Why Sui's Object Model Could Make Solidity Look Archaic

EVM's single, shared ledger forces all transactions to be processed sequentially, creating a hard throughput cap. This is the root cause of network congestion and high gas fees during peak demand.

• Parallel Execution: Sui's object model identifies independent transactions (e.g., swapping different token pairs) and processes them simultaneously.
• Real-World Impact: This enables ~100k TPS for simple transfers, bypassing the ~15 TPS EVM limit without complex L2s.

Solidity stores assets in mutable contract storage, a pattern prone to reentrancy attacks and complex access control. Sui's Move language models all assets as distinct, owned objects with built-in scarcity.

• First-Class Assets: Each NFT or token is a programmable object with defined ownership rules at the protocol level.
• Security by Default: Move's linear type system prevents double-spending and reentrancy vulnerabilities that have drained >$3B from EVM protocols.

In the EVM, every state update contends for the same global lock. Sui's object model distinguishes between owned objects (single owner) and shared objects (multiple writers), enabling radical optimization.

• Zero-Confirmation Finality: Transactions involving owned objects achieve instant finality without consensus, enabling sub-400ms latency.
• Gas Efficiency: Independent transactions don't compete for the same state, reducing wasted compute and lowering costs by ~10-100x for common operations.

EVM's storage model makes complex, composable assets (e.g., game items with nested attributes) prohibitively expensive to update. Sui's objects are mutable, transferable data structures.

• Rich On-Chain State: Game assets can hold their logic and state, enabling fully on-chain games and dynamic NFTs that evolve.
• Composability Without Overhead: Objects can be seamlessly bundled and transacted, a model adopted by projects like Aptos and enabling new primitives impossible in Solidity.

EVM chains use monolithic consensus (e.g., Tendermint) where every validator processes every transaction. Sui's Narwhal & Bullshark DAG-based mempool and consensus decouple data dissemination from ordering.

• Horizontal Scaling: Throughput increases linearly with validator bandwidth, avoiding the ~100 validator practical limit of traditional BFT.
• Efficient Finality: This architecture is why Sui can process ~297,000 TPS in a controlled testnet environment, a figure that stresses the theoretical limits of sequential blockchains.

Solidity developers wrestle with storage layouts, proxy patterns, and gas optimization hacks. Sui Move developers reason directly about objects and their relationships.

• Intuitive Abstraction: Programming mirrors real-world asset ownership, reducing cognitive load and bug surface area.
• Faster Iteration: The object model eliminates entire classes of vulnerabilities (e.g., storage collisions), allowing teams like Mysten Labs to build complex DeFi in weeks, not months.

In Solidity, NFTs are static tokens with metadata pointers. In Sui, each NFT is a mutable, composable object with its own state and logic.\n- On-chain, mutable attributes (e.g., game item upgrades) without complex proxy contracts.\n- Native composability: Objects can own other objects, enabling complex in-game inventories or DeFi positions.\n- Parallelizable state changes: Independent NFT updates don't compete for block space.

Ethereum's AMMs (Uniswap V3) are monolithic contracts where all liquidity positions contend for access. Sui's object model allows each liquidity position to be a distinct, ownable object.\n- Parallel swaps: Trades across non-conflicting pools execute simultaneously, eliminating MEV from block contention.\n- Granular ownership & fees: LP positions can be traded, fractionalized, or used as collateral natively.\n- Sub-millisecond finality for composable transactions within the same epoch.

Central Limit Order Books (CLOBs) fail on EVM due to sequential state updates and exorbitant gas costs for market makers. Sui's objects and Move's linear types make a native CLOB viable.\n- Objects as orders: Each limit order is a unique, ownable asset that can be cancelled or modified without global contract writes.\n- Horizontal scaling: Order matching across different price tiers can be parallelized.\n- Native settlement: Assets are objects transferred directly between parties, not via a central contract escrow.

Wrapping assets (e.g., staked ETH) in Solidity creates illiquid, siloed tokens (stETH). Sui enables 'Spirit' like primitives where the wrapper is a dynamic object referencing the underlying asset.\n- Zero slippage unwrapping: The underlying asset object is transferred, not re-minted.\n- Multi-asset collateral baskets: A single wrapper object can hold and manage a portfolio of distinct assets.\n- Protocol-native composability: Wrappers can be permissionlessly integrated by other apps without standard interfaces.

Intent-based systems (UniswapX, CowSwap) rely on off-chain solvers. Sui's objects enable on-chain intent fulfillment by treating user intents as transient, ownable objects.\n- Intents as auctionable objects: Solvers compete by submitting transaction blocks that consume the intent object.\n- Native partial fulfillment: An intent object for 'Buy 1000 USDC' can be filled by multiple liquidity sources in parallel.\n- Reduced trust: Settlement is on-chain and atomic; no need for solver reputation systems or bonded liquidity.

In EVM, a bug in a token contract can drain all user balances. In Sui, each asset is a discrete object with its own ownership and transfer rules defined by its type.\n- Containment of exploits: A bug affects only objects of that specific type, not all assets in a wallet.\n- Fine-grained capabilities: Object owners can grant dynamic permissions (e.g., 'use but not transfer') to dApps.\n- Formal verification native: Move's resource semantics make it easier to prove an object's invariants mathematically.

Sui's object model enables state-aware parallel execution, eliminating the bottleneck of sequential transaction ordering. Unlike Solidity's EVM or Solana's optimistic parallelization, Sui's runtime knows which objects a transaction touches, allowing non-conflicting transactions to be processed simultaneously.\n- Key Benefit: Achieves 160k+ TPS in controlled benchmarks for simple payments.\n- Key Benefit: Eliminates gas wars and failed transactions for independent actions, improving UX for applications like gaming or social feeds.

Sui distinguishes between Owned Objects (single-owner) and Shared Objects (multi-writer). This explicit modeling allows for optimized consensus paths. Owned objects bypass global consensus entirely, using a simpler Byzantine Consistent Broadcast for sub-second finality.\n- Key Benefit: ~99% of user transactions (e.g., NFT transfers, wallet-to-wallet payments) can use this fast path.\n- Key Benefit: Shared objects (like DEX pools) use a more robust but slower consensus, providing clarity and predictability for architects designing high-contention systems.

The Move language enforces the object model at the bytecode level with built-in resource safety. Unlike Solidity, where any contract can touch any data, Move's ownership and linear types prevent double-spending and reentrancy attacks by design. This shifts security from runtime checks to compile-time guarantees.\n- Key Benefit: Virtually eliminates entire bug classes like reentrancy (the DAO hack) and accidental burns.\n- Key Benefit: Enables rich, composable assets that are impossible in Solidity, where an ERC-20 and ERC-721 require separate, incompatible contracts.

In Sui, any object (including NFTs) can contain other objects and have mutable fields governed by its logic. This enables dynamic, evolving digital assets without complex proxy patterns. A game item can directly hold its upgrades, or an NFT can bundle financial rights (like royalties) as a child object.\n- Key Benefit: Enables complex in-game economies and financialized NFTs without fragmented, off-chain metadata.\n- Key Benefit: Reduces gas costs for state updates by ~70% compared to Ethereum's storage model, as you modify fields, not entire contracts.

Sui's transaction processing lifecycle separates execution from consensus for owned objects. Users get a deterministic gas quote before signing, because execution happens first. This kills the Ethereum/Solana nightmare of failed transactions due to slippage or gas spikes.\n- Key Benefit: Zero failed transactions for insufficient gas on simple transfers, drastically improving wallet UX.\n- Key Benefit: Integrators and wallets can provide accurate cost predictions, removing a major friction point for mass adoption.

Sui's object model allows the network to shard dynamically by object address. Validators can form sub-committees to process transactions for specific object sets, enabling horizontal scaling. Throughput increases with the network, unlike monolithic chains.\n- Key Benefit: Theoretical unbounded scalability; adding validators adds capacity, avoiding the congestion fate of Solana or Ethereum L1.\n- Key Benefit: Isolates traffic spikes in one application (e.g., a viral game) from affecting the entire network's performance.