SUI $ 16 at the end of the year, APT 22 US dollars, why? Vaaneck tell you

Reprinted from chaincatcher

01/30/2025·2M

Author: Patrick Bush, VANECK

Compilation: Alex Liu, ForeSight News

We compare SUI and APTOS in terms of blockchain performance, scalability, ecosystem and transaction advantages, and predict that at the end of 2025, the price of SUI will reach $ 16 and APT will reach $ 22.

Please note that VANECK holds Sui (SUI) and Aptos (APT).

SUI and Aptos: Origin and Overview

We have previously discussed the potential of Ethereum and Solana's attraction of billions of users into the encryption field. Although both ecosystems are very attractive, they represent early blockchain technology. Since its birth, the new generation of blockchain has continuously emerged to break through the restrictions of these systems, including APTOS and SUI founded by members of the Facebook blockchain project DIEM.

DIEM has tried to create a stablecoin payment system for the Facebook social media platform, but it is stranded due to regulatory pressure. However, its technical experiments have promoted a major breakthrough in the blockchain field. DIEM's most important heritage is the MOVE smart contract programming language -RUST language development based on 4.3 million developers worldwide and the third faster growth rate, specially optimized to solve the shortcomings of early smart contract languages such as Solidity and Cardano Haskell. Both APTOS and SUI use MOVE to build a faster, safer and more intuitive development environment for developers. MOVE also helps the two virtual machines (VMs) to achieve faster transaction confirmation speed (the time of the user's confirmation) and higher throughput (the time processing transaction volume of the system unit). MOVE's potential is so huge, and the total market value of blockchain based on MOVE has soared from about $ 5 billion to $ 22 billion within a year.

Core contrast dimension

Blockchain performance and scalability
Ecosystem
Trading experience
Token economics
Valuation model
2025 price forecast
Conclusion and investment risk

The size of the encrypted developer community is only 1/1000 of JavaScript JavaScript

Data source: Electric Capital, Slash Data (as of 2024/12/19)

The importance of Move language is to provide developers with a more friendly entrance. The size of the encrypted developer group is very small -the number of full -time developers of Meta (Facebook) even exceeds the entire encryption industry. By providing more efficient language, MOVE is expected to attract a wider range of developer groups and promote experiments and innovation. This innovation is essential for discovering the "killer application" that promotes large -scale adoption. We view the blockchain as an innovation experimental platform, and its high valuation stems from the ability to bred 100 million users. Because no one predicts how the next breakthrough application will be born, it is particularly critical to attract as much developers as possible.

Both APTOS and SUI combine MOVE virtual machines with advanced consensus mechanisms to ensure that the network is efficiently verified. The combination of this cutting -edge virtual machine and the consensus protocol constitutes its technical cornerstone, which provides the performance of transcending the previous blockchain system. Before the innovation of Solana's Firedancer proves its limitations, SUI and Aptos represent the pinnacle of blockchain technology.

APTOS set 326 million transactions (13,300 TPS) in a single day at 2024/10/18 (13,300 TPS)

Each blockchain single -day trading peak data source: Artemis XYZ (as of 2024/12/19 )

Sui and Aptos provide key blockchain technology that can serve hundreds of millions of users. In terms of simplifying the development process and security, the two are better than Solana (exchanged for scalability with complexity) and Ethereum (for rigid technical bureaucratic governance and backward technology for ecological richness). At the tactical level, SUI and APTOS provides a better experience for the current core cases of encryption (speculation and value transfer); strategic levels lay the foundation for non -commissioning applications such as AI agents, social media, and cloud services. Although the future phenomenon -level application form is not known, SUI and APTOS have shown a strong potential to attract the next generation of blockchain users.

But what exactly made these systems so outstanding? Both are good or bad?

SUI VS. Aptos: Blockchain performance and scalability

Despite sharing MOVE language genes, the blockchain architecture of the two reflects different design philosophy. Each network uses a customized version of MOVE language to make a unique optimization of transaction processing.

When the transaction is sent to the blockchain, the database (that is, the "state") information that needs to be modified. Blockchain engineers say these database updates are "state changes." Most blockchain adopts hierarchical verification mechanism: a single verification person is a temporary "leader", responsible for receiving transactions, verification effectiveness (check the signature, prevent double flower) node. When the more than two -thirds (66%) verifications reach a consensus, the blockchain will enter the next block processing.

The blockchain architecture can be divided into two core components:

1 Transaction processing and block construction
Verify the authenticity of the transaction
Ensure that the account balance is sufficient
Execute smart contracts
Update blockchain account book
2 network communication and status synchronization
Broadcast transaction block to the entire network
Synchronous ledger changes ensure that all verifications are consistent
Process conflict in the account check

Increasing throughput needs to increase block capacity or optimize data processing efficiency. SUI and APTOS break through the technical boundary in different ways by customized MOVE language.

Blockchain transaction throughput = block size × block treatment speed

Both are committed to optimizing the scale and spread of data processing. By analyzing the design differences in the "transaction processing and block construction" link, we reveal their respective advantages and choices.

Blockchain technology ratio: restaurant operation optimization

Blockchain = Restaurant : Provide infrastructure and environment
User = Customer : Through "order" (transaction) interact with system
Transaction = order : specific requests initiated by users
Chain Application = waiter : pass the order to the kitchen (verified by) and return to the processing result
Leader Veritor = Kitchen : Processing orders (verification execution transactions) and output results (state change)
Status change = dishes : processed complete transaction results

In this kind of ratio, the technological improvements of SUI and APTOS are like optimizing restaurant operations -accelerating the efficiency of kitchen, improving the coordination of waiters, and ensuring that order processing is accurate and fast.

Ethereum: Slow -rhythm Restaurant

Ethereum adopts a single -threaded state update mechanism, which needs to accumulate transactions for a long time to form a block. Its block capacity is small and limited, and the transaction must be handled serially -even if it involves different states, it needs to be queued. This combination of small blocks, low -frequency updates, and serial execution causes low throughput and severe scalability.

Analogy: Ethereum is like a restaurant with only one chef. Customers (users) submit orders through the waiter (application), with a list of limited capacity of the order. Orders that have not paid enough "Tips" (GAS fees) will be removed. After about 12 seconds, the order list is sent to the "chef" (verification). Due to limited production capacity, severe congestion must occur during the peak period. Users are complaining about long waiting, but they also hate paying high fees but have not been served.

Ethereum Restaurant: Even if the order is not conflicted, it needs to be dealt with one by one

Source: VANECK Research (2024/12/19)

SUI and Aptos: Introduce fast -restaurant for parallel processing

By allowing conflict transactions to deal with parallel treatment, the two achieved major breakthroughs. For example, simple payment or use of different applications can be performed simultaneously. Although the chain such as Solana and Monad also supports parallel, Sui and Aptos currently have the most advanced designs.

Analogy: Add a number of chefs to the kitchen. However, due to the limit of equipment, when multiple tables are clicked at the same time, insufficient oven capacity will cause some orders to line up. In the blockchain scenario, this is similar to traders to compete for the optimal price in the same DEX -conflict must be resolved, and SUI and Aptos use different solutions.

Parallel treatment to improve throughput

Source: VANECK Research (2024/12/19)

SUI: Static and parallel "Exquisite Cooking"

Using a "static parallel" mechanism similar to Solana, transactions need to be pre -stated in the read and write status part. SUI is based on this judgment conflict, and is resolved according to the cost, receiving time, etc.

Analogy: In the "SUI Restaurant", the waiter (application) to decompose the kitchen equipment involved in the order. If the two orders need to use the same device (such as a pizza), the system will pre -determined the processing order. For example:

Table a white pizza
Black Pizza at table B (signature dishes)
C table point salmon

Orders A and B have conflicts due to the shared oven.

SUI conflict prediction mechanism

Source: VANECK Research (2024/12/19)

Aptos: Dynamic "French Meal"

Using "dynamic parallel" similar to Monad, assuming the conflict is rare, the transaction processing conflicts in real -time detection. If conflicts are found (such as multiple transactions to compete for the same assets), roll back and sort them again.

Analogy: In the "APTOS restaurant", waiters do not need to predict the use of kitchen equipment. The order is directly to the "Kitchen Management" (scheduler), and the latter assumes that it is processed immediately without conflict. If the actual conflict (such as multiple customers compete for multi -Buddha catfish), cooking and re -scheduling need to be stopped. Although it seems inefficient, the speed processing capacity of APTOS kitchen can usually digest this loss.

Aptos dynamic conflict resolution

Source: VANECK Research (2024/12/23)

The deep impact of two models

Aptos development friendship

Do not force the state dependence, reduce development complexity
Suitable for application scenarios that need to be flexible (such as order conditions execution)

SUI execution efficiency

Solve the conflict in advance to reduce computing resources consumption
Excellent performance in high competition scenes (such as DEX arbitrage)
However, part of the state may be exclusively caused by "writing locks"

Extreme Scene Test

Aptos may encounter a scheduling bottleneck when conflicting (following the KINGMAN formula: When the system load is full, the growth of small traffic will trigger the index level delay)
SUI writing lock may lead to inefficient resource utilization

SUI's unique advantage: local expense market and service agreement

Local expense market

Different applications can be independently priced at GAS fees (such as AFTERMATH Finance SUI/USDC Ponds can increase price separately)
Compared with the global expense market of APTOS / Ethereum (single application congestion leads to rising GAS in the entire network)

Analogy: SUI restaurant's cooking area is priced according to demand (sea urchin pasta does not affect bull buckets), and APTOS is uniformly uniformly fixed (the increase in the demand for pickled fish ice cream in acid orange juice leads to rising red bream pizza costs).

Service level protocol (SLA)

Verivers can promise daily transactions delay and pricing
Guarantee enterprise -level applications to avoid other activities interference on the chain

Final Time: SUI Occupy

Source: Circle, Project Document (2024/12/19)

For simple payment transactions, SUI realizes ultra -low delay and high throughput through two major mechanisms:

Fast Path : bypass the consensus mechanism, delayed as low as 300 milliseconds
Pilot Fish : Verivers can achieve nearly infinite expansion by adding a server

Its technical foundation lies in the objectized state architecture -USDC and other assets as independent objects as independent objects by users (rather than Ethereum contract bookkeeping models). When the two users are transferred at the same time, the SUI can be processed (modify the ownership of their respective objects), and Aptos/Solana needs to access the same smart contract serially.

Aptos response: Quorum Store

Enhance through the process of optimizing the consensus process:

Allow non -leader verifications to participate in transaction dissemination
Leaders focus on block proposals and broadcast
It may exacerbate the scheduling challenge of the high conflict scene

Weighing

In order to improve the DAG authentication link to improve the speed of SUI, it may be more likely to be affected by network packet loss (such as a significant speed reduction of the package by 5/100 verification). In addition, malicious verifications are greater than APTOS. Although major attacks on the POS system are still theoretical risks, this hidden danger may be magnified as ecological maturity.

Ecological status quo: sui temporarily lead

Data source: Artemis xyz (2025/1/21)

Critical application

SUI: SUILEND/NAVI (TVL over 450 million), permanent contract Bluefin (average daily transaction volume of 250 million, full chain ranking 7)
APTOS: Stablecoin \ Dex protocol THALA (TVL 135 million)

Incentive strategy and "employment capital" risk

SUI: In October 2023, it promised 157 million SUI (current price of about 300 million US dollars) to motivate ecology, and the estimated annualized income increased by 5.2%-10%
APTOS: Provide 6.5% -20% APT rewards to attract liquidity. It is estimated that annual incentive expenditure is US $ 100 million

Both are faced with the problem of "hiring capital" -the user only comes for arbitrage rewards, and ecological sustainability is doubtful.

Developers and community popularity

Active developer: SUI 280/ Week vs Aptos 272 person/ week (3300 people in Ethereum, 1200 Sorana))
Google Search Hot: SUI is 9 times that of APTOS. In the past 90 days, it has exceeded Solana 17 days, and 16 days exceed Ethereum
Realized successful applications have not yet appeared (such as the sluggish users of FANTV and Birds of SUI)

Trading experience: SUI is better

SUI has built a better system for traders, which are specifically reflected in:

Programmable trading block (PTB)

A single transaction can dynamically call as many as 1024 instructions, and in real -time binding data on the chain/ chain data decision (such as the DEX polymer uses ASIC/ GPU to calculate the optimal path).
The number of accounts surpassed by Solana (64 input accounts) and supports complex transactions (as over 100 objects operate at the same time).

GAS cost mechanism

SUI: The verification person sets the benchmark price, and users can add priority fees to cut in line. Using the local expense market, high demand is applied to independent pricing (such as the AFTERMATH Finance SUI/USDC pool can be raised separately).
APTOS: The GAS base price of the governance setting is floating global. There is no priority fee mechanism, and high demand scenarios have risen online.

Deepbook liquidity layer

The central price limit order book (ClOB) built in the SUI chain, aggregate all -chain liquidity.
Reduce DEX slippery points and weaken the liquidity monopoly advantage of head applications.

Influence:

The cost of making a quotation in the SUI renewal is lower (thousands of orders are updated in batches in single transactions).
The price difference of Sui Dex may be better than APTOS, attracting more transaction volume.

Token economics comparison

Unique design:

SUI Storage Fund : The network pays the newly cast SUI to the authenticator, compensates for long -term storage costs, and forms the pressure of vingid coins.
APT inflation and destruction balance : High transaction volume may cause APT to shrink, but the current annual inflation is still higher than the destruction volume.

Value model and price forecast

Smart Contract Platform (SCP) total market value

It is expected to reach US $ 1.1 trillion by the end of 2025 (currently 770 billion,+43%)
Based on the US M2 currency supply (expected to be 2.2.3 trillion in 2025, an annual increase of 3.2%), the regression analysis (R² = 0.36)

MOVE market share

Current 2.7%(SUI 2% + APTOS 0.7%) → 6.5%in 2025

Price forecast

SUI : 5.5% share corresponds to 610 billion market value, 3 billion circulation → $ 16 (current price 3.75,+326%)
APT : 1% share corresponding to 11 billion market value, 507 million circulation → $ 22 (current price 7.3,+201%)

Conclusion and investment risk

Our conclusion

Existing evidence shows that SUI is more competitive with its performance advantages and expansion potential. Its unique local expense market, pilot fish architecture and fast channel design provides a better Defi pricing environment for high -frequency traders. Coupled with the powerful community narrative capabilities, SUI has established a leading position in terms of token performance and ecological activity.

However, the advantages of APTOS in development flexibility and chain stability cannot be ignored. Although SUI is currently ahead of economic indicators such as TVL and DEX transaction volume, the dynamic changes in the encrypted market may quickly reverse the situation. In the long run, the victory will depend on who can continue to innovate and transform technological advantages into ecological prosperity.

Five core risks

Business expansion dilemma : neither of them has a collaborative strategy of technological development and ecological expansion. If it is impossible to cultivate killer applications that really use their technical characteristics, ecological prosperity may be difficult to continue.
Lack of technical pressure testing : The existing transaction is mainly based on simple transfer, and has not yet experienced the extreme test of the Solana -class DEX transaction volume. Innovative functions such as Pilot Fish may need to be adjusted in high -pressure scenes.
Competitive threats intensify:
Solana Firedancer Upgrade: After 2025, the performance upgrade may be surpassed or overtaked SUI/APTOS
Emerging public chain: Monad's technical community dual advantage, Berachain's speculative power
Historical lessons: High -performance chain is easy to be replaced by the latecomers (such as the decline of EOS and Tezos)
Macroeconomic fluctuations: Cryptive assets are related to M2 currency supply (R² = 0.36). If the Fed tighten liquidity or the global financial crisis, the market value of SCP may shrink significantly.
Supervision Black Swan: If the FIT 21 Act is set up with strict decentralized standards, SUI/APTOS may be classified as securities and restricted its circulation other than qualified investors.