Sui Vs. Aptos: Competitive Analysis And Price Prediction

Summary We compare Sui and Aptos across blockchain performance, scalability, ecosystems, and trading advantages while projecting SUI to hit $16 and APT $22 by the end of 2025. While the future blockbuster crypto applications are uncertain, Sui and Aptos stand out as strong contenders for attracting the blockchain users of tomorrow. We believe that Aptos’s edge in designed flexibility and arguably more robust chain architecture may prove to be competitive advantages. We compare Sui and Aptos across blockchain performance, scalability, ecosystems, and trading advantages while projecting SUI to hit $16 and APT $22 by the end of 2025. Please note that VanEck has positions in Sui (SUI-USD) and Aptos (APT-USD) Sui and Aptos: Origins and Overview Previously, we discussed the potential of Ethereum ( ETH-USD ) and Solana ( SOL-USD ) to onboard billions of users to crypto. While both ecosystems are compelling, they represent earlier generations of blockchain technology. Since their inception, newer blockchains have emerged to address the limitations of these systems. Among these are Aptos and Sui, two related blockchains founded by the diaspora of Facebook's blockchain project, Diem. Diem aimed to create a stablecoin payment system for Facebook's social media platform but was shelved due to regulatory pressure. However, its experiments spurred significant advancements in blockchain technology. One of the most important outputs of Diem was the Move smart contract programming language. Move is based off the popular ( +4.3M developers worldwide , 3rd fastest growing language) Rust language and was optimized to solve issues with earlier smart contract languages like Ethereum's Solidity and Cardano's Haskell. Both Aptos and Sui leverage Move to create a quicker, safer, and more intuitive development environment for software engineers to build applications out of smart contracts. Move also helps the underlying engine of both Aptos and Sui, called "the virtual machine" (VM), process transactions faster (how quickly a user receives a confirmation) and with more throughput (how many transactions the system can process per time period). Move's potential is so high that the value of all Move-based blockchains has surged from ~$5B to ~$22B in just one year. Crypto has 1/1000th the Developer Community of JavaScript Source: Electric Capital, Slash Data as of 12/19/2024. Move is important because it offers a better entry point for incoming developers. The number of crypto developers is very small, and a popular quip is that there are more full-time developers at Meta (Facebook) than there are in all of the crypto. By offering a more approachable and efficient language, Move has the potential to attract a broader developer base, fostering experimentation and innovation. This is vital for uncovering the next groundbreaking application that could drive mass adoption. We view blockchains as a platform for innovation and experimentation, with high valuations of SCPs driven by their capacity to enable groundbreaking applications that can engage hundreds of millions of users. Because no one knows what that application may be, it is important to have as many people experimenting as possible. Both Sui and Aptos pair their Move VMs with advanced consensus mechanisms that ensure each network efficiently validates transactions and updates. This combination of cutting-edge virtual machines and consensus protocols forms the foundation of their technology, delivering superior performance compared to previous blockchain systems. Until innovations like Solana's Firedancer prove otherwise, Sui and Aptos stand as the pinnacle of blockchain technology. Aptos Achieved 326M or 13.3K Transactions Per Second (TPS) on 10/18/2024 Peak daily transactions of different blockchains. (Source: Artemis XYZ as of 12/19/2024.) Sui and Aptos offer important blockchain technology capable of serving hundreds of millions of users. Aptos and Sui bring blockchain scaling alongside simplicity and safety for builders. This contrasts Solana, which offers scaling at the cost of complexity, and Ethereum, which provides a richer ecosystem at the tradeoffs of governance through a rigid technocracy and inferior technology. Tactically, Sui and Aptos offer a better user experience for crypto's current use case - speculation and value transfer. Strategically, they lay the groundwork for future non-speculative applications like AI agents, social media, cloud services, and marketing. While the future blockbuster crypto applications are uncertain, Sui and Aptos stand out as strong contenders for attracting the blockchain users of tomorrow. But what makes these systems exceptional, and which is better ? Sui vs. Aptos: Blockchain Performance and Scalability While Sui and Aptos both utilize the Move programming language, their blockchains are architected with distinct design philosophies. Each network employs its own version of Move, optimized for different tradeoffs that influence how transactions are processed. When a transaction is sent to a blockchain, it contains information that tells the blockchain's software what parts of the blockchain's database (called state) it wants to change. Blockchain engineers call these database updates "state changes." Most blockchains operate in a hierarchy where one validator acts as the "leader" for a set period of time before a new one is selected. During a validator's leadership span, it ingests incoming transactions, determines their validity (ensuring authorization, correct signatures, and no double-spending), orders them, executes the changes, and then updates the blockchain's state. The resulting block of transactions (the block in the blockchain) is broadcast to the other validators in the network. These validators also verify, execute, and synchronize their copies of the state with other validators. Once a supermajority (66%) of validators agree that the state update is valid, the blockchain progresses to the next block of transactions. A blockchain's architecture can be segmented into two primary components: Processing transactions and building blocks of transactions Verifying transaction authenticity Ensuring sufficient account balances Executing smart contracts Updating the blockchain's ledger Communicating block across the network Broadcasting the block of transactions across the network Synchronizing the changes made to the blockchain's ledger so all validators hold the exact copy of the state Handling conflicts that arise during ledger reconciliation for all validators To improve transaction throughput, blockchains must either increase the volume of data transmitted across the network (enabling larger transaction blocks) or optimize the efficiency of data processing and communication (enhancing the message exchange process). Sui and Aptos tackle these challenges differently by leveraging their unique adaptations of Move to push the boundaries of blockchain technology to increase the efficiency and volume of data each processes. Blockchain Transaction Throughput = Block Size x Block Processing Speed Both Aptos and Sui optimize methods to increase the size of the data that can be processed and how quickly the network disseminates that data. This analysis examines their approaches to the first step, "Processing transactions and building blocks of transactions," to highlight each chain's unique advantages and tradeoffs. Source: VanEck Research as of 12/19/2024. To simplify the technology behind Aptos and Sui, imagine blockchains as restaurants: The blockchain is the restaurant It provides the infrastructure and environment where the entire process takes place. The blockchain users are the customers They interact with the restaurant by placing orders, just as users interact with the blockchain through transactions. User transactions are restaurant orders These are specific requests made by customers that require processing and fulfillment. The onchain applications are the waiters Waiters act as intermediaries, taking customer orders (transactions) and delivering them to the kitchen (validator) for processing. They also return the completed orders (state changes) to the customers. The Leader Validator is the kitchen The kitchen is responsible for processing orders (validating and executing transactions) and preparing the output (state changes). The state change is the food delivered to the customer The final product, representing the processed transaction or updated blockchain state, is served to the customer. In this analogy, improvements in blockchain technology introduced by Aptos and Sui can be likened to optimizing the restaurant's operations. This includes making the kitchen faster and the waiters more efficient and ensuring orders are processed and delivered to customers quickly and accurately. Ethereum is a slow restaurant Ethereum is software that processes one state update at a time, and this happens only after transactions are accumulated in a list over a relatively lengthy period. Each block of transactions is small and can handle only a limited number of operations. Additionally, transactions are processed sequentially rather than in parallel, meaning each one must be executed one after the other. Even if transactions touch different parts of the blockchain's state, they must wait for other transactions to be processed. This combination of small block sizes, infrequent updates, and sequential execution leads to low throughput and creates significant scalability challenges. To make things more clear, imagine Ethereum as a restaurant with many waiters taking orders from tables but only one cook in the kitchen. Meals are prepared by that chef, one at a time. At the Ethereum Restaurant, customers give their food orders to their waiters, and these waiters come together to build the orders into a giant list. The list size is very limited; if a customer does not buy an expensive enough item, his order is bumped off the list (and he still owes money for his order). Once a period of time passes, roughly 12 seconds , the list of customer orders is sent to the Chef, and he arranges the batch as he sees fit. At the 'Ethereum Restaurant,' the Chef is very "entrepreneurial," so he accepts "tips" to process orders first so that customers can receive their food sooner. Once the Chef has decided on the order sequence, he prepares the food according to the customer's preferred meal. This almost always means the Chef cooks food first for patrons who give the largest tips. Since the 'Ethereum Restaurant' has only one person making food, many tables placing orders at once will result in a long queue of orders. While many consider the food at the 'Ethereum Restaurant' to be very good, it has proven far too popular and cannot scale up to customer demand. Patrons of 'Ethereum's Restaurant' are annoyed by the long wait times and the high costs of "tipping" the head waiter to get a timely meal. They particularly despise the experience of paying a lot of money and not receiving food. At the 'Ethereum Restaurant,' Orders are Processed One at a Time (Even if They Don't Conflict) Source: VanEck Research as of 12/19/2024. Sui and Aptos apply parallelization to make their restaurants faster Blockchains like Sui and Aptos have made a big improvement by allowing transactions to be parallelized. This is accomplished by allowing transactions that do not conflict to occur simultaneously. In practice, this means that transactions using different applications or simple payments can be processed together. Other blockchains, like Solana and Monad, can parallel processing, but Sui and Aptos currently offer the most advanced designs. In the example of a restaurant, this capability of parallel processing would be equivalent to the restaurant adding many cooks to the kitchen. At the Sui/Aptos restaurants, the expanded staff can prepare many meals at once to fulfill customer orders much faster. However, how each blockchain achieves parallelization is very different and comes with tradeoffs. While there are now more chefs to process orders, each restaurant's kitchen is still limited by the amount of equipment it possesses. If six tables order pizza at the same time, limited space in the pizza oven means that some pizzas must be cooked before the others. On blockchain, this would be like two traders competing to get the best price on the same DEX on the same coin. These "conflicts" must be resolved, and Sui and Aptos have different methods of doing this. In fact, the pros and cons of each blockchain's processing scheme have important implications for application developers and each's ability to scale. At 'Casa Sui' and 'Le Maison de Aptos', Orders That Do Not Conflict with Others and Can Be Processed Simultaneously to Increase Throughput Source: VanEck Research as of 12/19/2024. Fine dining at 'Casa Sui' Sui employs a method to parallelize orders called "static parallelism," which is similar to Solana's process. This means that transactions on Sui must explicitly specify the parts of the blockchain's ledger they want to read and write. Because Sui then knows what parts of the blockchain a transaction wants to touch, it can then allow other transactions that touch different parts to be processed at the same time. In the case where two transactions try to write to the same part of the blockchain simultaneously, Sui recognizes the conflict before the transactions are processed. To resolve the conflict, Sui determines which transaction comes first based on ordering criteria like fees paid, when the transaction was received, etc. Returning to the restaurant example, we can better understand what this looks like in practice. At the Sui restaurant "Casa Sui," when a table orders, the waiter takes the order and mentally breaks down the order to determine which parts of the kitchen will be used during preparation. If a hamburger and french fries are ordered, the waiter tells the kitchen to use the grill and the fryer. In turn, one of Sui's many chefs "locks" the area of the kitchen he needs to prepare the meal. During this "lock," no other orders can be processed using that same kitchen equipment. However, items that use other parts of the kitchen can be cooked at the same time. If two waiters simultaneously try to call on the same parts of the kitchen, 'Casa Sui's' ordering system recognizes the "conflict" before the cooking begins. In that conflict scenario, one order is selected to be cooked first and the other to come afterward. Let's assume three orders are placed simultaneously: Table A orders white pizza Table B orders black pizza (the house specialty at 'Casa Sui') Table C orders salmon In the case above, Table A's and Table B's orders conflict because they both use the pizza oven. However, Sui's waiters both determine this dependency upfront and determine the best ordering. So, 'Casa Sui' selects Table B's order to go first and Table A's to go after. Meanwhile, the salmon is processed without any hold-up because it was known in advance that the grill station would be free. At 'Casa Sui,' Waiters Call Out the Kitchen Equipment to be Used, and Ordering is Finalized After Source: VanEck Research as of 12/19/2024. Haute Cuisine by 'Le Maison De Aptos' At 'Le Maison de Aptos', the setup is very similar. There are ample waiters taking orders and many chefs cooking, but a limited supply of culinary equipment. However, Aptos does not worry about kitchen conflicts occurring. Aptos makes that tradeoff by assuming that conflicts in the kitchen are rare and can be quickly resolved. As such, Aptos uses what is called "dynamic" parallelism, which is similar to what Monad employs. In this model, transactions do not specify what parts of the state they touch. Instead, orders are "optimistically" processed, assuming they do not conflict. On Aptos, an algorithm called the "Scheduler" processes transactions based on maximizing the output of transactions over the shortest period of time. However, it only finds conflicting transactions when it actually goes to write the change in the blockchain's state. In the event there is a conflict, the conflicting transactions and any dependent transactions are sent back to the scheduler, who must sift through the conflicts and resolve them. Thereafter, once the issues are settled, the set of transactions is processed to completion. On Aptos, the waiters do not have to assess which parts of the kitchen must be touched. Instead, they simply pass the orders to the kitchen. Once the orders reach the kitchen, the "Kitchen Head" (The Scheduler) receives them and determines the most efficient cooking process. When orders come in, the Kitchen Head assumes there are no conflicts and orders the cooks to begin cooking food. If there is a conflict, it is only discovered once the cooks start cooking. In the event of a dispute, the cooks must stop cooking, throw away the partially completed meal, and ask the Kitchen Head to resolve the dispute. After scheduling the meal components, the orders are processed. While the process of "throwing away the whole meal" sounds like a waste and would slow down 'Le Maison de Aptos', under most circumstances, it does not impact the output very much. This is because Aptos's kitchen is very, very fast. At 'Le Maison de Aptos', the Scheduler Tries to Cook All Items Immediately. If a Conflict Occurs, the Chef Sends Back the Conflicting Requests to be Ordered Source: VanEck Research as of 12/23/2024. But what are the implications of each model? Aptos is more manageable for developers Aptos is considered by many to be a more flexible system because it does not force transactions to specify the parts of the state they touch upfront. This is important for developers because when they build applications, they must work through all the necessary dependencies and write the code to describe them. In the example of the restaurant, where the developers are waiters, processing customer orders on Aptos is much easier than it is on Sui because the waiters do not have to think about what parts of the kitchen are used for an order. From the standpoint of attracting builders to an ecosystem, some consider this development annoyance to be frustrating enough to opt for Aptos over Sui. This is because writing out extra code takes time, and dependencies may need to be changed often. As a result of Aptos design, development is more straightforward for its application creators. Additionally, many dependencies are difficult to know upfront for both users and developers. While developers want optionality in application design, users may want many different transaction pathways that they will not know in advance. Due to the preference for optionality of both developers and users, in a system like Sui, transactions may "lock" part of the state that they do not need, which causes other transactions to be held up. If a business relies upon lots of shared resources to operate, it will be challenging for it to reserve all resources at once using Sui's format. In some cases, a business on Sui may even lock parts of the blockchain it does not need, preventing others from using those areas. In the example of the restaurant at 'Maison de Aptos', a patron can tell the waiter he desires "chicken" and that he wants whichever type is made fastest (open kitchen spot) between fried, baked, or grilled. Meanwhile, at Casa Sui, the customer must tell the waiter which kind of chicken he wants upfront, and the customer cannot embed contingencies. Sui is more efficient Sui resolves conflicts between competing transactions upfront, allowing it to establish an order at the outset. This approach reduces the need for computational resources to handle conflicts during execution, freeing up the capacity to process additional transactions. This design is advantageous in scenarios with heavy decentralized exchange (DEX) activity, often called "contentious state writes," such as traders competing for arbitrage opportunities. Aptos, by contrast, detects and resolves conflicts dynamically during transaction processing. Under normal conditions, the difference in performance between the two chains is minimal, as Aptos's conflict resolution takes only a few milliseconds. This is because Aptos transactions being processed into a block reside "in memory," the processor's cache, enabling very fast processing. However, the Aptos transaction scheduler can become a bottleneck during extreme trading scenarios. High levels of contention require repeated detection, rollback, reordering, and re-execution of conflicting transactions, which can significantly slow down transaction processing. Kingman's Formula from operations management illustrates that as system utilization approaches its maximum capacity, small increases in load, like conflicting transactions per second, will result in exponentially longer wait times. For Aptos, heavy trading activity can overwhelm its scheduler and significantly degrade performance. While such scenarios have not yet occurred on Aptos, they remain a potential risk, particularly during events with significant trading contention. Notably, blockchain transaction throughput (TPS) benchmarks often focus on simple wallet transfers rather than real-world trading scenarios. This discrepancy means chains boasting high TPS may struggle under contentious trading conditions, where conflict resolution is critical. Restaurant Analogy: Sui is like a restaurant kitchen that pre-sorts orders to prevent clashes over limited kitchen space. Even during busy periods, kitchen space at 'Casa Sui' is more efficiently allocated. Aptos, however, resolves conflicts dynamically, which usually works well but can create chaos during peak times. Imagine a Friday night at 'Maison de Aptos,' with multiple diners competing for the popular Dover sole. The kitchen staff must re-check, re-cook, and re-serve orders amid the rush, resembling Lucy and Ethel struggling to keep up at the chocolate factory. This can lead to delays and inefficiencies under high demand, highlighting the potential drawbacks of Aptos's dynamic scheduler. A Blockchain Burdened by Too Many DEX Transactions (Colorized) Source: I Love Lucy as of 12/17/2024. Of course, Sui has its own bottlenecks and challenges due to the use of "write-locks." Transactions in Sui can reserve sections of the blockchain during processing, but some may fail to utilize the reserved resources effectively. This inefficiency can lead to certain parts of the blockchain being "boxed out," preventing other transactions from accessing them until the write-lock is released. Such scenarios could reduce overall system efficiency, especially under heavy transaction loads or when write-lock contention is high. Sui enables "Local Fee Markets" Sui's approach to resolving state writes upfront introduces a unique advantage called "local fee markets." This feature allows Sui to manage transaction costs more efficiently by segmenting fees based on the specific parts of its blockchain being accessed. In practice, this means that the cost of interacting with a heavily used application on Sui can increase without affecting fees for other applications. For example, if there is high demand for trading in the SUI/USDC pool on the Sui-based DEX Aftermath Finance, the blockchain can raise transaction fees specifically for that pool. However, users accessing other applications or parts of the blockchain will not face increased fees. This localized pricing model contrasts with blockchains like Aptos and Ethereum, which operate global fee markets. On these platforms, a surge in demand for one application, such as during a popular NFT minting event, raises transaction fees for all users. This makes the entire blockchain more expensive and difficult to use. Restaurant Analogy: At the 'Casa Sui', cooking stations can each set prices for usage relative to demand. For instance, if there's a rush for sea urchin ravioli, the pasta station can raise its prices, but the cost of triple-stuffed steak quesadillas from the grill station remains unaffected. Conversely, all kitchen resources share a single pricing mechanism at 'Maison de Aptos'. If demand for ceviche ice cream spikes, the fees for unrelated items like red snapper pizza will also rise, even if the pizza oven is underutilized. Sui unlocks Service-Level Agreements (SLAs) Sui's design also enables service-level agreements (SLAs) on its blockchain. Validators on Sui can make binding commitments to applications regarding transaction latency and pricing on a per-day basis. This guarantees specific performance levels, ensuring businesses building on Sui do not have to worry about being crowded out by high activity elsewhere on the blockchain. For example, a business running an e-commerce platform on Sui can lock in agreements for low transaction fees and quick processing times. Sui's architecture ensures that operations remain unaffected even during high demand on unrelated applications, such as DEX trading. This capability gives businesses a level of predictability and reliability that is unavailable on most other blockchains. For developers and enterprises, this creates a compelling reason to choose Sui as a platform, as it allows them to focus on growth and operations without worrying about network congestion or fluctuating fees. Sui's blockchain is faster while enabling new scaling Time to Finality Favors Sui Source: Circle, Project Docs as of 12/19/2024. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Not intended as a recommendation to buy or sell any securities namedherein. For simple transactions like payments, Sui has two mechanisms that surpass other blockchains in terms of latency (user feedback time) and throughput (TPS). Sui calls these "Fast Path" and "Pilot Fish." Fast Path allows simple payment transactions to bypass consensus, resulting in transaction latencies as low as 300ms . Meanwhile, Pilot Fish demonstrates that Sui can be scaled nearly infinitely by allowing validators to add additional servers to process more transactions seamlessly. Sui's unique scaling capabilities stem from the interaction between its transaction processing model, its version of the Move smart contract language, and its consensus mechanism. A key distinction of Sui is its state architecture, which is composed of flexible, modular units called objects. This differs from the more rigid account-based structure found on blockchains like Ethereum. On Ethereum, accounts do not directly "hold" a balance of USDC. Instead, balances are tracked within the Ethereum-based USDC smart contract, which acts as a ledger for all USDC owners. When a user sends USDC to someone else, they must interact with the USDC smart contract. This process involves calling the contract to deduct the sender's balance and credit the recipient's balance. Every USDC transfer requires an interaction with the smart contract, which can introduce inefficiencies. Source: VanEck Research as of 12/23/2024. When Patrick sends Greg USDC on Sui, it deletes the $1,000 object to create two new $500 objects; one is sent to Greg. In contrast, Sui uses a more fluid object-based model. Balances of USDC on Sui are not centralized as ledger entries within a single contract. Instead, USDC exists as an object that individual user accounts own directly. Each USDC object is defined by: Ownership: The account controlling the object Type: The token type (ex: USDC) Metadata: Additional details such as the amount of USDC When users transfer USDC on Sui, they transfer ownership of the USDC object itself. For example, if I send USDC to another account, I create a new USDC object representing the transferred balance, and ownership of that object is assigned to the recipient's account. This eliminates the need to repeatedly call a central contract for every transaction, significantly improving efficiency. By allowing accounts to own and manage token objects directly, Sui achieves a more decentralized and scalable design. This object-based approach reduces bottlenecks caused by interactions with centralized smart contracts and provides a flexible framework for state management. This design significantly impacts blockchain parallelization. For example, suppose two entities send USDC simultaneously on Solana or Aptos. Their transactions must be ordered in that case because both will interact with the USDC smart contract and touch the same part of the Solana/Aptos state. In contrast, Sui's accounts own USDC as individual objects. When two entities send USDC, the transactions only modify the ownership of their respective token objects. As a result, these transactions can be processed in parallel, enabling higher throughput and efficiency. However, transactions involving the same object must still be serialized to maintain consistency. Sui Latencies Exclusively owned by one account Accessible and modifiable by multiple accounts Consensus Requirement No (local validators can process) Yes (all validators must agree) Execution Path Single validator validates, executes, and signs Validators execute after consensus Round Trip Times (RTT) 2xRTT @ 150ms per RTT 4xRTT @ 200ms per RTT Latency ~300ms ~800ms Conflict Potential None (exclusive ownership guarantees safety) Potential conflicts require resolution Source: VanEck Research as of 12/17/2024. Sui introduces a unique property where simple object transfers, such as payments, do not require consensus . This is possible because these object transfers can only be initiated by the owner and do not need to be globally ordered. All that is required is a signature verification and an update to the state by the validators to reflect the transfer. By contrast, in Ethereum, Solana, and Aptos, calling a smart contract (like the USDC contract) must go through consensus, as transactions must be globally ordered. Consensus is one of the most time-consuming aspects of blockchain transaction processing, often accounting for 70% or more of the total processing time in high-throughput blockchains like Solana. This is because validators worldwide must exchange messages to agree on the transaction order. The time taken is measured in "RTTs" (round trips of messaging), where each RTT can take 150ms-250ms , depending on the validators' geographic locations. By bypassing consensus for simple transfers, Sui eliminates this delay, shaving up to 500ms off transaction processing time. Restaurant Analogy: This would be similar to 'Casa Sui,' offering diners the option of a pre-cooked meal. This significantly reduces service time and expands the number of diners who can be served. In contrast, at other blockchain "restaurants," all orders must go through the kitchen, regardless of complexity. Sui's unique pathway to "infinite" TPS: Pilot Fish Sui's object-based structure enables near-unlimited scaling through a mechanism called Pilot Fish. Most blockchains scale by optimizing software to run efficiently within the constraints of a single server per validator. Sui's design, however, allows validators to scale horizontally by using multiple servers. This means a validator facing resource constraints (e.g., memory, bandwidth, or computational power) can add servers to handle more transactions. While "hot" (high demand) areas of the blockchain still require ordered transaction processing, the ability to distribute processing across multiple servers prevents bottlenecks in other parts of the blockchain. Restaurant Analogy: If 'Casa Sui's' main kitchen becomes overwhelmed, additional kitchens with specialized equipment can be contracted to handle the load. While patrons ordering popular dishes may face wait times, others can enjoy meals prepared in less busy stations. Aptos's response: Quorum Store Aptos has developed a scaling mechanism called Quorum Store that optimizes blockchain speed by focusing on the consensus process (the second part of blockchain processing) to increase throughput and reduce latency. It allows more validators to participate in the initial transaction processing than just the leader. Traditionally, blockchains rely on a leader-validator system, where one validator at a time ingests transactions, creates blocks, and updates the blockchain's state. Leadership rotates periodically, usually based on the amount of stake held. Quorum Store disrupts this model by allowing any validator to disseminate transactions across the network, not just the leader. This frees up the leader to focus on proposing the blocks and disseminating those blocks. This speeds up the time needed to process transactions and enables other validators to do some of the leader's workload. However, Quorum Store may exacerbate Aptos's scheduler challenges under high-conflict scenarios, such as when many transactions compete for the same trade. In these cases, multiple validators proposing conflicting blocks can slow Aptos's ability to resolve dependencies and conflicts. Nevertheless, in most scenarios, Quorum Store improves transaction efficiency. Aptos is more robust than Sui In blockchain design, as in life, "there is no such thing as a free lunch," and Sui's design introduces new problems alongside its unique capabilities. One key decision is to skip a process called DAG certification, which serves as an additional check on transaction authenticity. This decision reduces the number of RTTs (round trips of messaging) required during consensus, resulting in faster transaction processing. However, bypassing DAG certification comes with trade-offs. By skipping this step, Sui's network may not be as robust as Aptos's under certain conditions . For instance, packet loss, a common phenomenon in internet communication, can impact Sui more severely than other blockchains. Some researchers claim that a minor packet drop, such as a 1% loss affecting 5 of Sui's 100 validators, could significantly degrade the network's performance. While these claims should be interpreted cautiously due to a lack of transparent methodology, they highlight a potential vulnerability in Sui's design. Under specific scenarios, Sui could experience transaction latency issues that more robust designs like Aptos might avoid. Another consideration is the potential for malicious behavior by validators. Without DAG certification, Sui's network may allow validators to exploit vulnerabilities. For example, malicious validators could disrupt network operations more easily than Aptos, which has stronger safeguards through its consensus processes. While substantial attacks on proof-of-stake (PoS) systems remain rare, and these vulnerabilities are still largely theoretical, Sui's broader attack surface could pose a greater risk as the ecosystem matures. Sui has more traction, but this lead could be fleeting Both Move blockchains are less than a few years old; their usership is in its early innings. Despite immense potential, Sui and Aptos's ecosystems are relatively small. Sui is currently leading Aptos based on the most fundamental metrics of usership. Though Sui and Aptos have roughly the same number of monthly active addresses, 9.2M for Sui and 8.9M for Aptos, Sui excels in economic statistics. Note: Active Addresses may not be a reliable measure of user activity due to the simplicity of one user controlling multiples addresses. From the standpoint of fee revenues, Sui has captured 6x of the fee revenue of Aptos in the past year ($10.4M vs $1.7M). Sui has also transacted 3.5x the DEX volume of Aptos ($38.3B vs $10.8B) . When looking at DeFi TVL, Sui has $1.6B vs Aptos with $930M. However, Aptos ($750M) has more stablecoins on the chain than Sui ($476M). Total Spot Decentralized Exchange (DEX) Volumes, Last 100-Days ($M) Source: Artemis XYZ as of 1/21/2025. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Not intended as a recommendation to buy or sell any securities namedherein. Drilling down further into each ecosystem's constituents, both have most of the core components needed to facilitate speculation-focused use cases of crypto. Each ecosystem has ample applications in DEX, Borrow/Lend, and Perp Futures categories. Early as we are, Sui has stronger entities within the Borrow/Lend category in Suilend and Navi, each boasting over $450M in TVL. By comparison, the largest app on Aptos holds $300M . Sui has a deeper perpetual futures trading market, mostly centered around an application called BlueFin. Bluefin averages around $250M in trading volume and ranks 7th in all crypto. However, Aptos has a more successful decentralized stablecoin project, called Thala ($135M TVL ), than Sui's, called Bucket Protocol ($73M TVL ). Sui vs. Aptos: Ecosystems Have Grown Remarkably But Are Still Nascent The go-to market for attracting developers for Sui and Aptos has been to offer substantial incentives for builders to come to each chain. For example, on October 13, 2023 , Sui pledged 157M SUI tokens to incentivize the growth of its ecosystem. In practical terms, this has been utilized to bootstrap its DeFI by rewarding those who trade, borrow, and lend. We estimate that the collective impact of Sui's incentives resulted in rewards that have added 5.2%-10% in annualized yields since June 2024. We estimate that Sui has awarded more than 70M Sui in incentives in 2024 alone, worth ~$300M today. Following a similar pathway to attracting DeFI TVL and usership as Sui, Aptos currently adds ~6.5% in APT rewards to borrow/lend deposited USDC/USDT while adding 8%-12% to deposited BTC. It also adds ~15%-20% APT rewards to DEX pools to encourage liquidity. We estimate that Aptos spent over 10M APT worth around $100M to incentivize its DeFI ecosystem. While Sui has spent more than Aptos in dollar terms, we estimate Aptos has allocated slightly more of its token supply than Sui (0.9% vs. 0.7%). The result has been that both Sui and Aptos bootstrapped very important components of each ecosystem very quickly. However, this has also led to substantial "mercenary capital" (users only there to extract rewards) deploying to each chain. Similar to a federal government providing subsidies for an industry, the Sui and Aptos incentive campaigns have created a massive ecosystem. Still, it is yet to be seen if it is sustainable. Sui community is further along than Aptos's Sui and Aptos have focused on creating their respective communities by asserting each chain's technical supremacy. Though many developers herald the advantage of the Move programming language and some have fallen into the camps of Sui or Aptos, there is currently no material depth to either chain's culture compared to legacy blockchains. We assert this based upon Google search interest in each's memecoins and the total number of developers tracked in public repositories. While Sui averaged 280 weekly active developers in 1H2024, Aptos recorded 272 . These figures compare to Ethereum, which had 3,300, and Solana, which had 1,200 . Together, Sui and Aptos builders represent less than 4% of all active developers in crypto. From the standpoint of retail interest in each's community, Sui is ahead of Aptos by a factor of nearly 9x when examining Google Trends (Aptos: 2 vs. Sui: 9 ). In fact, in the last 90 days , global search interest for Sui was higher than it was for Solana on 17 days and higher than Ethereum on 16 days . The consequence of the relatively anemic development community of Aptos and Sui is that neither can boast of a truly differentiated, successful application. Though Sui has a few interesting applications like "FanTV" and "Birds," neither application has attracted significant usage. Another current disappointment of Sui and Aptos is that neither has an application leveraging the unique technical capabilities of either chain. For example, the most important perpetual exchange on Sui, called Bluefin, has its entire trading engine deployed on Bluefin's private server and not on Sui's blockchain. Sui Outpaces Aptos in Google Searches Over the Last 90 Days Source: Google Trends as of 1/21/2025. Sui's Top Decentralized Apps (dApps) are DeFi and Infrastructure Source: Artemis XYZ as of 1/21/2025. Sui vs. Aptos: Trading Experience Sui's system is currently better for traders than Aptos Sui has created a better system for traders, which should translate into better prices for Sui DEXes. We base this upon the following components: Programmable Transaction Blocks (PTB) Predictable Gas Pricing Advantageous Fee Structure for Large Transactions Local Fee Markets DeepBook Sui has poured tremendous thought into building a system optimized for onchain trading through built-in components of Sui's code and innovations created by Sui's team. The first is the concept of programmable transaction blocks (PTB), which enable a single transaction to dynamically interact with multiple parts of the blockchain state, executing up to 1024 commands. Unlike other blockchains, such as Ethereum or Aptos, where transactions call a pre-defined function, Sui's PTBs allow transactions to dynamically decide which calls to make and which parts of the state to touch. This dynamism enables real-time decision-making based on both onchain and offchain data, providing unprecedented flexibility. This capability is particularly significant for applications requiring high performance, such as decentralized exchange (DEX) aggregators. On Sui, these aggregators can leverage offchain compute (like ASICS/GPUs) to determine optimal trading routes, incorporating both onchain liquidity and external pricing data. Due to their rigid transaction structures, this level of sophistication is challenging or impossible on Ethereum or Aptos. Furthermore, Sui's design surpasses Solana in practical applications. While Solana theoretically allows similar functionality, its stringent limits on the number of input accounts (64) and maximum transaction instructions significantly restrict its usability. For example, a complex Sui transaction that interacts with more than 100 objects would be unfeasible on Solana. This makes Sui a more robust platform for advanced trading applications. Both Sui and Aptos set their transaction prices based on the complexity of a transaction measured in network resources used (gas). Gas is the cost, in native tokens, that each network charges for some unit of resource utilization. Aptos gas prices function by having governance set a minimum gas price at an indeterminate interval and then allowing gas prices to float above this minimum based on transaction demand. Aptos does not have a priority tip separate from the gas price; instead, priority is achieved by setting the gas (cost per unit of network resource used) higher. Sui's validators set a "reference price" that bonds validators to process all transactions that pay this reference price. To gain a higher spot in the processing queue, a transactor on Sui can attach a priority fee to their transaction. As explained previously, Aptos has a global gas price that does not charge larger fees for higher-demand pieces of Aptos blockchain (like a DEX with lots of trading). In comparison, Sui enables more in-demand parts of the state to charge higher fees than lower-priority parts of the state. These seemingly minuscule differences are important because they affect the economics of traders in meaningful ways. Particularly important traders called "market makers" often place and cancel (updating) thousands (or more) of orders per second. This is done to bid/offer advantageous prices relative to newly developing information. With PTBs that change many parts of the state simultaneously, a market maker can update their book of bids/asks with fewer transactions. This alone makes operating on Sui cheaper than other chains like Aptos. Finally, Sui has an interesting component of architecture embedded in its blockchain called "DeepBook," which is a global centralized limit order book ((CLOB)) on Sui for wholesale liquidity. This liquidity layer allows DEXes and DEX aggregators (entities that access all DEXes in their selection set) to tap into global liquidity across Sui. This centralized order book aggregates liquidity across Sui into one unified pool and enables deeper liquidity for traders operating on Sui. Since any app can tap into their liquidity layer, it reduces the advantages of applications with lots of liquidity, thus leveling the playing field and lowering the prices that DEXes can charge users. Sui vs. Aptos: Similar Tokenomics Sui Earned 24% More Revenue in November Than Aptos Has in the Past Year Source: Artemis XYZ as of 1/15/2025. Sui and Aptos have both designed their systems so that high usage of each respective blockchain will accrue value to each respective token. If either gets many users, its token's value will likely appreciate in price. In fact, both blockchains' chief token use cases are very similar: Payment for Gas Fees Deposit for Storage Fees Validator Staking Network Governance One key difference between SUI vs. APT tokens is that SUI has a capped supply of tokens while APT tokens have no maximum supply. Aptos inflation currently rests at 6.7% per annum and decreases each year by 1.5%. However, this endless supply of APT due to persistent inflation is offset by the fact that transaction fees on Aptos result in a token burn. Sui, by contrast, does not burn fees on its transactions. The consequence is that more activity on Sui will benefit those staking tokens over those not staking tokens. This is because those who stake validators on Sui will receive the transaction fees. On Aptos, since the token is burned, an increase in transaction fees benefits everyone equally. However, it must be noted that while Aptos can achieve a deflationary token system through substantial activity, Sui has it baked in by means of its storage system. More below. An interesting feature of Sui and Aptos is their approach to addressing the long-term challenges associated with storing crypto data onchain. Blockchains continuously grow in storage size, measured in gigabytes and terabytes, which must be maintained by validators and nodes. This poses a problem because the increasing storage demands drive up costs and place additional strain on blockchain networks. Ideally, blockchains would charge for data storage, but most do not. Instead, they primarily charge transaction fees based on the consumption of network resources like bandwidth, compute power, and RAM. However, these costs are transient as they account only for the resources consumed at the moment of the transaction. Most blockchains fail to charge fees for persistent resources, such as the ongoing cost of storing a user's account data and transaction history on the blockchain. Sui and Aptos address this issue by incorporating the cost of data creation into transaction fees. In other words, they price new data storage directly within the transaction, ensuring that users contribute to the long-term costs of maintaining the blockchain's storage. On Aptos, storage fees in APT are locked behind the data that is created. If someone modifies the data to be smaller or deletes the data entirely, a portion or all of that locked APT is remitted to whoever deleted that data. On Sui, the process of removing data from Sui's storage also allows for a refund of stored SUI. However, while most of the SUI can be returned (up to 99%), the rest remains in the fund, creating a permanent "token sink" of SUI. This storage fund earns rewards from the network (newly minted SUI allocated from the original 10B total supply). This fund then remits SUI rewards to the Sui network validators to help them pay the long-term costs of storing SUI's blockchain ledger. Both Sui and Aptos face significant amounts of token unlocks that will occur in the next few years. The current floating supply of Aptos is greater than that of Sui (39.9% vs. 30.9%). Over the next year, both protocols will add significant amounts to the token supply as investor unlocks occur. While Aptos will have 11.9% of its total supply ($1.2B at current prices) unlock over the next year, Sui will emit 7.6% of its total supply ($3.65B at current prices). Sui vs. Aptos: Our Valuation We base our valuation of Sui and Aptos on their projected year-end market share within the total smart contract platform (SCP) market capitalization. Our forecast for SCP market capitalization is derived from the estimated growth of the United States M2 money supply, reflecting their historical correlation. We project M2 to reach approximately $22.3 trillion by the end of 2025, continuing its annualized growth rate of 3.2% since its last trough in October 2023. Using regression analysis, we estimate the total SCP market value to reach $1.1 trillion by the end of 2025, a 43% increase from today's capitalization of $770 billion . This compares to an all-time peak valuation for SCPs of $989 billion in November 2021. Historical analysis of M2 changes versus SCP market cap changes shows a strong statistical relationship. The 12-month moving average of SCP market cap changes correlated positively with monthly M2 changes, exhibiting an R² value of 0.36 and a t-statistic of 5.7 (p . Market Capitalization of Smart Contract Platforms (SCPs) Peaked in November 2024 Source: Artemis XYZ as of 1/05/2024. Currently, Move-based blockchains hold a combined market share of approximately 2.7% of the SCP market, split between Aptos (0.7%) and Sui (2%). We forecast this share to rise to 6.5%, using an AR model demonstrating the lowest AIC among comparable forecasting models. This model also predicts the individual shares for Aptos and Sui. Sui and Aptos: Price Prediction Estimate by the End of 2025 Sui ((SUI)): 5.5% of the SCP market, corresponding to a market capitalization of $61 billion . With 3 billion tokens unlocked by January 2025, this equates to a token price of ~$16 . This represents a 326% gain from today's price of $3.75. Aptos ((APT)): 1% of the SCP market, corresponding to a market capitalization of $11 billion . With 50.5% of its token supply (507 million tokens) unlocked, this equates to a token price of ~$22 and is a 201% gain from today's price of $7.30. These projections highlight the strong growth potential for both chains. We believe Sui and Aptos are poised to capture a larger share of the expanding SCP market as other chains lose their relative status. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. The information, valuation scenarios, and price targets in this blog are not intended as financial advice or any call to action, a recommendation to buy or sell, or as a projection of how Sui and Aptos will perform in the future. Actual future performance of Sui and Aptos is unknown, and may differ significantly from the hypothetical results depicted here. There may be risks or other factors not accounted for in the scenarios presented that may impede the performance. These are solely the results of a simulation based on our research, and are for illustrative purposes only. Please conduct your own research and draw your own conclusions. Sui vs. Aptos: Our Conclusion We believe the evidence supports Sui over Aptos due to its performance advantages and scaling potential. We find that it currently offers capabilities that are not replicated in Aptos. Among these are Local Fee Markets, Pilot Fish, and Fast Path. Additionally, Sui may offer a set of technical capabilities and economics that prove more attractive to market markers, resulting in a better-priced DeFi ecosystem. From a marketing standpoint, Sui has formed its technical capabilities into powerful memetic narratives that have attracted token investors and application builders. This has translated into better token performance and a more vibrant ecosystem of applications. However, we believe that Aptos's edge in designed flexibility and arguably more robust chain architecture may prove to be competitive advantages. While Sui has a substantial lead in many economic metrics, including TVL, DEX volumes, and transaction fees, this dynamic can quickly shift. The long-term winner will depend on which platform can sustain innovation while translating it into ecosystem expansion, including novel applications of crypto technology. Sui and Aptos Investment Risks Business Development - The greatest challenge facing both Aptos and Sui is achieving effective business development. While both projects have invested significant resources to incentivize ecosystem growth and emphasize their technical advantages, neither has yet developed a cohesive strategy that integrates technical development with ecosystem expansion. Both blockchains represent state-of-the-art distributed systems design driven by teams at the forefront of technological innovation. However, business success requires more than technological breakthroughs. For token prices to thrive, Aptos and Sui must attract and cultivate differentiated projects while using feedback to inform technical direction. Building the best system is admirable, but it is crucial to strike a balance between advancements that address current usability challenges and those designed to enable future use cases. While both chains have successfully onboarding projects, their ecosystems must attract applications that leverage their unique capabilities to create innovative use cases. A unified approach, where business development collaborates closely with technical development, is essential to build technology that solves problems users care about. Without this alignment and differentiation, these systems risk failing to achieve their potential. Technology - Sui and Aptos feature novel blockchain designs that have yet to be fully stress-tested in high-demand or adversarial environments. Although both have experienced surges in transaction volume, most were simple transactions rather than Solana-esque levels of DEX trading activity. This leaves uncertainty about how the systems would handle the intense trading conditions that have previously stressed many chains. Additionally, while the innovative features of these blockchains (Pilot Fish, Quorum Store, Fast Path) are engineering marvels, they might require adjustments if significant performance issues arise under extreme scenarios. These changes could potentially compromise some of their high-level capabilities, making it critical for the teams to continuously refine their systems without losing their edge. Competition - As second-generation high throughput blockchains, Aptos and Sui face competition from established ecosystems like Ethereum and Solana. While these older chains may lack the technical sophistication of Aptos and Sui, they benefit from larger developer bases and broader distribution backed by users with substantial financial resources. Emerging competitors like Monad and Berachain further intensify the landscape. Monad combines strong technology with a dedicated community, while Berachain has gained momentum by tapping into the crypto community's speculative animal spirits. Additionally, Solana's upcoming Firedancer upgrade, expected in 2025, promises to boost its performance, potentially surpassing Aptos and Sui in speed and throughput. The trend seen with Aptos and Sui, investors backing the narrative of better technology, is not new but inherently fleeting. Blockchain teams must consistently deliver and implement new innovations quickly to maintain relevance. History is filled with high-performance blockchains that lost their edge and token valuations to newer, more advanced competitors. Given the enormous economic incentives in the blockchain space, many of the world's brightest minds may pursue degrees in distributed systems engineering. These developing entrants will continue to the cadence of technological advancement, ensuring the competitive landscape remains dynamic. Macroeconomics - Like all financial instruments, blockchain tokens are subject to broader economic cycles. As alternative forms of money and financial systems, they compete with traditional monetary frameworks. While political and economic reform seems unlikely in most nations, unexpected shifts in fiscal policy or financial prudence could impact crypto markets. Crypto markets also exhibit high sensitivity to financial policy cycles. Our analysis reveals a strong correlation between the supply of M2 and the value of smart contract platforms, reinforcing the importance of macroeconomic trends in shaping blockchain token valuations. Regulatory - The recent rise in crypto prices reflects optimism about regulatory clarity under the new Trump administration. Although the administration's stance on crypto appears favorable, opposition to the industry remains strong and well-funded. While the executive branch's administrative "deep state" (SEC, FDIC, CFTC, etc) may no longer actively undermine crypto, challenges will materialize. One concern is the FIT 21 bill, which introduces criteria for determining whether a cryptocurrency qualifies as a commodity rather than a security. While this framework provides much-needed clarity, there is a risk that existing crypto incumbents and their allies may influence the bill's language to impose stringent decentralization requirements. Such requirements could disqualify chains like Solana, Sui, and Aptos, making their tokens marketable only to qualified investors and limiting broader adoption. Disclosures Coin Definitions Ethereum ((ETH)): A decentralized, open-source blockchain platform with smart contract functionality, powered by its native cryptocurrency, Ether. Solana ((SOL) ): A high-speed blockchain supporting decentralized applications, leveraging proof-of-stake and proof-of-history consensus mechanisms with its SOL token. Cardano (ADA ): A proof-of-stake blockchain platform focused on sustainability, scalability, and innovation, powered by its native token, ADA. Sui: A high-throughput blockchain designed with object-based architecture, enabling scalability, low latency, and efficient state management. Aptos ((APT)): A blockchain optimized for scalability and developer ease, leveraging dynamic parallelization and the Move programming language. Diem: A stablecoin payment system project originally developed by Facebook, later shelved due to regulatory challenges but inspired blockchain innovations. Move: A smart contract programming language developed by Diem, optimized for security and efficiency, and used by Sui and Aptos. USDC (USD Coin): A fully backed, centralized stablecoin pegged to the US dollar, widely used in payments, trading, and DeFi applications. Monad: A high-throughput blockchain optimized for parallel transaction execution and scalability, aiming to balance performance and decentralization. Berachain: An emerging blockchain built on Cosmos, leveraging innovative staking mechanisms to integrate liquidity and governance for its ecosystem. Risk Considerations This is not an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation to buy or sell any of the securities, financial instruments or digital assets mentioned herein. The information presented does not involve the rendering of personalized investment, financial, legal, tax advice, or any call to action. Certain statements contained herein may constitute projections, forecasts and other forward-looking statements, which do not reflect actual results, are for illustrative purposes only, are valid as of the date of this communication, and are subject to change without notice. Actual future performance of any assets or industries mentioned are unknown. Information provided by third party sources are believed to be reliable and have not been independently verified for accuracy or completeness and cannot be guaranteed. VanEck does not guarantee the accuracy of third party data. The information herein represents the opinion of the author(s), but not necessarily those of VanEck or its other employees. Hypothetical Performance Disclosures The information, valuation scenarios and price targets presented on any digital assets in this blog are not intended as financial advice, a recommendation to buy or sell these digital assets, or any call to action. There may be risks or other factors not accounted for in these scenarios that may impede the performance these digital assets; their actual future performance is unknown, and may differ significantly from any valuation scenarios or projections/forecasts herein. Any projections, forecasts or forward-looking statements included herein are the results of a simulation based on our research, are valid as of the date of this communication and subject to change without notice, and are for illustrative purposes only. Please conduct your own research and draw your own conclusions. Past performance is not an indication, or guarantee, of future results. Hypothetical or model performance results have certain inherent limitations. Unlike an actual performance record, simulated results do not represent actual trading, and accordingly, may have undercompensated or overcompensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors such as market disruptions and lack of liquidity. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading (for example, the ability to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses). Hypothetical or model performance is designed with benefit of hindsight. Index performance is not representative of fund performance. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. General Digital Assets Disclosures Investments in digital assets and Web3 companies are highly speculative and involve a high degree of risk. These risks include, but are not limited to: the technology is new and many of its uses may be untested; intense competition; slow adoption rates and the potential for product obsolescence; volatility and limited liquidity, including but not limited to, inability to liquidate a position; loss or destruction of key(s) to access accounts or the blockchain; reliance on digital wallets; reliance on unregulated markets and exchanges; reliance on the internet; cybersecurity risks; and the lack of regulation and the potential for new laws and regulation that may be difficult to predict. Moreover, the extent to which Web3 companies or digital assets utilize blockchain technology may vary, and it is possible that even widespread adoption of blockchain technology may not result in a material increase in the value of such companies or digital assets. Digital asset prices are highly volatile, and the value of digital assets, and Web3 companies, can rise or fall dramatically and quickly. If their value goes down, there's no guarantee that it will rise again. As a result, there is a significant risk of loss of your entire principal investment. Digital assets are not generally backed or supported by any government or central bank and are not covered by FDIC or SIPC insurance. Accounts at digital asset custodians and exchanges are not protected by SPIC and are not FDIC insured. Furthermore, markets and exchanges for digital assets are not regulated with the same controls or customer protections available in traditional equity, option, futures, or foreign exchange investing. Digital assets include, but are not limited to, cryptocurrencies, tokens, NFTs, assets stored or created using blockchain technology, and other Web3 products. Web3 companies include but are not limited to, companies that involve the development, innovation, and/or utilization of blockchain, digital assets, or crypto technologies. All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest. As with any investment strategy, there is no guarantee that investment objectives will be met and investors may lose money. Diversification does not ensure a profit or protect against a loss in a declining market. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. © Van Eck Associates Corporation. Original Post Editor's Note: The summary bullets for this article were chosen by Seeking Alpha editors.