Sorry, but this information is simply incorrect by orders of magnitude. (Just woke up, time to put out some facts). SP1 is blazing fast and uniquely supports precompiles for keccak256 and full secp256k1 acceleration, giving it a 10x speedup that makes the costs of full ZK proving affordable. OP Succinct's fixed proving costs are between $1000-$3000 a month, NOT $1M a year. The proving cost scalability is also wildly off. Based on recent SP1 performance: • ETH transfer: $0.0004 (4/100 of a cent!) • ERC-20 transfer: $0.0007 (7/100 of a cent!) • DEX swap: $0.004 (4/10 of a cent!) This comes out to $1000s per month, NOT millions per year. Not sure where the numbers in this chart come from (maybe its from benchmarking their own zkVM), but remember to DYOR and talk to us directly about OP Succinct and what it costs. We have several teams who are already running OP Succinct testnets and have their mainnets scheduled to go live soon. The mission to make every rollup a ZK rollup continues.

Tim, I really respect you and your engineering team. You all are really smart, which is why it's hard to feel like any of this is in good faith: • A few weeks ago, we put out new numbers for proving costs. Members of your team replied to that tweet, so I know you guys saw it, and you could have cited those. xitter.cf/JacobEv3rly/status/184… We have since improved SP1's perf further and gotten to the numbers I reference in my most recent tweet (release coming soon)! • As @fede_intern mentioned, a blog post from 2 months ago in a space that moves very quickly is outdated (your team knows this very well): xitter.cf/fede_intern/status/185… He ran the stack himself and arrived at numbers an order of magnitude better than the above: xitter.cf/fede_intern/status/185… • Even when taking numbers from an outdated blog post, in the same table you cite, for Base we have numbers of 0.61 cents/tx. Why take the highest number out of all of them? • Our post doesn't reference numbers for "fixed proving cost" (it's simplified, for readability), so I'm not sure where that number came from at all. Unfortunately, it's totally off. In my reply, I simply wanted to clarify what costs we offer today, for any potential customers that might have the wrong info. Taking a step back, all of this Twitter back and forth is just a waste of time for both of our teams and the space. We're focused on actually deploying our stack and having people use it. The costs I cited in my reply are what we offer to real customers today. And they're rapidly getting better. Now that our info is out there, will try to not engage any further on this topic and focus on shipping, thanks.