A technical comparison:... | Premature-Accumulator-Neill OKX Feed

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.

Hämtat från

4,33 tn

Innehållet på den här sidan tillhandahålls av tredje part. Om inte annat anges är OKX inte författare till den eller de artiklar som citeras och hämtar inte någon upphovsrätt till materialet. Innehållet tillhandahålls endast i informationssyfte och representerar inte OKX:s åsikter. Det är inte avsett att vara ett godkännande av något slag och bör inte betraktas som investeringsrådgivning eller en uppmaning att köpa eller sälja digitala tillgångar. I den mån generativ AI används för att tillhandahålla sammanfattningar eller annan information kan sådant AI-genererat innehåll vara felaktigt eller inkonsekvent. Läs den länkade artikeln för mer detaljer och information. OKX ansvarar inte för innehåll som finns på tredje parts webbplatser. Innehav av digitala tillgångar, inklusive stabila kryptovalutor och NFT:er, innebär en hög grad av risk och kan fluktuera kraftigt. Du bör noga överväga om handel med eller innehav av digitala tillgångar är lämpligt för dig mot bakgrund av din ekonomiska situation.