Superfluid vs Sablier for SubDAO Treasuries

introduction

THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The SubDAO Treasury Automation Imperative

A data-driven comparison of Superfluid and Sablier for managing continuous, automated treasury outflows in SubDAOs.

Superfluid excels at real-time, gas-efficient streaming by leveraging its native protocol architecture. Its core innovation is the Super Token, which enables continuous value transfers as a balance state, not as discrete transactions. This results in dramatically lower gas costs for perpetual streams and allows for complex operations like instant settlements and batch calls. For example, a DAO can stream salaries to 50 contributors on Polygon for a fraction of a cent per second, a model proven by protocols like Ricochet Exchange and Kolektivo.

Sablier takes a different, more universally compatible approach by using a pull-based, non-custodial smart contract framework. This strategy prioritizes broad asset support (any ERC-20) and simpler integration across EVM chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Optimism. The trade-off is that each stream is a discrete contract, leading to higher cumulative gas costs for creating and managing many long-term streams compared to Superfluid's state-based model. Sablier's $1B+ in total streamed value demonstrates its reliability for one-off vesting and payroll.

The key trade-off: If your SubDAO's priority is ultra-low-cost, perpetual treasury drips (e.g., continuous funding for a developer guild or real-time rewards) and you can standardize on Super Tokens, choose Superfluid. If you prioritize maximum flexibility with any ERC-20 asset, need simpler one-time vesting schedules, or require deployment on a chain where Superfluid isn't live, choose Sablier.

tldr-summary

Superfluid vs. Sablier for SubDAO Treasuries

TL;DR: Core Differentiators

Key strengths and trade-offs for managing continuous payments and vesting from a multi-signature treasury.

Choose Superfluid for

Real-time, continuous value streams. Enables per-second accounting and fund streaming directly from a treasury's Gnosis Safe. This is critical for payroll, real-time rewards, and dynamic grants where cash flow is continuous. Funds are not locked in a contract but streamed live, improving capital efficiency.

Per-second

Settlement

Live

Capital Efficiency

Choose Sablier for

Structured, time-locked vesting. Provides robust, auditable schedules (cliff, linear, custom) for token allocations, advisor grants, and contributor vesting. Funds are securely escrowed in a non-custodial contract, offering predictable, tamper-proof distribution. Ideal for compliance-heavy and milestone-based payments.

Escrowed

Fund Security

Flexible Schedules

Vesting Types

Superfluid's Key Trade-off

Higher on-chain activity cost. Per-second streaming generates more transactions, leading to higher aggregate gas fees on L1/L2. Requires the treasury to maintain a gas buffer. Less suitable for simple, long-term linear vesting where frequent updates are unnecessary overhead.

Sablier's Key Trade-off

Lower capital efficiency. Funds are locked for the duration of the vesting schedule, unable to be redeployed or streamed elsewhere. Creates opportunity cost for the treasury. The batch-based model lacks the real-time composability of constant streams.

HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON FOR SUBDAO TREASURY STREAMS

Feature Comparison: Superfluid vs Sablier

Direct comparison of key metrics and features for continuous, automated treasury distributions.

Metric / Feature	Superfluid	Sablier
Core Streaming Model	Continuous, real-time per-second streams	Discrete, linear time-locked streams
Primary Use Case	Recurring salaries, subscriptions, real-time rewards	Vesting, cliff schedules, milestone-based payouts
Gas Efficiency for Many Recipients
Native Cross-Chain Support
Avg. Cost to Create Stream (Ethereum Mainnet)	$50 - $150+	$20 - $80
Supported Standards	Super Tokens (ERC-777 wrapper)	ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155
Automated Composability (e.g., auto-swapping, rebalancing)

pros-cons-a

PROS AND CONS ANALYSIS

Key strengths and trade-offs for managing continuous contributor payouts and vesting schedules.

Superfluid's Key Strength: Real-Time Capital Efficiency

Continuous, gasless streaming: Updates balances every second without new transactions, unlike Sablier's per-block model. This matters for real-time treasury management, allowing SubDAOs to maintain liquidity while funds are streaming out. Ideal for paying active contributors (e.g., developers, moderators) where cash flow is dynamic.

~$0 Gas

Per Second Update

1 Sec

Settlement Granularity

Superfluid's Key Weakness: Ecosystem Lock-In

Primarily Ethereum & Polygon: While cross-chain via Superfluid Hubs is emerging, core liquidity and tooling are concentrated. This matters for multi-chain SubDAOs (e.g., on Arbitrum, Base) where Sablier's broader native deployment (10+ chains) offers simpler, chain-agnostic treasury ops without bridging complexity.

2 Chains

Primary Deployment

Sablier's Key Strength: Battle-Tested Simplicity & Security

Audited, non-upgradable contracts with $2B+ in processed value. Offers straightforward linear and cliff vesting models perfect for advisor grants, token vesting schedules, and predictable runway management. The V2 protocol's modular design (LockupLinear, LockupDynamic) is a proven standard for SubDAOs with formal, long-term commitments.

$2B+

Total Value Streamed

10+ Chains

Native Deployments

Sablier's Key Weakness: Periodic Gas Costs & Granularity

Transaction-based streaming: Recipient balances update per block, requiring gas for fund recovery or cancellations. This matters for high-frequency, small streams where gas overhead can erode payments. Less ideal for real-time, subscription-style models compared to Superfluid's stateful accounting.

Per Block

Balance Update

pros-cons-b

Superfluid vs Sablier

Sablier: Pros and Cons for SubDAOs

Key strengths and trade-offs for managing SubDAO treasury distributions at a glance.

Sablier: Superior for Fixed-Term Vesting

Granular, time-locked streams: Sablier V2's core model is linear vesting with a defined start and end. This is ideal for grant distributions, contributor compensation, and investor unlocks where predictability is paramount. SubDAOs can precisely schedule token releases over weeks, months, or years.

Sablier: Simpler Integration & Audit Trail

ERC-20 native and audited: Sablier's contracts are purpose-built for streaming, resulting in a cleaner, more focused integration path than complex money legos. Its comprehensive subgraph and event logging provide a clear, immutable audit trail for all treasury outflows, simplifying reporting and compliance.

Superfluid: Real-Time, Composable Cashflow

Continuous, second-by-second accrual: Superfluid's streams are live balances, not future-dated unlocks. This enables real-time salary payments, subscription models, and reward distributions that automatically compound or can be forwarded in the same transaction (e.g., a contributor instantly paying a protocol fee from their stream).

Superfluid: Gas-Efficient for High-Frequency Updates

Batchable operations and constant gas: Creating or updating a Sablier stream requires a new transaction per stream. Superfluid's Constant Flow Agreement (CFA) allows multiple stream creations/updates in a single tx via batchCall, drastically reducing gas costs for SubDAOs managing dozens of dynamic payments (e.g., bounties, retroactive funding).

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

Decision Framework: When to Use Which

Superfluid for Protocol Treasuries

Verdict: The default choice for continuous, automated distributions. Strengths: Superfluid Streams enable real-time, per-second fund distribution to contributors, grant recipients, or other subDAOs without manual intervention. This is ideal for predictable, ongoing expenses like developer salaries or grant vesting. Integration with Gnosis Safe and Snapshot via the Superfluid Dashboard provides a familiar governance layer. The Superfluid Framework allows for complex logic like salary streaming with on-chain vesting cliffs. Considerations: Requires upfront capital locking in the stream contract. Gas costs for creating/canceling streams on L1 Ethereum can be high, making L2 deployments (Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism) essential for cost-effectiveness.

Sablier for Protocol Treasuries

Verdict: Superior for one-off, time-bound distributions with maximum flexibility. Strengths: Sablier V2 excels at handling discrete, scheduled payments such as quarterly grants, bug bounties, or one-time vendor payments. Its Lockup Linear streams are perfect for fixed-duration vesting. The protocol's non-custodial model and extensive audit history (by Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin) provide high security for treasury management. Easy integration with Multisig wallets and DAO tooling. Considerations: Lacks the real-time, composable money primitive of Superfluid. Streams are less suited for perpetual, salary-like payments that may need frequent governance updates.

SUPERFLUID VS SABLIER

Deep Dive: Gas Cost and Operational Expense Analysis

For SubDAO treasuries managing recurring payments, the choice between Superfluid and Sablier significantly impacts operational overhead and capital efficiency. This analysis breaks down the real costs, from initial setup to ongoing execution, to inform your infrastructure decision.

Sablier is typically cheaper for a single, simple vesting stream. Creating a linear stream on Sablier V2 (on Arbitrum or Base) costs ~~$0.10-$0.30 in gas. Superfluid requires deploying a Constant Flow Agreement (CFA) superToken wrapper for the payment token first, which is a one-time but more expensive operation (~~$50-$150 on mainnet). However, once the superToken exists, creating new streams is extremely cheap (~$2-$5). For a SubDAO planning many streams of the same token, Superfluid's model becomes more economical over time.

verdict

THE ANALYSIS

Verdict and Final Recommendation

Choosing between Superfluid and Sablier for a SubDAO treasury hinges on whether you prioritize capital efficiency or operational simplicity.

Superfluid excels at real-time, continuous capital deployment because it uses a novel streaming primitive on L2s like Polygon and Optimism. For example, its $200M+ Total Value Locked (TVL) and integrations with Aave and Lido allow treasury funds to earn yield while streaming, maximizing capital efficiency. This makes it ideal for dynamic, performance-based contributor compensation or continuous funding for long-term grants.

Sablier takes a different approach by focusing on robust, audited, and time-tested streaming logic, primarily on Ethereum mainnet and Arbitrum. This results in a trade-off: it offers exceptional security and a simpler, non-custodial model but without the native yield-bearing capabilities of Superfluid. Its V2 protocol has processed over $1B in streams, proving reliability for predictable, fixed-duration payments like vesting schedules or one-off contractor invoices.

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing treasury yield and automating complex, conditional streams, choose Superfluid. If you prioritize security, auditability, and straightforward, predictable payment schedules on Ethereum, choose Sablier. For SubDAOs, the decision often comes down to whether you view your treasury as a dynamic financial engine (Superfluid) or a predictable disbursement vehicle (Sablier).