Arbitrum vs Optimism

Karolina

29 Sep 2023
Arbitrum vs Optimism

In the extensive and continuously growing realm of blockchain and cryptocurrency, the search for scalable Ethereum solutions has become a crucial battlefront. As Ethereum shifts towards proof-of-stake, layer-2 scaling solution contenders like Arbitrum and Optimism have gained prominence. The launch of the ARB token has further fueled the competition, enticing crypto aficionados and professionals to examine and assess these two platforms' technical capabilities. While they vie for the esteemed title of 'King of Ethereum Scaling,' it leads to the question: Is there a clear frontrunner between them? This article aims to shed light on this urgent query by exploring the structure, ecosystems, and potential trajectories of both Arbitrum and Optimism.

READ ALSO: Arbitrum vs Polygon

Arbitrum vs Optimism: Architectural Differences

As Ethereum strives for enhanced scalability, layer-2 chains such as Arbitrum and Optimism have emerged as prominent solutions. Utilizing "optimistic rollups," these chains offer an innovative approach by condensing several transactions into one, effectively moving traffic away from the congested Ethereum mainnet to a swifter, more efficient second layer. This brilliant technique significantly reduces the burden on the primary layer, leading to faster transactions and more affordable fees.

Optimistic rollups rely on a trust-based principle, optimistically presuming that collected transaction data in batches are valid when verified on the main Ethereum chain. "Fraud proofs" provide a strong safety measure, inspecting and confirming data legitimacy. This trustless system enables instant transaction finality and substantial throughput improvements compared to traditional Ethereum setups. However, there is a compromise – a seven-day challenge window exists to question transaction validity. Furthermore, these systems utilize a 'sequencer' to order transactions prior to their integration into the main chain.

Despite appearing similar at first glance, Arbitrum and Optimism possess subtle architectural distinctions. Fundamentally, Optimism implements single-round fraud proofs for expediency but incurs higher gas fees due to transactions occurring on the core Ethereum layer. Conversely, Arbitrum adopts a more economical method using multi-round fraud proofs, which take longer but are less expensive.

Distinct choices in virtual machines are another differentiating factor. While Optimism solely relies on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and confines its programming paradigm to Solidity, Arbitrum expands its possibilities with the custom Arbitrum Virtual Machine (AVM), supporting all EVM-compatible languages for increased adaptability.

Ultimately, these minor technical variations between Arbitrum and Optimism can result in significantly different user experiences as each platform addresses specific needs and preferences.

Arbitrum vs Optimism: Analyzing the Ecosystem

A thorough analysis of both Arbitrum's and Optimism's ecosystems in the struggle for supremacy among Layer-2 scaling solutions reveals intriguing findings. Both platforms are built on optimistic rollups, and their growth metrics tell a fascinating tale.

A distinct lead is evident for Arbitrum when looking at the Total Value Locked (TVL). Data indicates that Arbitrum's TVL surpasses Optimism's by over twice as much, representing a substantial difference in the DeFi realm. Delving into the distribution of TVL, this difference becomes even more marked. Derivatives and decentralized exchanges (Dexes) contribute significantly to Arbitrum's diversified portfolio, whereas Dexes account for a considerable proportion of Optimism's TVL.

Exploring native versus non-native protocols further highlights the dominance of Arbitrum. A large portion of its TVL comes from native protocols, while Optimism falls behind in this regard. It is essential to recognize GMX's substantial impact on Arbitrum, contributing significantly to its TVL.

Arbitrum maintains its superior position from an activity perspective, boasting higher protocol numbers, increased daily active addresses, and improved transaction rates. The recent airdrop amplified their dominance; however, it remains critical to observe whether these metrics will stabilize or change after the initial excitement surrounding the airdrop.

Arbitrum vs Optimism: Upcoming Catalysts

Even though current information seems to favor Arbitrum, both platforms' future plans present exciting prospects capable of reshaping the L2 space.

Optimism spearheads an innovative project with OP Stack: an ambitious plan aiming to create a scalable, modular, and interoperable blockchain system. Their forthcoming product, Optimism Bedrock, is expected to incorporate modularity and usher in improved performance statistics. Their collaboration with Coinbase could be their most significant advantage in forming a "Superchain": a seamless network built on top of the OP Stack to enhance inter-chain connectivity and functions.

Arbitrum, on the other hand, does not intend to rest on its achievements. The introduction of the ARB token drop not only supports greater decentralization but also aims to entice a larger user base. Other noteworthy initiatives include Arbitrum Nova, which intends to lower gas fees dramatically, favoring applications requiring high bandwidth. Their prioritization shifts to developer access, with projects like Arbitrum Orbit and the Stylus upgrade meant to draw in a wider developer audience.

To understand this topic better, we recommend you watching this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsHH_JGK390

Conclusion

Which platform emerges as the victor in this struggle of optimistic rollup titans?

Arbitrum currently claims the crown, with its remarkable TVL, heightened user engagement, and notable transaction volume amplified by the ARB airdrop. Nonetheless, the dynamic nature of the crypto world is notorious for swift changes and surprising turns – and with a promising roadmap and partnership with Coinbase, Optimism might well become a powerful competitor.

Both L2 platforms offer immense potential as they continue to develop, further shaping the story of this captivating rivalry.

READ ALSO: 'Arbitrum to Polygon Bridge'

Tagi

Most viewed


Never miss a story

Stay updated about Nextrope news as it happens.

You are subscribed

Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Kajetan Olas

22 Nov 2024
Aethir Tokenomics – Case Study

Authors of the contents are not affiliated to the reviewed project in any way and none of the information presented should be taken as financial advice.

In this article we analyze tokenomics of Aethir - a project providing on-demand cloud compute resources for the AI, Gaming, and virtualized compute sectors.
Aethir aims to aggregate enterprise-grade GPUs from multiple providers into a DePIN (Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network). Its competitive edge comes from utlizing the GPUs for very specific use-cases, such as low-latency rendering for online games.
Due to decentralized nature of its infrastructure Aethir can meet the demands of online-gaming in any region. This is especially important for some gamer-abundant regions in Asia with underdeveloped cloud infrastructure that causes high latency ("lags").
We will analyze Aethir's tokenomics, give our opinion on what was done well, and provide specific recommendations on how to improve it.

Evaluation Summary

Aethir Tokenomics Structure

The total supply of ATH tokens is capped at 42 billion ATH. This fixed cap provides a predictable supply environment, and the complete emissions schedule is listed here. As of November 2024 there are approximately 5.2 Billion ATH in circulation. In a year from now (November 2025), the circulating supply will almost triple, and will amount to approximately 15 Billion ATH. By November 2028, today's circulating supply will be diluted by around 86%.

From an investor standpoint the rational decision would be to stake their tokens and hope for rewards that will balance the inflation. Currently the estimated APR for 3-year staking is 195% and for 4-year staking APR is 261%. The rewards are paid out weekly. Furthermore, stakers can expect to get additional rewards from partnered AI projects.

Staking Incentives

Rewards are calculated based on the staking duration and staked amount. These factors are equally important and they linearly influence weekly rewards. This means that someone who stakes 100 ATH for 2 weeks will have the same weekly rewards as someone who stakes 200 ATH for 1 week. This mechanism greatly emphasizes long-term holding. That's because holding a token makes sense only if you go for long-term staking. E.g. a whale staking $200k with 1 week lockup. will have the same weekly rewards as person staking $1k with 4 year lockup. Furthermore the ATH staking rewards are fixed and divided among stakers. Therefore Increase of user base is likely to come with decrease in rewards.
We believe the main weak-point of Aethirs staking is the lack of equivalency between rewards paid out to the users and value generated for the protocol as a result of staking.

Token Distribution

The token distribution of $ATH is well designed and comes with long vesting time-frames. 18-month cliff and 36-moths subsequent linear vesting is applied to team's allocation. This is higher than industry standard and is a sign of long-term commitment.

  • Checkers and Compute Providers: 50%
  • Ecosystem: 15%
  • Team: 12.5%
  • Investors: 11.5%
  • Airdrop: 6%
  • Advisors: 5%

Aethir's airdrop is divided into 3 phases to ensure that only loyal users get rewarded. This mechanism is very-well thought and we rate it highly. It fosters high community engagement within the first months of the project and sets the ground for potentially giving more-control to the DAO.

Governance and Community-Led Development

Aethir’s governance model promotes community-led decision-making in a very practical way. Instead of rushing with creation of a DAO for PR and marketing purposes Aethir is trying to make it the right way. They support projects building on their infrastructure and regularly share updates with their community in the most professional manner.

We believe Aethir would benefit from implementing reputation boosted voting. An example of such system is described here. The core assumption is to abandon the simplistic: 1 token = 1 vote and go towards: Votes = tokens * reputation_based_multiplication_factor.

In the attached example, reputation_based_multiplication_factor rises exponentially with the number of standard deviations above norm, with regard to user's rating. For compute compute providers at Aethir, user's rating could be replaced by provider's uptime.

Perspectives for the future

While it's important to analyze aspects such as supply-side tokenomics, or governance, we must keep in mind that 95% of project's success depends on demand-side. In this regard the outlook for Aethir may be very bright. The project declares $36M annual reccuring revenue. Revenue like this is very rare in the web3 space. Many projects are not able to generate any revenue after succesfull ICO event, due to lack fo product-market-fit.

If you're looking to create a robust tokenomics model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure your project’s resilience in the long term.

Quadratic Voting in Web3

Kajetan Olas

04 Dec 2024
Quadratic Voting in Web3

Decentralized systems are reshaping how we interact, conduct transactions, and govern online communities. As Web3 continues to advance, the necessity for effective and fair voting mechanisms becomes apparent. Traditional voting systems, such as the one-token-one-vote model, often fall short in capturing the intensity of individual preferences, which can result in centralization. Quadratic Voting (QV) addresses this challenge by enabling individuals to express not only their choices but also the strength of their preferences.

In QV, voters are allocated a budget of credits that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The cost of casting multiple votes on a single issue increases quadratically, meaning that each additional vote costs more than the last. This system allows for a more precise expression of preferences, as individuals can invest more heavily in issues they care deeply about while conserving credits on matters of lesser importance.

Understanding Quadratic Voting

Quadratic Voting (QV) is a voting system designed to capture not only the choices of individuals but also the strength of their preferences. In most DAO voting mechanisms, each person typically has one vote per token, which limits the ability to express how strongly they feel about a particular matter. Furthermore, QV limits the power of whales and founding team who typically have large token allocations. These problems are adressed by making the cost of each additional vote increase quadratically.

In QV, each voter is given a budget of credits or tokens that they can spend to cast votes on various issues. The key principle is that the cost to cast n votes on a single issue is proportional to the square of n. This quadratic cost function ensures that while voters can express stronger preferences, doing so requires a disproportionately higher expenditure of their voting credits. This mechanism discourages voters from concentrating all their influence on a single issue unless they feel very strongly about it. In the context of DAOs, it means that large holders will have a hard-time pushing through with a proposal if they'll try to do it on their own.

Practical Example

Consider a voter who has been allocated 25 voting credits to spend on several proposals. The voter has varying degrees of interest in three proposals: Proposal A, Proposal B, and Proposal C.

  • Proposal A: High interest.
  • Proposal B: Moderate interest.
  • Proposal C: Low interest.

The voter might allocate their credits as follows:

Proposal A:

  • Votes cast: 3
  • Cost: 9 delegated tokens

Proposal B:

  • Votes cast: 2
  • Cost: 4 delegated tokens

Proposal C:

  • Votes cast: 1
  • Cost: 1 delegated token

Total delegated tokens: 14
Remaining tokens: 11

With the remaining tokens, the voter can choose to allocate additional votes to the proposals based on their preferences or save for future proposals. If they feel particularly strong about Proposal A, they might decide to cast one more vote:

Additional vote on Proposal A:

  • New total votes: 4
  • New cost: 16 delegated tokens
  • Additional cost: 16−9 = 7 delegated tokens

Updated total delegated tokens: 14+7 = 21

Updated remaining tokens: 25−21 = 425 - 21 = 4

This additional vote on Proposal A costs 7 credits, significantly more than the previous vote, illustrating how the quadratic cost discourages excessive influence on a single issue without strong conviction.

Benefits of Implementing Quadratic Voting

Key Characteristics of the Quadratic Cost Function

  • Marginal Cost Increases Linearly: The marginal cost of each additional vote increases linearly. The cost difference between casting n and n−1 votes is 2n−1.
  • Total Cost Increases Quadratically: The total cost to cast multiple votes rises steeply, discouraging voters from concentrating too many votes on a single issue without significant reason.
  • Promotes Egalitarian Voting: Small voters are encouraged to participate, because relatively they have a much higher impact.

Advantages Over Traditional Voting Systems

Quadratic Voting offers several benefits compared to traditional one-person-one-vote systems:

  • Captures Preference Intensity: By allowing voters to express how strongly they feel about an issue, QV leads to outcomes that better reflect the collective welfare.
  • Reduces Majority Domination: The quadratic cost makes it costly for majority groups to overpower minority interests on every issue.
  • Encourages Honest Voting: Voters are incentivized to allocate votes in proportion to their true preferences, reducing manipulation.

By understanding the foundation of Quadratic Voting, stakeholders in Web3 communities can appreciate how this system supports more representative governance.

Conclusion

Quadratic voting is a novel voting system that may be used within DAOs to foster decentralization. The key idea is to make the cost of voting on a certain issue increase quadratically. The leading player that makes use of this mechanism is Optimism. If you're pondering about the design of your DAO, we highly recommend taking a look at their research on quadratic funding.

If you're looking to create a robust governance model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure that your DAO will stand out as a beacon of innovation and resilience in the long term.