use cases involving L1 settlement.

Myth 4: “You need to buy MATIC to use Polygon zkEVM”

Reality: You only need ETH. Transaction fees are paid in ETH, not MATIC. This is a key difference from some other L2s that require their native token for gas.

Integration Guide for Developers

Deploying to Polygon zkEVM as a developer takes minimal effort if you’re already building on Ethereum.

Smart Contract Deployment

Step-by-step process:

1. Configure Hardhat or Foundry:

// hardhat.config.js module.exports = { networks: { polygonZkEVM: { url: “https://zkevm-rpc.com”, accounts: [PRIVATE_KEY], chainId: 1101 } } };

1. Deploy as normal:

npx hardhat run scripts/deploy.js –network polygonZkEVM

1. Verify on explorer:

npx hardhat verify –network polygonZkEVM CONTRACT_ADDRESS

Compatibility notes: 99.5% of Solidity code works unchanged. Known incompatibilities:

• Some precompiled contracts (rare edge cases)
• Contracts using `SELFDESTRUCT` (deprecated in Ethereum anyway)
• Contracts assuming specific block times or gas limits

Frontend Integration

Update your web3 provider to support Polygon zkEVM:

// Add network to wallet await window.ethereum.request({ method: ‘wallet_addEthereumChain’, params: [{ chainId: ‘0x44D’, chainName: ‘Polygon zkEVM’, nativeCurrency: { name: ‘ETH’, symbol: ‘ETH’, decimals: 18 }, rpcUrls: [‘https://zkevm-rpc.com’], blockExplorerUrls: [‘https://zkevm.polygonscan.com/’] }] });

No changes needed to your contract interactions—all standard web3 calls work identically.

Testing and Debugging

Testnet resources:

• Faucet: Get free test ETH at faucet.polygon.technology
• RPC: https://rpc.public.zkevm-test.net
• Explorer: https://testnet-zkevm.polygonscan.com

Common issues:

• Gas estimation sometimes differs from Ethereum (usually 5-10% higher)
• Some opcodes have slightly different gas costs
• Proof generation failures (rare, usually due to exotic opcodes)

Debugging tools:

• Tenderly: Full support for Polygon zkEVM
• Hardhat: Native network support
• Remix: Works seamlessly with zkEVM testnet

Market Signals: What On-Chain Data Tells Us

Beyond the hype, what do real usage patterns reveal about Polygon zkEVM’s adoption trajectory?

Developer Activity

According to Electric Capital’s Developer Report Q4 2025:

• 47