SUI $16 and APT $22 by year-end—why? VanEck tells you
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
SUI $16 and APT $22 by year-end—why? VanEck tells you
In-depth technical analysis, long post on Ponzi scheme Move chain, makes you want to go all-in after reading.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Patrick Bush, VanEck
Translation: Alex Liu, Foresight News
We compare Sui and Aptos across blockchain performance, scalability, ecosystems, and transaction advantages, forecasting SUI to reach $16 and APT to reach $22 by the end of 2025.
Please note that VanEck holds Sui (SUI) and Aptos (APT).
Sui vs. Aptos: Origins and Overview
Previously, we discussed Ethereum and Solana's potential to bring billions of users into crypto. While both ecosystems are compelling, they represent earlier blockchain technologies. Since their emergence, a new generation of blockchains has arisen to overcome these systems' limitations—among them Aptos and Sui, founded by former members of Facebook’s Diem blockchain project.
Diem aimed to build a stablecoin payment system for Facebook's social media platforms but was shelved due to regulatory pressure. However, its technical experiments led to significant breakthroughs in the blockchain space. Diem’s most important legacy is the Move smart contract programming language—built on Rust, one of the world’s top three fastest-growing languages used by 4.3 million developers globally—and optimized to address shortcomings in earlier smart contract languages like Ethereum’s Solidity and Cardano’s Haskell. Both Aptos and Sui leverage Move to create faster, safer, and more intuitive development environments for developers. Move also enables both platforms’ virtual machines (VMs) to achieve faster transaction finality (time until user confirmation) and higher throughput (number of transactions processed per unit time). The potential of Move is so great that the total market cap of Move-based blockchains surged from approximately $5 billion to $22 billion within a year.
Core Comparison Dimensions
-
Blockchain Performance and Scalability
-
Ecosystem
-
Transaction Experience
-
Token Economics
-
Valuation Models
-
Price Forecast for 2025
-
Conclusion and Investment Risks
The size of the crypto developer community is only 1/1000th that of JavaScript
Data source: Electric Capital, Slash Data (as of 2024/12/19)
The significance of the Move language lies in providing a more accessible entry point for developers. The crypto developer community is extremely small—Meta (Facebook) employs more full-time developers than the entire crypto industry combined. By offering a more usable and efficient language, Move has the potential to attract a broader range of developers, fostering experimentation and innovation. Such innovation is critical for discovering the “killer applications” that drive mass adoption. We view blockchains as experimental platforms for innovation, with high valuations stemming from their ability to incubate billion-user applications. Since no one can predict where the next breakthrough will come from, attracting as many developers as possible to experiment becomes essential.
Both Aptos and Sui combine the Move Virtual Machine with advanced consensus mechanisms to ensure efficient transaction validation across the network. This cutting-edge combination of VM and consensus protocol forms their technological foundation, delivering performance beyond previous-generation blockchains. Until innovations such as Solana’s Firedancer prove otherwise, Sui and Aptos represent the pinnacle of current blockchain technology.
Aptos set a record of 326 million daily transactions (13,300 TPS) on 2024/10/18
Daily peak transaction volume across blockchains. Data source: Artemis XYZ (as of 2024/12/19)
Sui and Aptos offer key blockchain technologies capable of serving hundreds of millions of users. Both outperform Solana (which trades complexity for scalability) and Ethereum (which sacrifices flexibility for ecosystem richness through rigid technocratic governance and outdated technology) in simplifying development workflows and ensuring security. At the tactical level, Sui and Aptos provide superior experiences for core crypto use cases such as speculation and value transfer. Strategically, they lay the groundwork for non-speculative applications such as AI agents, social media, and cloud services. While the form of future breakout applications remains unknown, Sui and Aptos have already demonstrated strong potential to attract the next generation of blockchain users.
But what exactly makes these systems so exceptional? And which one is better?
Sui vs. Aptos: Blockchain Performance and Scalability
Despite sharing the Move language lineage, the two platforms reflect different architectural design philosophies. Each network uses a customized version of Move, uniquely optimized for transaction processing.
When a transaction is sent to a blockchain, it carries information about the database (i.e., "state") it intends to modify. Blockchain engineers refer to these database updates as "state changes." Most blockchains employ a hierarchical validation mechanism: a single validator acts as a temporary "leader," responsible for receiving transactions, verifying validity (checking signatures, preventing double-spends), ordering execution, updating state, and broadcasting the resulting transaction block to other validator nodes. When over two-thirds (66%) of validators reach consensus, the blockchain proceeds to the next block.
A blockchain architecture consists of two core components:
1. Transaction Processing and Block Building
-
Verify transaction authenticity
-
Ensure sufficient account balances
-
Execute smart contracts
-
Update the blockchain ledger
2. Network Communication and State Synchronization
-
Broadcast transaction blocks across the network
-
Synchronize ledger changes to ensure all validators maintain consistent state
-
Resolve conflicts during ledger reconciliation
To increase throughput, blockchains must either enlarge block size or improve data processing efficiency. Sui and Aptos push technical boundaries differently through their customized versions of the Move language.
Blockchain Transaction Throughput = Block Size × Block Processing Speed
Both aim to optimize data processing scale and propagation speed. By analyzing differences in their "transaction processing and block building" designs, we uncover each platform's strengths and trade-offs.
Blockchain Technology Analogy: Restaurant Operations Optimization
-
Blockchain = Restaurant: Provides infrastructure and environment
-
Users = Customers: Interact with the system via "orders" (transactions)
-
Transaction = Order: Specific requests initiated by users
-
On-chain application = Waiter: Delivers orders to the kitchen (validators) and returns results
-
Leader validator = Kitchen: Processes orders (validates and executes transactions) and produces output (state changes)
-
State change = Dish: Result of a completed transaction
In this analogy, Sui and Aptos’ technical improvements resemble optimizing restaurant operations—accelerating kitchen efficiency, improving coordination among waiters, and ensuring accurate and fast order fulfillment.
Ethereum: The Slow-Paced Restaurant
Ethereum uses a single-threaded state update mechanism, accumulating transactions over longer periods to form blocks. It has small block capacity, limited operations, and requires serial transaction processing—even when modifying unrelated parts of the state. This combination of small blocks, low-frequency updates, and sequential execution leads to low throughput and severe scalability issues.
Analogy: Ethereum is like a restaurant with only one chef. Customers (users) submit orders via waiters (applications), which are compiled into a list with limited capacity. Orders that don’t pay sufficiently high “tips” (gas fees) get excluded. About 12 seconds later, the order list goes to the “head chef” (validator), who processes them in descending order of tips. Due to limited capacity, severe congestion inevitably occurs during peak hours. Users complain about long waits and resent paying high fees without receiving service.
Ethereum Restaurant: Even non-conflicting orders must be processed sequentially
Source: VanEck Research (2024/12/19)
Sui and Aptos: Fast-Food Restaurants with Parallel Processing
By allowing parallel processing of non-conflicting transactions, both platforms achieve a major breakthrough. For example, simple payments or interactions with different applications can be executed simultaneously. Although chains like Solana and Monad also support parallelism, Sui and Aptos currently feature the most advanced designs.
Analogy: Add multiple chefs to the kitchen. But due to equipment constraints, if multiple tables order pizza at once, oven capacity may still cause some orders to queue. In blockchain terms, this resembles traders competing for optimal prices on the same DEX—conflicts must be resolved, and Sui and Aptos adopt different approaches.
Parallel processing increases throughput
Source: VanEck Research (2024/12/19)
Sui: Static Parallelism – “Fine Dining”
Using a “static parallelism” mechanism similar to Solana, transactions must pre-declare which parts of the state they intend to read or write. Sui uses this information to detect conflicts and resolve them based on fee, arrival time, etc.
Analogy: At the “Sui Restaurant,” waiters (applications) break down which kitchen equipment an order requires. If two orders need the same device (e.g., a pizza oven), the system determines processing order upfront. For example:
-
Table A orders white pizza
-
Table B orders black pizza (signature dish)
-
Table C orders salmon
Orders A and B conflict due to shared oven usage, so the system prioritizes B, while C can be processed immediately using an idle grill.
Sui’s Conflict Pre-Detection Mechanism
Source: VanEck Research (2024/12/19)
Aptos: Dynamic Parallelism – “French Haute Cuisine”
Adopting “dynamic parallelism” akin to Monad, Aptos assumes conflicts are rare and detects them in real-time during execution. If a conflict arises (e.g., multiple transactions competing for the same asset), it rolls back and reorders.
Analogy: At the “Aptos Restaurant,” waiters don’t need to anticipate kitchen equipment usage. Orders go directly to the “kitchen manager” (scheduler), who assumes no conflict and starts cooking immediately. If a conflict actually occurs (e.g., multiple customers vying for the Dover sole), cooking stops and rescheduling occurs. While seemingly inefficient, Aptos’ kitchen operates so quickly that it typically absorbs this overhead.
Aptos Dynamic Conflict Resolution
Source: VanEck Research (2024/12/23)
Deeper Implications of the Two Models
Aptos’ Developer-Friendliness
-
No requirement to declare state dependencies, reducing development complexity
-
Suitable for flexible application scenarios (e.g., conditional order execution)
Sui’s Execution Efficiency
-
Resolves conflicts upfront, reducing computational overhead
-
Excels in high-competition scenarios (e.g., DEX arbitrage)
-
But may lead to “write locks” where certain states are exclusively occupied
Stress Testing Extreme Scenarios
-
Aptos may face scheduling bottlenecks under high conflict (following Kingman’s formula: near-full system load causes exponential delay with minor traffic increases)
-
Sui’s write locks could result in inefficient resource utilization
Sui’s Unique Advantages: Local Fee Markets and Service Level Agreements
Local Fee Markets
-
Different applications can independently price gas fees (e.g., Aftermath Finance’s SUI/USDC pool can raise prices separately)
-
Contrast with Aptos/Ethereum’s global fee markets (congestion in one app raises gas fees network-wide)
Analogy: In the Sui restaurant, different cooking zones price independently (higher sea urchin pasta prices don't affect steak wraps), whereas Aptos uses global pricing (increased demand for ceviche ice cream drives up red snapper pizza costs).
Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
-
Validators can commit to daily transaction latency and pricing
-
Ensures enterprise applications remain unaffected by other on-chain activity
Finality Time: Sui Has the Edge
Source: Circle, Project Documentation (2024/12/19)
For simple payment-type transactions, Sui achieves ultra-low latency and high throughput through two key mechanisms:
-
Fast Path: Bypasses consensus entirely, achieving as low as 300ms latency
-
Pilot Fish: Validators can add servers to achieve nearly infinite scaling
Their technical foundation lies in an object-oriented state architecture—assets like USDC exist as independent objects directly owned by users (unlike Ethereum’s contract-based accounting model). When two users transfer assets simultaneously, Sui can process them in parallel (updating ownership of separate objects), while Aptos/Solana require serial access to the same smart contract.
Aptos’ Countermeasure: Quorum Store
Improves throughput by optimizing consensus:
-
Allows non-leader validators to participate in transaction dissemination
-
Leaders focus solely on block proposal and broadcasting
-
May exacerbate scheduling challenges in high-conflict scenarios
Security Trade-offs
To boost speed, Sui omits the DAG certification step, potentially making it more vulnerable to network packet loss (e.g., even 1% packet loss from 5 out of 100 validators significantly slows performance). Additionally, the attack surface from malicious validators is larger than on Aptos. Although major attacks on PoS systems remain theoretical risks, such vulnerabilities could grow as the ecosystem matures.
Current Ecosystem Status: Sui Leads for Now
Data source: Artemis XYZ (2025/1/21)
Key Applications
-
Sui: Lending protocols Suilend/Navi (TVL over $450M), perpetual futures exchange BlueFin (average daily volume $250M, ranked #7 across all chains)
-
Aptos: Stablecoin/DEX protocol Thala (TVL $135M)
Incentive Strategies and “Rented Capital” Risk
-
Sui: Committed $157M SUI (worth ~$300M today) in October 2023 to incentivize ecosystem growth, increasing estimated annual yield by 5.2%-10%
-
Aptos: Offers 6.5%-20% APT rewards to attract liquidity, with estimated annual incentive spending of $100M
Both face the “rented capital” problem—users participate solely for reward arbitrage, raising questions about long-term sustainability.
Developer and Community Momentum
-
Active Developers: Sui 280/wk vs Aptos 272/wk (Ethereum 3,300, Solana 1,200)
-
Google Search Interest: Sui is 9x that of Aptos, exceeding Solana on 17 days and Ethereum on 16 days over the past 90 days
-
No truly differentiated successful applications yet (e.g., Sui’s FanTV, Birds have low user engagement)
Transaction Experience: Sui Is Superior
Sui offers a better system for traders, evident in the following aspects:
Programmable Transaction Blocks (PTB)
-
A single transaction can dynamically invoke up to 1,024 instructions, making real-time decisions using both on-chain and off-chain data (e.g., DEX aggregators using ASIC/GPU computing to find optimal routes).
-
Exceeds Solana’s account limit (64 input accounts), enabling complex transactions (e.g., manipulating over 100 objects simultaneously).
Gas Fee Mechanism
-
Sui: Validators set base prices; users can add priority fees to jump the queue. Uses local fee markets, allowing high-demand apps to set independent prices (e.g., Aftermath Finance’s SUI/USDC pool can raise prices independently).
-
Aptos: Governance sets a gas floor price; fees float globally. No priority fee option; high demand raises gas across the entire network.
DeepBook Liquidity Layer
-
An embedded central limit order book (CLOB) on Sui that aggregates liquidity across the chain.
-
Reduces DEX slippage and weakens dominant apps’ liquidity monopolies.
Impact:
-
Market makers on Sui incur lower costs when updating quotes (batch update thousands of orders in one transaction).
-
Sui DEXs may offer tighter spreads than Aptos, attracting more trading volume.
Token Economics Comparison
Unique Designs:
-
Sui Storage Fund: The network compensates validators with newly minted SUI to cover long-term storage costs, creating deflationary pressure on the token.
-
APT Inflation and Burn Balance: High transaction volume could make APT deflationary, but current annual inflation still exceeds burn rates.
Valuation Model and Price Forecast
Total Market Cap of Smart Contract Platforms (SCP)
-
Expected to reach $1.1 trillion by end of 2025 (currently $770B, +43%)
-
Built on regression analysis (R²=0.36) of U.S. M2 money supply (projected $22.3T in 2025, growing at 3.2% annually)
Move-Based Chain Market Share
-
Current 2.7% (Sui 2% + Aptos 0.7%) → 6.5% by 2025
Price Forecasts
-
SUI: 5.5% share implies $61B market cap, 3B circulating supply → $16 (current $3.75, +326%)
-
APT: 1% share implies $11B market cap, 507M circulating supply → $22 (current $7.3, +201%)
Conclusion and Investment Risks
Our Conclusion
Current evidence suggests Sui is more competitive due to its performance advantages and scalability potential. Its unique local fee markets, Pilot Fish architecture, and Fast Path design provide a superior DeFi pricing environment for high-frequency traders. Combined with strong community narrative momentum, Sui has established leadership in token performance and ecosystem activity.
However, Aptos’ advantages in development flexibility and chain robustness should not be overlooked. Although Sui currently leads significantly in economic metrics such as TVL and DEX trading volume, the dynamic nature of crypto markets could rapidly shift the balance. In the long run, the winner will be determined by who can sustain innovation and convert technical advantages into vibrant ecosystems.
Five Core Risks
-
Business Development Challenges: Neither has established a synergistic strategy linking technical development with ecosystem expansion. Without nurturing killer applications that fully leverage their technical features, ecosystem growth may not be sustainable.
-
Lack of Technical Stress Testing: Current transactions are mostly simple transfers, lacking extreme stress tests seen on Solana-level DEX volumes. Innovations like Pilot Fish may require compromises under high-pressure conditions.
-
Intensifying Competitive Threats:
-
Solana Firedancer Upgrade: Expected 2025 performance upgrades could surpass Sui/Aptos
-
New Competitors: Monad’s dual advantage in technology and community, Berachain’s speculative momentum
-
Historical Precedent: High-performance chains are often overtaken by successors (e.g., decline of EOS and Tezos)
-
Macroeconomic Volatility: Crypto assets are strongly correlated with M2 money supply (R²=0.36). Tightening liquidity by the Fed or a global financial crisis could drastically reduce SCP market cap.
-
Regulatory Black Swans: If the FIT 21 bill imposes strict decentralization criteria, Sui and Aptos could be classified as securities, restricting circulation beyond accredited investors.
Disclaimer
The content presented here is for research purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Price forecasts are derived from hypothetical models and actual outcomes may differ significantly. Blockchain technology involves high risk and market volatility; readers should conduct independent analysis and assume full responsibility for their investment decisions.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
VanEck
