Deploying Smart Contracts on zkSync: Specifics, Tools, Tips

Our engineers often see developers porting EVM contracts to zkSync without changes — and get surprises: CREATE2 doesn't work, gas goes 3x higher than expected, verification fails due to bytecode incompatibility. In this article, we break down how to correctly deploy zkSync smart contracts on zkSync Era: with zksolc, EraVM, Native Account Abstraction, and the two-dimensional gas model. Deploying smart contracts zkSync requires understanding these differences.

Problems We Solve

Bytecode incompatibility. zksolc generates EraVM bytecode, not EVM. If you don't specify factory dependencies, CREATE (and CREATE2) simply won't work — you need to declare all contracts created from code in advance. Gas model. zkSync uses two-dimensional gas: regular gas for execution and gasPerPubdata for publishing data to L1. When deploying a heavy contract (e.g., with large constructors), the final cost can be 2–3 times higher than on Ethereum Mainnet if you don't optimize the payload. Lack of documentation. Many don't know about Native Account Abstraction zkSync and miss the chance to implement smart accounts with custom validation directly at the protocol level, without a separate entrypoint.

If you've faced these issues, contact us — we'll help.

How We Do It

We use a proven stack: Hardhat zkSync plugin (for complex projects) or Foundry zkSync (for quick prototypes). We configure the optimizer settings (size/speed/balanced) based on project specifics — they affect contract size by up to 40% and gas usage by up to 50%. Below is a tool comparison:

Foundry zkSync, by our measurements, deploys contracts 2–3 times faster due to direct transaction submission, but Hardhat gives more detailed control over factory dependencies and verification.

The size mode reduces contract size by 40% compared to balanced mode, but increases execution gas by 20%, making it ideal for rarely-called contracts.

zksolc and Its Importance

The zksolc compiler converts Solidity into bytecode for the custom EraVM. This means:

• Standard patterns (CREATE2 for deterministic deployment) require explicit factory dependencies. Without them, deployment fails with ContractDeployedWithoutFactoryDep.
• The SELFDESTRUCT opcode does not destroy the contract — zkSync follows EIP-6049 and returns an error.
• PUSH0 may not be supported in older zksolc versions, breaking contracts with pragma ^0.8.19. In such cases, use pragma ^0.8.13 or add a fallback.

ZkSync Developer Guide states: 'Factory dependencies must be declared for all contracts created via CREATE.'

Deploying via Hardhat

Install the plugin and configure the config:

// hardhat.config.ts
import { HardhatUserConfig } from 'hardhat/config'
import '@matterlabs/hardhat-zksync'

const config: HardhatUserConfig = {
  zksolc: {
    version: 'latest',
    settings: {
      optimizer: {
        enabled: true,
        mode: '3',
      },
    },
  },
  networks: {
    zkSyncMainnet: {
      url: 'https://mainnet.era.zksync.io',
      ethNetwork: 'mainnet',
      zksync: true,
      verifyURL: 'https://zksync2-mainnet-explorer.zksync.io/contract_verification',
    },
    zkSyncTestnet: {
      url: 'https://sepolia.era.zksync.dev',
      ethNetwork: 'sepolia',
      zksync: true,
      verifyURL: 'https://explorer.sepolia.era.zksync.dev/contract_verification',
    },
  },
  solidity: '0.8.24',
}

export default config

Deployment script using Deployer:

import { Wallet, Provider } from 'zksync-ethers'
import { Deployer } from '@matterlabs/hardhat-zksync'
import { HardhatRuntimeEnvironment } from 'hardhat/types'

export default async function (hre: HardhatRuntimeEnvironment) {
  const provider = new Provider(hre.network.config.url)
  const wallet = new Wallet(process.env.DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY!, provider)
  const deployer = new Deployer(hre, wallet)
  
  const artifact = await deployer.loadArtifact('MyContract')
  const deploymentFee = await deployer.estimateDeployFee(artifact, [])
  console.log(`Estimated deploy fee: ${ethers.formatEther(deploymentFee)} ETH`)
  
  const contract = await deployer.deploy(artifact, [])
  await contract.waitForDeployment()
  console.log(`Deployed to: ${await contract.getAddress()}`)
}

Run: npx hardhat deploy-zksync --script deploy.ts --network zkSyncMainnet

Deploying via Foundry

Install Foundry zkSync and run:

curl -L https://raw.githubusercontent.com/matter-labs/foundry-zksync/main/install-foundry-zksync | bash
forge create src/MyContract.sol:MyContract \
  --rpc-url https://mainnet.era.zksync.io \
  --private-key $PRIVATE_KEY \
  --zksync \
  --constructor-args "arg1" 123

Verification via API is done by sending a POST request to https://zksync2-mainnet-explorer.zksync.io/contract_verification with a JSON body.

Native Account Abstraction in zkSync

Native AA works at the protocol level — every account can be a smart contract. To implement it, you need to implement the IAccount interface:

import "@matterlabs/zksync-contracts/l2/system-contracts/interfaces/IAccount.sol";

contract MyAccount is IAccount {
    function validateTransaction(
        bytes32 _txHash,
        bytes32 _suggestedSignedHash,
        Transaction calldata _transaction
    ) external payable override returns (bytes4 magic) {
        // custom validation
    }
    
    function executeTransaction(
        bytes32 _txHash,
        bytes32 _suggestedSignedHash,
        Transaction calldata _transaction
    ) external payable override {
        // execution
    }
}

This saves up to 30% gas compared to ERC-4337 due to the absence of a separate entrypoint contract.

Why zkSync Requires Special Gas Optimization

Two-dimensional gas is a key feature. gasPerPubdata can account for up to 40% of transaction cost. Optimize calldata: avoid long string arguments and arrays in constructors. Use the 'size' optimization mode to save space if the contract is deployed once and rarely called. Understanding the gas model zkSync is crucial for cost optimization.

Typical Mistakes When Deploying on zkSync

1. Missing factory dependencies — the most common cause of deployment failure. For every contract created via CREATE/CREATE2, you must add its address to the dependencies array during deployment.
2. Ignoring two-dimensional gas — gas for publishing data (gasPerPubdata) can account for up to 40% of transaction cost.
3. Using unsupported opcodes — SELFDESTRUCT, PUSH0, some versions of DELEGATECALL may not work or work differently. Always test on testnet.

What's Included in Deployment Work?

Step 1. Analysis and audit of existing contracts for zkSync compatibility. We check on-chain and off-chain security, identify problematic opcodes. Step 2. Setting up the zksolc compiler and optimizing the gas model. We select the optimization mode and configure factory dependencies. Step 3. Preparing deployment scripts (Hardhat/Foundry). Includes gas estimation, factory dependencies, network configuration. Step 4. Contract verification zkSync on the block explorer. We use the hardhat-zksync-verify plugin or direct API calls. Step 5. Writing deployment documentation and operational recommendations. We record all parameters and dependencies. Step 6. Technical support during launch (2 weeks). We help integrate the contract into interfaces.

With 7+ years of blockchain experience and over 200 smart contracts deployed, our team ensures a 100% success rate on over 50 L2 deployments. For complex projects, we add formal verification using solc-verify or Certora.

Deployment cost for a typical ERC-20 contract starts at $199. Our optimization can save you up to $300 per month on gas fees.

Timeline: 1 to 5 days depending on complexity.

Get a consultation — contact us for a free audit of your contract's zkSync compatibility. Turnkey contract deployment with compatibility guarantee.

Blockchain Infrastructure Deployment: Nodes, RPC, Indexing

Subgraph fell at 3:47 AM. By morning users saw outdated balances, transactions "hung" in the UI, support received 47 tickets in an hour. Cause: the handler in the subgraph failed on a transaction with a non-standard event log — and the entire index stopped. We have encountered such situations dozens of times. Our experience shows: blockchain infrastructure does not forgive gaps in observability. Guaranteeing uptime without multi-layered monitoring and fault-tolerant architecture is impossible. Over 8 years working with Ethereum, Polygon, and Solana, we have developed an approach that allows predictable deployment of infrastructure of any scale — from a single node to a multichain grid with dozens of subgraphs.

RPC Layer Architecture

Every dApp interaction with the blockchain goes through RPC — the JSON-RPC API provided by a node. Three options:

Managed providers — Alchemy, QuickNode, Infura, Ankr. Minimal operational costs, SLA, built-in monitoring. Limits: rate limits (Alchemy Free: 300 RU/sec), vendor lock, potential downtime during provider incidents. For most projects — the right choice at the start.

Self-owned nodes — full control, no rate limits, no third-party dependence. Cost: archive Ethereum node requires 2.5–3TB SSD, a strong server, and DevOps support. Sync from scratch on Ethereum via Geth/Nethermind — 3–7 days. Justified under high load or latency requirements.

Hybrid — self-owned node as primary, managed provider as fallback. Standard for protocols with high TVL. Proper load balancing can reduce costs by 20–30% compared to pure managed setup. Under high monthly request volume, hybrid saves significantly.

How to Set Up an RPC Layer Without a Single Point of Failure?

At least two providers, DNS round-robin with health check every 5 seconds, automatic fallback when latency >500 ms. In practice, this gives 99.99% availability during any provider failure. For protocols with high TVL, we recommend a custom HA-proxy (nginx or Envoy) in front of two managed providers.

Why Is a Hybrid RPC Scheme More Cost-Effective Than Pure Managed?

At high request volumes, managed providers can be very expensive; a hybrid using a self-owned node as primary and a managed fallback cuts costs significantly without losing SLA.

Ethereum Node Clients

Execution clients: Geth (most used), Nethermind (C#, fast sync), Besu (Java, enterprise), Erigon (fastest sync, efficient archive mode ~2TB instead of 3TB).

Consensus clients (post-Merge): Lighthouse (Rust), Prysm (Go), Teku (Java), Nimbus (Nim). Each node after The Merge requires a pair of execution + consensus clients.

For DevOps: eth-docker — Docker Compose configurations for all client combinations. Setting up monitoring via Grafana + Prometheus is mandatory; a standard dashboard is available in each client's repository.

The Graph: Event Indexing

The Graph Protocol — decentralized indexing. A subgraph describes which events from which contracts to index and how to transform them into a GraphQL schema.

Subgraph structure:

• subgraph.yaml — manifest: contract addresses, startBlock, events to handle
• schema.graphql — GraphQL schema of entities
• src/mapping.ts — AssemblyScript event handlers

dataSources:
  - kind: ethereum
    name: UniswapV3Pool
    network: mainnet
    source:
      address: "0x88e6A0c2dDD26FEEb64F039a2c41296FcB3f5640"
      abi: UniswapV3Pool
      startBlock: 12370624
    mapping:
      eventHandlers:
        - event: Swap(indexed address,indexed address,int256,int256,uint160,uint128,int24)
          handler: handleSwap

AssemblyScript handlers — not TypeScript. No nullable types, no closures, no many standard APIs. An error in the handler stops the subgraph indexing on that transaction. Important: add try-catch for operations that can fail (e.g., store.get() for an entity that may not exist).

How to Avoid Subgraph Indexing Stops?

Graph Node logs are monitored in real-time; on hasIndexingErrors = true an alert fires and an automatic node restart (via systemd or Kubernetes). Typical downtime on error — 150–300 seconds to recover. Additionally, for production we set up a watchdog that restarts Graph Node if subgraph lag exceeds 50 blocks.

Choosing Between Hosted Service and Decentralized Network

Graph Hosted Service (free, centralized) is deprecated in favor of Subgraph Studio + Graph Network. For production: deploy on Graph Network with GRT curation signal — the subgraph gets indexers proportional to curation.

Alternatives to The Graph: Ponder (TypeScript, self-hosted, easier to debug), Envio (ultra-fast indexer, supports EVM + non-EVM), Subsquid (TypeScript, own network), Moralis Streams (managed, webhook-based). Our experience shows: for high-load projects with unique logic, Ponder or Envio are more effective — they give full control over the process and do not require GRT tokenomics.

Webhooks and Real-Time Notifications

Alchemy Webhooks and QuickNode Streams allow receiving events in real-time via HTTP webhook or WebSocket. For monitoring addresses, new transactions, mints — this is faster than polling RPC.

Tenderly — platform for monitoring and alerts. You can set up an alert for a specific contract event, balance change, function call with certain parameters. Transaction simulation via Tenderly API is invaluable for debugging.

Monitoring and Observability

Minimum monitoring stack for a protocol:

On-chain: OpenZeppelin Defender Sentinel — watches contract events, triggers webhook or Autotask when conditions are met. Forta Network — community-maintained bots detect anomalies (large withdrawals, flash loans, governance attacks).

Infrastructure: Grafana + Prometheus for nodes, Datadog or Grafana Cloud for managed metrics. Alerts on: node is 10+ blocks behind, RPC latency >500ms, subgraph lag >100 blocks.

Uptime: Better Uptime or PagerDuty on RPC endpoint and subgraph health endpoint (The Graph provides _meta { hasIndexingErrors, block { number } }).

Why Is Monitoring Without Tenderly Insufficient?

Tenderly provides transaction simulation and detailed traces — critical for debugging subgraph and smart contract errors. Forta focuses on network anomalies, not your infrastructure. The combination of Tenderly plus a custom Grafana dashboard covers 90% of incident scenarios.

Multichain Infrastructure

A protocol on 5 chains = 5 separate RPC endpoints, 5 subgraphs, 5 monitoring configs. Manageable but requires deployment automation.

For subgraph multi-network deployment: graph deploy --network mainnet, graph deploy --network arbitrum-one etc. with a unified codebase and network-specific addresses in separate config files.

Chainlink CCIP and LayerZero for cross-chain messaging require monitoring of both chains and transactions on intermediate relayers. A reorg on the source chain after a confirmed mint on the target chain is a classic bridge problem. Solution: wait for finality (on Ethereum ~15 minutes after Merge for economic finality) before confirming on the target chain.

Infrastructure Setup Process

1. Audit current stack — determine chains, request volume, latency and availability requirements.
2. Architecture design — select providers, load balancing, redundancy.
3. Subgraph development — manifest → schema → handlers → testing on local Graph Node → deploy to testnet → mainnet.
4. Monitoring configuration — Tenderly alerts, Grafana dashboard, PagerDuty integration.
5. Documentation and runbook — what to do when: subgraph falls behind, RPC downtime, node desync.
6. Handover to operations — team training, access transfer, first month support.

What's Included

• Deployment of managed or self-hosted Ethereum, Polygon, BNB Chain nodes
• RPC layer setup with primary/fallback and load balancing
• Subgraph development and deployment for your protocol
• Monitoring connection (Tenderly, Grafana, alerts)
• Runbook and operations documentation
• Team training (up to 4 hours online)
• 30-day support after delivery

Timeline

All projects are managed in a GitHub/GitLab repository with CI/CD; configuration code stays with you. Order infrastructure deployment — we'll show how to cut costs by 20–30% without losing reliability. Get a consultation — we'll demonstrate how we deployed infrastructure for a protocol with large TVL on Ethereum and Arbitrum. Contact us.