The part that surprised me after spending time with @OpenGradient wasn't the hosting side. It was how often I found myself checking whether the verification step actually happened instead of assuming it did.
Inference feels fast enough most of the time, so it's easy to forget there's supposed to be proof attached. Then you notice yourself refreshing logs or comparing outputs because that extra layer isn't something your brain naturally trusts yet. It's a weird habit. Verification exists specifically so you don't have to rely on trust, but I still caught myself doing exactly that.

I kept thinking the friction was technical, but it felt more behavioral. If verification isn't immediately visible or obvious in the workflow, people skip over it mentally, even if it's working perfectly in the background. That's probably a bigger adoption hurdle than shaving another few hundred milliseconds off inference latency.

I've seen similar patterns in other crypto infrastructure where users care far more about perceived responsiveness than cryptographic guarantees. They only notice verification when something looks wrong.

The funny part is that once I deliberately started checking proofs instead of ignoring them, I stopped obsessing over whether a node was "probably honest." That shift happened after a few sessions, not instantly, and I don't think most people stick around long enough to notice it.
$OPG
#OPG
$SPCXB
$NVDAB
#KioxiaADRFallsOver14% #ModernaRisesOver12%