A technical comparison: @ArchNtwrk vs. @Stacks 🧵
Both want to bring smart contracts to Bitcoin.
But the approaches are VERY different.
One requires bridges. One doesn't. One has 7 years of history. One is brand new. One has $3.2B TVL. One has $20M in funding.
Let me break down the differences (and why they matter) 👇
First, let's acknowledge: Stacks is the incumbent.
• Launched 2017 (7-year head start)
• $3.2B in TVL
• Largest Bitcoin L2 by far
• sBTC bridge live on mainnet
Arch is the challenger:
• Testnet only (mainnet TBD)
• $20M raised (Pantera + Multicoin)
•50M+ testnet transactions • No bridge design
Different stages. Different approaches.
STACKS ARCHITECTURE:
Stacks is a separate blockchain that "anchors" to Bitcoin.
How it works:
• Separate chain with its own blocks
• Uses Proof of Transfer (PoX) consensus
• Miners bid BTC to mine STX blocks
• Block hashes written to Bitcoin
• Smart contracts in Clarity language
Key point: Stacks is a LAYER-1 blockchain that settles to Bitcoin.
ARCH ARCHITECTURE:
Arch is a Bitcoin-anchored sidechain with native UTXO execution.
How it works:
• Validators run ArchVM (eBPF-based)
• Smart contracts in Rust
• FROST/ROAST for decentralized signing
• State changes settle directly on Bitcoin
• No separate token for gas (uses BTC)
Key point: Arch is a SIDECHAIN that executes on Bitcoin's UTXO set.
THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE: Bridges
STACKS:
• Requires sBTC (wrapped Bitcoin)
• Users deposit BTC → receive sBTC
• sBTC is a 1:1 pegged asset
• Managed by decentralized signers
• Trust assumption: signers won't steal
ARCH:
• No bridge required
• Users' BTC stays on Bitcoin
• Native UTXO execution
• No wrapped assets
• Trust assumption: validators won't censor (not steal)
This is the biggest differentiator.
SECURITY MODELS:
STACKS (sBTC):
• Decentralized signer set (threshold signatures)
• Economic security via STX staking
• Bitcoin finality for settlement
• Risk: Signer collusion could drain sBTC
ARCH:
• dPoS validator set
• FROST/ROAST threshold cryptography
• Bitcoin finality for all state changes
• Risk: Validator censorship (but not theft)
Both use threshold signatures. Different trust models.
DEVELOPER EXPERIENCE:
STACKS:
• Clarity language (custom, Bitcoin-specific)
• Designed for safety and predictability
• Steeper learning curve
• Smaller developer ecosystem
ARCH:
• Rust language (industry standard)
• eBPF VM (proven by Solana)
• Easier onboarding from Solana/Ethereum
• Targets 10K+ Solana devs
Arch has a UX advantage for developers.
PERFORMANCE:
STACKS:
• Block time: ~10 minutes (tied to Bitcoin)
• Throughput: Limited by Bitcoin blocks
• Finality: Bitcoin block confirmation
• UX: Slower, but Bitcoin-native
ARCH:
• Block time: Sub-second (pre-confirmations)
• Throughput: Parallel execution (eBPF)
• Finality: Bitcoin settlement (eventual)
• UX: Faster, Solana-like
Arch optimizes for speed. Stacks optimizes for Bitcoin alignment.
ECOSYSTEM & ADOPTION:
STACKS:
• 7 years of development
• 100+ dApps live • $3.2B TVL (largest Bitcoin L2)
• Major exchange support
• Established community
ARCH:
• Testnet only
• 5+ dApps (Saturn, Autara, VoltFi, HoneyB, Ordeez)
• 50M+ testnet transactions
• 34K Archstronauts • Early stage
Stacks has massive first-mover advantage.
TOKEN ECONOMICS:
STACKS (STX):
• Native token for gas fees
• Stacking (staking) earns BTC yield
• Market cap: $787M • Circulating supply: ~1.5B STX
• Established tokenomics
ARCH ($ARCH):
• Token confirmed but not launched
• Use cases: Staking, gas, governance
• Airdrop for testnet participants
• Tokenomics TBD
Stacks has proven token model. Arch is unproven.
FUNDING & BACKING:
STACKS:
• Raised $70M+ over multiple rounds
• Investors: Y Combinator, DCG, others
• Public company (Hiro Systems)
• Established institutional support
ARCH:
• Raised $20M (Seed + Series A)
• Investors: Pantera Capital, Multicoin Capital
• Private company
• Fresh institutional backing
Both have strong VC support. Different stages.
THE TRADE-OFFS:
STACKS:
✅ Proven at scale ($3.2B TVL)
✅ 7 years of development
✅ Large ecosystem
❌ Requires bridge (sBTC)
❌ Slower performance
❌ Custom language (Clarity)
ARCH:
✅ No bridge required
✅ Faster performance
✅ Standard language (Rust)
❌ Unproven at scale
❌ No mainnet yet
❌ Small ecosystem
Different strengths. Different weaknesses.
WHO WINS?
Honest answer: Both can succeed.
STACKS wins if:
• sBTC bridge proves secure long-term
• Clarity ecosystem matures
• First-mover advantage compounds
ARCH wins if:
• Bridgeless execution resonates
• Mainnet launches smoothly
• Solana devs migrate
The market is big enough for multiple winners.
$2T in Bitcoin capital is the prize.
MY TAKE:
Stacks is the safe bet. Proven, established, liquid.
Arch is the high-risk, high-reward play. Novel tech, unproven, but potentially superior UX.
If you're risk-averse → Stacks If you're risk-tolerant → Arch (testnet airdrop) If you're strategic → Watch both
I'm personally bullish on both for different reasons.
4.265
15
Il contenuto di questa pagina è fornito da terze parti. Salvo diversa indicazione, OKX non è l'autore degli articoli citati e non rivendica alcun copyright sui materiali. Il contenuto è fornito solo a scopo informativo e non rappresenta le opinioni di OKX. Non intende essere un'approvazione di alcun tipo e non deve essere considerato un consiglio di investimento o una sollecitazione all'acquisto o alla vendita di asset digitali. Nella misura in cui l'IA generativa viene utilizzata per fornire riepiloghi o altre informazioni, tale contenuto generato dall'IA potrebbe essere impreciso o incoerente. Leggi l'articolo collegato per ulteriori dettagli e informazioni. OKX non è responsabile per i contenuti ospitati su siti di terze parti. Gli holding di asset digitali, tra cui stablecoin e NFT, comportano un elevato grado di rischio e possono fluttuare notevolmente. Dovresti valutare attentamente se effettuare il trading o detenere asset digitali è adatto a te alla luce della tua situazione finanziaria.