STARK proofs, due to their succinctness, seem the only viable candidate for recursive proofs. Recursive proofs, where proofs can be made to verify other proofs, can provide a seemingly optimal scalability solution. Are community members currently developing a blockchain (or Ethereum extension) to implement such a solution? I don’t know of one, and I see no reason to wait, because STARKs are already fully developed. I’m confused why sharding, a tough concept to implement elegantly, is being pursued so vigorously when recursive proofs are already feasible. I don’t even see much discussion on recursive proofs. Are there legitimate concerns regarding recursive proofs, or is the lack of activity due to a lack of sufficient mathematical expertise in the community?

# Are STARKs ready for recursion?

**miles2045**#2

Vitalik commented on some of the reasons why recursive STARKs aren’t viable for blockchain scaling in this thread below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/690y1u/scaling_tezos_in_which_we_do_not_pursue_sharding/

However, I am wondering if recursive STARKs can be used for *hashgraph* scaling

Thanks for the link. Recursive proofs might not immediately solve data availability, but neither do they make the problem any harder to solve. Though it reintroduces need for trust, a partial solution would involve trusting a set of registered nodes with good reputation to correctly report on whether data is available. Any proof that changes the state would first require the signatures of a certain portion of these nodes.

**GuthL**#4

If the problem is data availability, could recursive STARK at least be useful to speedup the download of the latest state of the chain for light clients?

**vbuterin**#5

Recursive STARKs don’t solve data availability in any system. I don’t think hashgraphs over any improvement over more structured forms of DAGs including chains in this regard.