[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  neato [@ox_neato](/creator/twitter/ox_neato) on x XXX followers Created: 2025-07-24 06:14:23 UTC Day four on Cysic Breakdown of Cysic vs. Traditional Proof Generation focusing on cost, speed, and efficiency: X. Cost ● Traditional Proof Generation: • Heavy computational requirements → high hardware costs (e.g., GPUs/CPUs) and electricity usage. • Scaling costs increase linearly as demand grows. ● Cysic: • Uses optimized hardware acceleration and proof aggregation. • Lowers proof generation costs by up to 10–100x due to specialized zero-knowledge hardware and parallelization. • Pay-per-proof model instead of maintaining costly infrastructure. X. Speed ● Traditional Proof Generation: • Proof generation can take minutes to hours for complex ZK circuits. • Latency issues limit real-time or large-scale use cases. ● Cysic: • Leverages hardware-accelerated ZK provers with GPUs, FPGAs, and custom ASICs. • Can produce proofs 10–50x faster, enabling near real-time verification. • Parallel proof generation allows high throughput for rollups and verifiable computation. X. Efficiency ● Traditional Proof Generation: • Software-based solutions often waste resources, have lower proof density, and don’t scale well. • High operational overhead for developers and node operators. ● Cysic: • Optimized for scalability and energy efficiency, producing more proofs per watt. • Streamlined infrastructure reduces the need for in-house prover setups. • Designed to handle Web3-scale demand (rollups, private smart contracts, verifiable ML) XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [faster](/topic/faster) [coins layer 2](/topic/coins-layer-2) [hardware](/topic/hardware) [cysic](/topic/cysic) [Post Link](https://x.com/ox_neato/status/1948265484127711363)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
neato @ox_neato on x XXX followers
Created: 2025-07-24 06:14:23 UTC
Day four on Cysic
Breakdown of Cysic vs. Traditional Proof Generation focusing on cost, speed, and efficiency:
X. Cost
● Traditional Proof Generation:
• Heavy computational requirements → high hardware costs (e.g., GPUs/CPUs) and electricity usage.
• Scaling costs increase linearly as demand grows.
● Cysic:
• Uses optimized hardware acceleration and proof aggregation.
• Lowers proof generation costs by up to 10–100x due to specialized zero-knowledge hardware and parallelization.
• Pay-per-proof model instead of maintaining costly infrastructure.
X. Speed
● Traditional Proof Generation:
• Proof generation can take minutes to hours for complex ZK circuits.
• Latency issues limit real-time or large-scale use cases.
● Cysic:
• Leverages hardware-accelerated ZK provers with GPUs, FPGAs, and custom ASICs.
• Can produce proofs 10–50x faster, enabling near real-time verification.
• Parallel proof generation allows high throughput for rollups and verifiable computation.
X. Efficiency
● Traditional Proof Generation:
• Software-based solutions often waste resources, have lower proof density, and don’t scale well.
• High operational overhead for developers and node operators.
● Cysic:
• Optimized for scalability and energy efficiency, producing more proofs per watt.
• Streamlined infrastructure reduces the need for in-house prover setups.
• Designed to handle Web3-scale demand (rollups, private smart contracts, verifiable ML)
XXX engagements
Related Topics faster coins layer 2 hardware cysic