Arbitrum Orbit vs Starknet's App Chains: Optimistic vs ZK App-Specific Chains

Specific advantage: Full bytecode-level EVM equivalence. This matters for rapid migration of existing dApps (Solidity/Vyper) with minimal code changes. Leverages the mature Arbitrum Nitro stack, which secures over $18B in TVL.

Specific advantage: Optimistic Rollup architecture with single, final fraud proof. This matters for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications like gaming or social, where batch submission costs are amortized and transaction fees are consistently low and predictable.

Specific advantage: ZK-STARK proofs enable theoretical TPS in the thousands with instant, cryptographic finality. This matters for financial applications and high-frequency trading where latency and privacy (via zero-knowledge) are non-negotiable.

Specific advantage: Madara sequencer framework allows for custom DA layers, fee tokens, and governance. This matters for protocols needing maximal sovereignty (e.g., a gaming studio wanting its own token for gas) or those integrating with alternative data availability solutions like Celestia.

Your priority is EVM compatibility and developer familiarity. Ideal for:

• Migrating an existing Ethereum dApp with minimal friction.
• Building a general-purpose chain where cost predictability is key.
• Leveraging the established security and liquidity of the Arbitrum ecosystem.

Your priority is ultimate scalability, finality speed, or deep customization. Ideal for:

• Novel, compute-intensive applications requiring high TPS.
• Institutions needing privacy-preserving transactions.
• Projects that require a bespoke chain with a custom stack (e.g., using Madara with Celestia).

Leverages battle-tested Optimistic Rollup tech: Inherits security from Arbitrum One/Nova with a 7-day fraud proof window. Full EVM-equivalence means existing Solidity/ Vyper tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) works out-of-the-box. This drastically reduces development overhead for teams migrating from Ethereum or other EVM chains.

Gas costs are paid in ETH and are highly predictable, tied to L1 gas prices. Benefits from the deep Arbitrum ecosystem (over $2.5B TVL) and shared liquidity via native token bridging. Governance and upgrades are managed by the deploying team, offering operational sovereignty.

ZK-Rollup (STARK) architecture provides near-instant finality after L1 settlement (~2-4 hours), no challenge period delays. Custom Cairo VM enables native account abstraction and complex logic impossible in EVM. Throughput is limited only by prover capacity, enabling 1000+ TPS per app-chain.

Choice of Data Availability (DA) layer: Can post proofs to Ethereum (secure) or use cheaper alternatives like Celestia or Avail for ultra-low fees. Cairo-native tooling (Scarb, Starknet Foundry) is required, offering performance advantages but a steeper learning curve for EVM developers.

Your priority is rapid deployment with existing EVM teams and tooling. You need cost predictability in ETH and want to tap into the Arbitrum DeFi liquidity pool. You are comfortable with the 7-day withdrawal delay for full L1 security.

You require mathematically-verified security with fast finality and no challenge period. Your app needs native account abstraction or complex computational logic. You are willing to adopt Cairo and potentially use alternative DA layers for minimum cost.

Proven, battle-tested stack: Built on Arbitrum Nitro, which secures $18B+ in TVL. This matters for teams needing a stable, production-ready environment with EVM-equivalence, allowing immediate deployment of existing Solidity/Vyper codebases and tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and The Graph.

Optimistic Rollup economics: Lower fixed costs for proof generation, with fees primarily driven by L1 data posting. This matters for applications with high, volatile transaction volumes where the variable cost of ZK-proof generation can be prohibitive. Ideal for high-throughput DeFi apps like GMX or Uniswap V3 forks.

Cons: 7-day challenge period: Funds bridged to Ethereum mainnet are subject to a week-long delay for fraud proofs. This matters for applications requiring fast, trust-minimized exits, such as cross-chain money markets or high-frequency trading strategies, creating UX friction.

ZK-proof finality: State transitions are verified on L1 instantly via cryptographic proofs, enabling secure, near-instant withdrawals. This matters for protocols where capital efficiency and sovereignty are paramount, like institutional trading venues or cross-chain liquidity pools using StarkGate.

Cairo-native execution: Full control over the fee market, consensus, and data availability layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA). This matters for apps needing bespoke scalability, like a gaming chain with a custom sequencer or a privacy-focused chain using zero-knowledge proofs natively.

Cons: Higher operational overhead: Requires managing a prover infrastructure and bearing the variable, compute-intensive cost of STARK proof generation. This matters for small teams without dedicated DevOps, as it adds complexity compared to the fixed-cost model of optimistic systems.