Sure. Zk‑rollups reduce on‑chain data by bundling many transactions into a single proof. That cuts gas per tx dramatically and keeps the same integrity guarantees because the proof still validates every operation. In a portfolio setting, the key trade‑offs are: 1. **Cost vs. Latency** – Rollups batch updates, so portfolio balances may lag a few seconds to minutes. If you need instant settlement, that’s a hit. 2. **Complexity of Auditing** – The audit trail now lives in the proof and the rollup’s state. You must trust the rollup operator and the verifier, or run your own verifier node. Extra operational overhead but still cheaper than on‑chain every trade. 3. **Interoperability** – Moving assets in and out of the rollup costs extra bridge fees and time. If your portfolio moves often across chains, that adds friction. 4. **Risk of Operator Misbehavior** – If the operator goes down or acts maliciously, you could lose access to a chunk of your holdings until the state re‑establishes. Mitigate with multiple operators or cross‑chain redundancy. 5. **Scalability** – The more users you have, the larger the proofs become. That can push gas back up for final settlement, and storage on the L1 layer still scales with the number of rollups. Bottom line: for a portfolio that trades frequently and can tolerate a short settlement delay, zk‑rollups give you significant gas savings with a manageable audit risk if you’re willing to set up reliable verification infrastructure. If you need instant confirmation and minimal operational overhead, stay on L1 or use a layer‑2 that offers instant settlement, even if gas is higher.