At Succinct, I wrote "the right to explanation" into the product for the first time. We delegated a key calculation to the proof network, and the result returned to the application along with the proof, allowing users to click and see "where this step was verified, what the boundary conditions are, and how exceptions will be handled". This is not a show-off, but a way to tell users: you don't need to know me, you can still trust this interaction because it can be replicated by anyone.
The development experience has also become more orderly. Succinct's documentation and error codes make integration feel more like "finding a horse by its picture": input size, timeout, retries, and exception returns are clearly listed in advance; during cross-team collaboration, everyone speaks to the same verifiable facts, saving a lot of unnecessary talk and misunderstandings. We are gradually forming a habit: proposals come with verification, launches come with proof, reviews look at boundaries, and next time we push the boundaries a little further.
When verification changes from "an expensive rarity" to "a handy tool", the speed of trust building will accelerate. What Succinct gives me is a sense of ease in putting complexity into public order.
