🗝️"SUI achieved a high-low point increase of 142% in the past month, and Grayscale added it to the list of investment products"
🗝️“Tether announced that it will launch USDT on Aptos”
This is a summary of the hot topics of the past month. Some friends may not know that the two well-known MOVE L1s: Aptos & SUI, were originally from the same team. 💰Vote to share 5000U
In addition to these two brothers, there is another L1 about which there has been no news: Linera.
At the beginning, these three were called the "Three Heroes" of the MOVE system because they were the three MOVE system L1s composed of the three teams that originally left Libra.
(1) Currently, other L1s developed based on this language include 0L and Starcoin. Move was originally developed as part of the Diem project.
(2) The predecessor of Diem is the more famous Libra, which can be easily found by searching on the Internet. It was a blockchain system originally led by Facebook (Meta), but was later stopped due to regulatory issues.
(In fact, from the fact that Facebook later changed its name to Meta, we can see that Zuckerberg is obsessed with this matter.)
📍In this article, we will briefly review Aptos, Sui and Linera. As they all received much market attention and attention at the time, and all received capital support at the beginning of their business, which one of them is more worthy of our bet?
-About MOVE🔻
It is designed as a resource-oriented language and borrows many features from the Rust language.
Its basic characteristics are a bit abstract for me to understand, and I also obtained them from third-party information, so I will not repeat them.
We only need to understand one thing: although it has certain similarities with Rust, a new language for a system also means a considerable educational cost.
This is a problem that all new language systems/L1s will encounter, and it is one of the biggest reasons why L1 valuation logic is the biggest in the industry.
-The current situation of Aptos, Sui and Linera🔻
Note: Since there is already a lot of public information on the technical architecture of Aptos and SUI in the market, I will not go into too much detail in this article, but just compare the data performance of the two.
（1）Apartments
Aptos focuses on high throughput and low latency, and has already released its mainnet. Although its on-chain activity is not as high as SUI, it still has a certain amount of users and developers.
Currently, there are about 180 ecosystems on its chain, with the latest daily active data being 229,000. The average daily active address in the past year is about 150,000, the average GAS per transaction is US$0.002, and the TVL data is 410 million.
（2）On
Sui focuses on composability and scalability, and has also released its mainnet. Sui uses its own version of Move, called Sui Move, which is currently the strongest chain in the entire MOVE system, without a doubt.
In terms of ecosystem, its scale is currently similar to that of Aptos, with only a few more projects than Aptos. I have not further counted the actual application scale and operation status.
According to the latest third-party data statistics (Artemis), SUI has 337,000 daily active addresses. Judging from the data in the past six months, SUI is still better than Aptos.
The average transaction fee per transaction is around US$0.002, which is about the same level as Aptos. The TVL data is 630 million. In the TPS data displayed by each, SUI is also better than Aptos.
(3) Linera
Linera focuses on privacy and scalability. It is still in the testnet stage and has not yet released its mainnet. It is a project that was also separated from the Libra system and is as famous as SUI and Aptos, but it is far inferior to the former two in terms of financing lineup and development progress (development progress may be limited by its own early resources).
These three actually have one thing in common: they all received early support from a16z. In fact, from an objective perspective, the actual amount of financing in two rounds has reached 12 million, which is not insignificant, but the progress has been very, very slow, from the initial attention to the current lack of attention.
From the progress of the other party’s blog updates, we can notice that after completing the first round of seed financing, they actually encountered a considerable development bottleneck for a period of time. Then, after completing the second round of financing, they launched the developer education plan. It can be said that there was no real progress in the previous 22-23 bear market year.
Currently, its entire architecture is running in a [sub-chain native expansion] mode, with multiple sub-chains running in parallel to ensure sufficient on-chain efficiency. This is the architectural difference from the previous two.
(There are many projects in the industry that adopt this [sub-chain native expansion] approach. For example, the currently popular $TON adopts a similar architecture.)
Thanks to this architecture, Linera’s scalability may be better than the previous two, but in terms of single-chain performance, it may not be that good (at least judging from the TPS data officially disclosed by SUI).
Finally, it is worth mentioning that Linera’s main development language is Rust, which is just borrowed from MOVE. It seems that there have been some changes in its strategic decisions later. I guess it encountered some problems after the first round of financing, and then began to adjust its strategic direction after completing the second round of financing.
But it is precisely because of this that the chain as a whole is not so differentiated now;
The original positioning could be to be included in the privacy payment chain of the MOVE system. This concept is quite attractive and is closer to what Diem (the name changed after Libra) was doing.
-Which one has more advantages❓
These three projects each have their own advantages. Judging from the comprehensive development level and the prices reflected in the secondary market, SUI will show a more obvious advantage.
As the already launched MOVE series L1 (SUI&APT), it did not experience the double-top market in the previous round. Since its launch last year, it has still performed at a relatively high level of liquidity. The expectation that the current price will recover its high point is much higher than other old L1s (such as SOL/DOT/ADA, etc.).
📍I even think that SUI has great opportunities in this round and is worth paying attention to and planning. It has shown strong vitality in the MOVE system, and its current circulating market value is slightly lower than $APT
1) $SUI The current price needs to be about 3 times higher to break through the previous high
2) $APT needs to break through the previous high by more than 10 times. If we ignore the spike price on the day of listing, it also needs to be about 3 times.
As for Linera, I think it is still worth paying attention to its future testnet release. If there are still not many people paying attention to it, I think it will have a relatively high interactive value (but in the current atmosphere where a lot of people are rushing to get 1 million in financing, the probability of few people participating is estimated to be very small).
The progress of this project is so slow that I am very confused. I don’t know what it is doing with the money, and there is no voice on social media. I personally don’t have any expectations for the launch of this project for the time being.
