Summary: Proof markets let your apps “order a proof” the way they call an API—shifting ZK proving from a bespoke, capex-heavy capability into an on‑demand service with price, latency, and privacy guarantees. This guide shows decision‑makers how to design, budget, and ship production apps that outsource proving safely across today’s leading networks.

Proof Markets for Developers: Writing Apps That ‘Order Proofs’ On Demand

Decision‑makers often ask us a simple question: can my app just call out and get a ZK proof when it needs one? In 2025, the answer is yes—and the buying experience is converging on familiar cloud‑style patterns: job specs, SLAs, price/performance tiers, and multi‑provider failover. This article maps the current proof‑market landscape, shows how to wire an app to “order proofs,” and shares hard‑won best practices from recent mainnet and testnet launches.

What “proof markets” really are (for builders)

A proof market is a two‑sided marketplace that matches applications (buyers) with prover capacity (sellers) to generate zero‑knowledge proofs for a given computation, circuit, or zkVM program—on demand, with market‑driven price and latency. Think “render farm” or “serverless job,” but the output is a succinct, verifiable proof you can post on‑chain or verify off‑chain. (coinmarketcap.com)

Why this matters to execs:

Faster time‑to‑market: no cryptography team or custom hardware to ship v1.
Opex vs Capex: pay per proof, scale with demand, keep GPU burn off your balance sheet.
Optionality: swap vendors, add redundancy, or insource later without re‑architecting.

The 2025 landscape at a glance

Below are the networks your team will encounter most often when scoping an “order proofs” architecture. Each one differs in where it excels (latency, privacy, verification cost, hardware footprint, procurement model).

Succinct Prover Network (SP1 zkVM)
- What’s new: SP1 Hypercube proves most Ethereum blocks in under 12 seconds in lab and early production configurations; Succinct is rolling out a decentralized prover marketplace with provers competing on price/latency. (blog.succinct.xyz)
- Why care: real‑time block or application proofs and strong Rust/LLVM developer ergonomics. (blog.succinct.xyz)
RISC Zero Bonsai and Boundless
- What’s new: Bonsai is a production proving service with REST/SKD APIs; Boundless brings a decentralized compute marketplace with “Proof of Verifiable Work” and an incentivized testnet on Base as of July 2025. (dev.risczero.com)
- Why care: mature APIs, parallel GPU clusters, and a clear path from centralized service to decentralized market.
=nil; Foundation Proof Market
- What’s new: the original “Proof Market” branding and tooling, aimed at outsourcing proof generation across ecosystems; the team also pursues zk‑sharded L2 architecture. (coindesk.com)
- Why care: protocol‑first orientation and early ecosystem work across multiple chains.
Fermah Universal Proof Market (integrations with ZKsync + EigenLayer operators)
- What’s new: a “universal” matchmaker routes jobs across a decentralized operator set (often EigenLayer operators), adopted in ZKsync’s Elastic Network announcements this year. (hozk.io)
- Why care: multi‑scheme support (Groth16/PLONK/STARK/zkVM) and elastic job routing over restaked operators.
Lagrange Prover Network + AVS
- What’s new: decentralized prover network demos for ZKsync’s ZK stack and first ZK AVS live on EigenLayer mainnet. (lagrange.dev)
- Why care: institutional‑grade operators and AVS‑backed security.
Aligned Layer (verification layer, not a prover)
- What’s new: an EigenLayer AVS specializing in cheap, fast verification (teams prove elsewhere, verify via Aligned at ≤10% of typical L1 verification gas). (blog.alignedlayer.com)
- Why care: slash verification costs even if you keep your current prover(s).
Brevis coChain AVS (ZK coprocessor)
- What’s new: ZK coprocessor + AVS model that reduces coprocessing cost and brings historical state queries + custom compute. (blog.brevis.network)
EigenLayer as the “security & operator base”
- Context: AVS rollout has accelerated; major L2s (e.g., Mantle, ZKsync) adopting EigenDA and decentralized proving through AVSs. This underpins several proof‑market deployments and operator sets. (blockworks.co)

Core architecture: how an app “orders a proof”

At a high level, your app submits a job spec to a market, the market matches it to a prover (or set), the prover returns a proof plus metadata, and your verifier (on‑chain or off‑chain) checks it. When verification is on Ethereum, consider using a verification layer like Aligned to cut gas. (blog.alignedlayer.com)

A production‑grade flow looks like this:

Program/circuit artifact
- zkVM ELF (e.g., SP1 or RISC Zero guest), or a SNARK/STARK circuit.
Job spec
- program/circuit hash, proving scheme, recursion depth, max latency, bid cap, and witness transport (plain, encrypted, or TEE‑only).
Marketplace match
- auction or fixed‑price assignment; the better markets document auction semantics and penalties for timeouts.
Proving
- GPU/FPGA pool executes; may use recursion and batching.
Delivery
- proof + transcript + optional aggregation artifacts.
Verification
- on‑chain verifier, verification layer (Aligned), or off‑chain guard service.
Settlement and attestation
- payment, slashing for missed SLOs, TEE attestation report if using private proving.

Two specialized patterns to note in 2025:

Real‑time proving: SP1 Hypercube demonstrates sub‑12‑second Ethereum block proving under certain hardware clusters—useful for rollup base proofs, fast bridges, and oracle‑grade ZK. (blog.succinct.xyz)
Private proving via TEEs: Succinct and Phala run zkVM provers inside GPU‑backed TEEs (H200 + Intel TDX), so witness data never leaves an enclave; developers get remote attestation alongside the proof. (blog.succinct.xyz)

Practical example #1: Order a proof from Bonsai (RISC Zero)

This is the fastest way to ship an MVP that buys proofs “as a service.”

Build your zkVM program (guest) and host

Use the RISC Zero toolchain to compile your Rust code to the zkVM guest.

Switch to remote proving

Set environment variables and call the default prover; Bonsai parallelizes across GPU workers.

export BONSAI_API_KEY=<YOUR_API_KEY>
export BONSAI_API_URL=https://api.bonsai.xyz
cargo run --release

In host code (Rust), the “default_prover()” automatically routes to Bonsai when the env vars are set; Bonsai enforces quotas like concurrent proofs, cycle budget, and per‑proof executor cycle limits. (dev.risczero.com)

Retrieve a SNARK‑wrapped proof for on‑chain verification

Bonsai can wrap RISC Zero’s STARK in a Groth16 SNARK for cheaper on‑chain verification. (dev.risczero.com)

Verify on‑chain

Use the Groth16 verifier (e.g., a standard Solidity verifier contract) to check the proof in your L1/L2 app, or post to a verification layer like Aligned to minimize gas. (blog.alignedlayer.com)

Operational notes:

Bonsai advertises 99.9% uptime and auto‑scaling GPU clusters for enterprise workloads. Ask sales for current SLOs and regional footprints. (risc0.com)

Practical example #2: Leverage the Succinct Prover Network for low‑latency jobs

When your requirement is “prove fast and decentralize the supply side,” Succinct is the obvious candidate.

What you specify to the marketplace:

Program hash: SP1 program compiled from Rust/LLVM.
Latency ceiling: e.g., p95 ≤ 12s for block‑equivalent workloads in supported environments.
Price cap and trust flags: non‑private (standard) or private proving in TEEs.

Under the hood:

Succinct’s network pairs your job to a prover set; SP1 Hypercube handles the proving with a new multilinear‑polynomial‑based system, targeting up to 5× latency/cost improvements over prior versions. (blog.succinct.xyz)

When privacy is required:

Opt into Succinct Private Proving. Your witness is processed exclusively inside TEE‑backed GPU nodes (H200 + Intel TDX). You receive both the ZK proof and an attestation report. (blog.succinct.xyz)

Governance and decentralization:

Succinct has announced PROVE as the native token for its decentralized prover network, adding open participation and cryptoeconomic alignment to the marketplace mechanics. (theblock.co)

Practical example #3: Split responsibilities—prove anywhere, verify on Aligned

Many teams keep their existing proving stack (in‑house or external) and route verification to Aligned to reduce cost and contention on Ethereum.

You ship the same proof you already generate.
Your contract calls Aligned’s verification interface; Aligned verifies more cheaply than typical L1 verification and posts results where you need them (Ethereum or a DA layer you choose). Teams report ≤10% of prior verification costs in Aligned’s materials; validate with current gas and your proof scheme. (blog.alignedlayer.com)

When to use this pattern:

You’re locked into a proof system for now (e.g., Groth16/PLONK/zkVM) but want instant L1 gas savings and throughput headroom.

Practical example #4: Decentralized operator sets via EigenLayer AVSs

If your risk model prefers “market competition + restaked security,” integrate with a proof network that runs as an EigenLayer AVS (or whose operators are restakers).

ZKsync’s recent updates highlight decentralized proving over multiple AVSs and EigenDA for data availability. This reduces single‑vendor risk and adds crypto‑economic security from restaked ETH. (blockworks.co)
Lagrange launched as the first ZK AVS on EigenLayer mainnet, demonstrating a path for ZK verification/proving services to run under shared security. (medium.com)
Brevis coChain AVS brings a ZK coprocessor under AVS security with large restaking commitments. (blog.brevis.network)

Witness privacy is now a first‑class requirement

Zero‑knowledge hides data from the verifier—not the prover. If a third‑party prover can see your witness, sensitive details (amounts, strategies, credentials) may leak at the infrastructure layer.

Two production‑ready mitigations:

TEE‑based private proving: run the prover inside GPU‑backed TEEs; get remote attestation plus the proof. Succinct + Phala offer this today for SP1. (blog.succinct.xyz)
In‑app client proving on capable devices: recent benchmarks show modern smartphones proving non‑trivial workloads in seconds, allowing you to keep witnesses on user devices and outsource only aggregation or recursion. Evaluate this model where UX tolerates device work. (arxiv.org)

Hardware acceleration and the throughput frontier

Proof markets are racing the same curve you are: faster cycles, cheaper proofs, broader coverage.

SP1 Hypercube parallelizes hundreds of millions of RISC‑V cycles per block across GPU clusters; open‑sourced verifier and prover code are rolling out with audits. Plan for continuous latency improvements. (theblock.co)
Dedicated chips (e.g., Keccak acceleration for Valida zkVM) are emerging; expect mixed fleets (GPU/FPGA/ASIC) in the supply side of markets to drop your $/proof further. (blog.alignedlayer.com)

Integration blueprint: from POC to production in 4–6 weeks

Week 1: Choose your proving mode(s)

MVP: Bonsai REST/SDK for fastest path. (dev.risczero.com)
Low‑latency and decentralization: Succinct Prover Network (with or without Private Proving). (blog.succinct.xyz)
Verification savings: route verification to Aligned. (blog.alignedlayer.com)

Week 2: Define the job spec schema

Program/circuit hash, input schema, max cycles (if zkVM), timeout, refund policy, escrow account, privacy flag (TEE‑only), and allowed regions.

Week 3: Implement transport + attestation

Witness transport: encrypt at rest + in transit; for TEE jobs, verify attestation before sending witness (reject non‑attested endpoints). (blog.succinct.xyz)
Add retry/backoff and circuit‑breaker for marketplace timeouts.

Week 4: Verification contracts + analytics

On‑chain verifier or Aligned integration; roll up proof receipts and latencies into a metrics table for p50/p95 SLOs. (blog.alignedlayer.com)

Weeks 5–6: Multi‑market failover

Add a second provider (e.g., Succinct + Bonsai, or Fermah‑backed AVSs where available); standardize receipt format so switching providers doesn’t touch business logic. (hozk.io)

Cost, latency, and SLO modeling (how to budget realistically)

Use a bottom‑up model:

Prover price: per‑job or per‑cycle (zkVM) + premiums for low‑latency SLAs or TEE privacy.
Verification cost: on‑chain gas or Aligned fee; verification layers can reduce L1 gas by an order of magnitude depending on scheme. Validate with your proof type and calldata size. (blog.alignedlayer.com)
DA cost: if posting to EigenDA or similar; bundle proofs when possible to amortize costs (some networks batch/aggregate proofs natively). (blockworks.co)

Latency tips:

For “UX‑critical under 2s” paths, prove locally (device) and outsource recursion; for “ops‑critical under 12s,” target SP1 Hypercube‑class clusters; for “back‑office minutes,” any market works. (blog.succinct.xyz)

Security and compliance checklists that survive audits

Threat model highlights

Prover honesty: rely on cryptographic verification (always), plus market‑level slashing/escrow and signed receipts with nonces.
Witness confidentiality: require TEE‑attested proving for sensitive inputs; log and pin attestation measurements per release. (blog.succinct.xyz)
Supply chain: prefer markets with multiple independent operators (e.g., AVS‑backed sets on EigenLayer). (blockworks.co)

Controls to implement

Determinism checks: pin compiler versions and include proof‑of‑program hash in your on‑chain verifier to prevent substitution attacks.
Formal verification posture: track vendors investing in formal methods for their zkVM/circuits (e.g., SP1 circuit determinism work with Veridise/Picus). Ask for artifacts in the DDQ. (hozk.io)
Incident response: define timeouts and auto‑failover thresholds; maintain a “kill‑switch” to local proving for safety‑critical actions.

Build vs. buy: decision guide

Choose Bonsai if you want the shortest path to production with explicit quotas, REST/SDK, and known throughput. Shift to Boundless when you need decentralized sourcing. (dev.risczero.com)
Choose Succinct if your app benefits from ultra‑low‑latency proving and Rust‑native workflows; enable Private Proving for sensitive workloads. (blog.succinct.xyz)
Choose Aligned if your main bottleneck is verification cost on Ethereum—keep your existing prover and drop verification spend. (blog.alignedlayer.com)
Choose an AVS‑backed market (Lagrange, Fermah‑integrated operators) when decentralization and crypto‑economic security drive your requirements. (medium.com)
Choose =nil; Proof Market when you need protocol‑level integration and cross‑ecosystem support with a vendor that has specialized in marketplace primitives from the outset. (coindesk.com)

Emerging best practices from teams shipping in 2025

Separate “witness‑handling” from “prover‑selection”
- Keep a small, audited module that handles witness encryption/attestation and an independent module that picks markets and bids. This lets you rotate providers without revalidating privacy controls.
Multi‑market receipts
- Normalize receipts: program hash, scheme, witness commitment, timing metadata, prover identity, TEE attestation hash (if used). This powers fraud analysis and SLA reconciliation later.
Verification indirection
- Even if you will verify on L1 long‑term, add a “verification router” contract so you can switch between L1 verification and verification layers like Aligned without redeploying app logic. (blog.alignedlayer.com)
Operator diversity
- Prefer provider sets with named, independent operators (many AVSs publish operator rosters), and track concentration risk. (medium.com)
Hardware awareness
- Ask vendors for GPU types, memory footprints, and batching strategies; match your recursion depth to the supply side’s sweet spot to minimize tail latencies (e.g., SP1 Hypercube clusters for block‑class workloads). (blog.succinct.xyz)

A note on mobile and edge proving

If your UX can afford on‑device work, client‑side proving is no longer science fiction. Recent at‑scale experiments show modern smartphones can generate proofs in under five seconds for certain workloads, enabling private client‑side proving with server‑side aggregation. Use markets for aggregation/recursion or for heavy proofs outside the device’s thermal envelope. (arxiv.org)

Putting it together: a reference “order a proof” job spec

Use this schema (adapt to your provider):

{
  "program_hash": "0xSP1_or_RISC0_program_commitment",
  "scheme": "zkvm-sp1|risc0-stark+snark|groth16|plonk|stark",
  "witness_transport": "tee_only|encrypted|plain_devnet",
  "max_latency_ms": 12000,
  "price_cap_usd": 1.75,
  "recursion": { "depth": 2, "aggregate": true },
  "delivery": { "format": "proof+public_inputs+transcript", "callback_url": "https://example.com/cb" },
  "verification_target": "aligned|ethereum|other_da",
  "attestation": { "required": true, "tee": "intel-tdx+h200", "measurement": "sha256:..." },
  "escrow": { "network": "ethereum", "payer": "0x...", "refund_on_timeout_ms": 15000 }
}

For Bonsai, translate to REST/SDK parameters (cycles/quota, executor limits, parallelism). (dev.risczero.com)
For Succinct, specify SP1 program hash, latency ceiling, and privacy flag; the network handles auction/matching. (blog.succinct.xyz)
For Aligned, target verification and pass through the delivered proof from your chosen prover. (blog.alignedlayer.com)

Where this is going next

Expect three shifts over the next 12 months:

Latency race → “sub‑block” classes: Real‑time proving becomes table stakes for L1/L2 infra, unlocking designs that assumed proofs were too slow yesterday. (blog.succinct.xyz)
Privacy by default: TEE‑backed private proving and per‑job attestations become must‑have checkboxes for enterprise buyers and privacy products. (blog.succinct.xyz)
Restaked operator economies: More proof networks will anchor to EigenLayer‑style security and shared operator pools, standardizing SLAs and slashing. (blockworks.co)

How 7Block Labs can help

We’ve implemented the patterns above across L2s, cross‑chain bridges, and privacy‑preserving apps. If you want:

a four‑week pilot that buys proofs from two markets with privacy preserved and verification costs minimized;
a procurement‑ready SOW with measurable SLOs, receipts, and audit‑grade controls; or
a path to mix local proofs, TEEs, and markets without rewriting your app,

we can stand up the stack with your team and hit production confidence fast.

If your mental model for proofs is still “research,” proof markets will change that. Treat them like any other critical cloud dependency—pick your providers, define SLAs, secure your witnesses, and start shipping.