Author: Kevin, the Researcher at Movemaker

Comparing the technical differences between Move language, Aptos and other public chains may seem boring due to different depths of observation. A general analysis is bound to scratch the surface, and in-depth code is likely to miss the forest for the trees. To quickly and accurately understand the difference between Aptos and other public chains, it is crucial to choose a suitable anchor point.

The author believes that the life cycle of a transaction is the best entry point. By analyzing the complete steps from transaction creation to final status update - including creation and initiation, broadcasting, sorting, execution and status update - we can clearly grasp the design ideas and technical choices of the public chain. Based on this benchmark, taking a step back, we can understand the core narratives of different public chains; taking a step forward, we can explore how to create market-attracting applications on Aptos.

As shown in the figure below, all blockchain transactions revolve around these five steps. This article will focus on Aptos, analyze its unique design, and compare the key differences between Ethereum and Solana.

Aptos: Optimistic Parallelism and High-Performance Design

Aptos is a public chain that emphasizes high performance. Its transaction lifecycle is similar to that of Ethereum, but it has been significantly improved through unique optimistic parallel execution and memory pool optimization. The following are the key steps of the transaction lifecycle on Aptos:

Creation and launch

The Aptos network consists of light nodes, full nodes, and validators. Users initiate transactions through light nodes (such as wallets or applications), and light nodes forward transactions to nearby full nodes, which then synchronize to validators.

broadcast

Aptos retains the memory pool, but after QuorumStore, the memory pool is not shared. Unlike Ethereum, its memory pool is not just a transaction buffer. After the transaction enters the memory pool, the system pre-sorts it according to rules (such as FIFO or Gas fee) to ensure that there is no conflict in subsequent parallel execution. This design avoids the high hardware requirements of Solana to declare read and write collections in advance.

Sorting

Aptos uses the AptosBFT consensus. In principle, the proposer cannot freely sort transactions. AIP-68 gives the proposer the right to fill in delayed transactions. The memory pool pre-sorting has completed conflict avoidance in advance, and block generation relies more on the collaboration between validators rather than the proposer.

implement

Aptos uses Block-STM technology to achieve optimistic parallel execution. Transactions are assumed to be conflict-free and processed simultaneously. If a conflict is found after execution, the affected transactions will be re-executed. This method uses multi-core processors to improve efficiency, and the TPS can reach 160,000.

Status Update

The validators synchronize the state and finality is confirmed through checkpoints, which is similar to Ethereum's Epoch mechanism but more efficient.

The core advantage of Aptos lies in the combination of optimistic parallelism and memory pool pre-ordering, which not only reduces node performance requirements but also greatly improves throughput. As shown in the figure below, Aptos' network architecture clearly supports this design:

 Source: Aptos White Paper

Ethereum: Benchmarking Serial Execution

As the pioneer of smart contracts, Ethereum is the origin of public chain technology, and its transaction life cycle provides a basic framework for understanding Aptos.

Ethereum transaction life cycle

• Creation and initiation: Users initiate transactions through wallets via relay gateways or RPC interfaces.

• Broadcast: The transaction enters the public memory pool and waits for packaging.

• Sorting: After the PoS upgrade, block builders package transactions according to the principle of profit maximization, and the relay layer bids and submits them to the proposer.

• Execution: The EVM processes transactions serially and updates the state in a single thread.

• Status update: Blocks must pass two checkpoints to confirm finality.

Ethereum's serial execution and memory pool design limit performance, with a block time of 12 seconds/slot and low TPS. In contrast, Aptos has achieved a qualitative leap through parallel execution and memory pool optimization.

Solana: The Ultimate Optimization of Deterministic Parallelism

Solana is known for its high performance, and its transaction lifecycle is significantly different from Aptos, especially in terms of memory pool and execution method.

Solana Transaction Lifecycle

• Creation and initiation: Users initiate transactions through wallets.

• Broadcast: There is no public memory pool, and the transaction is sent directly to the current and next two proposers.

• Sorting: The proposer packages the block based on PoH (Proof of History), and the block time is only 400 milliseconds.

• Execution: Sealevel virtual machine uses deterministic parallel execution, and read and write sets need to be declared in advance to avoid conflicts.

• Status update: BFT consensus fast confirmation.

The reason why Solana does not use a memory pool is that the memory pool may become a performance bottleneck. Due to the absence of a memory pool and Solana's unique PoH consensus, nodes can quickly reach a consensus on the order of transactions, avoiding the need for transactions to queue in the memory pool, and transactions can be completed almost instantly. However, this also means that when the network is overloaded, transactions may be discarded instead of waiting, and users need to resubmit.

In contrast, Aptos' optimistic parallelism does not require the declaration of read and write collections, has a lower node threshold, and a higher TPS.

 Source: shoal research

Two Paths to Parallel Execution: Aptos vs Solana

The execution of a transaction represents the update of the block status, which is the process of converting the transaction initiation instruction into a final state. How to understand this change? The node assumes that the transaction is successful and calculates its impact on the network status. This calculation process is execution.

Therefore, parallel execution in blockchain refers to the process of multi-core processors calculating the network status simultaneously. In the current market, parallel execution is divided into two types: deterministic parallel execution and optimistic parallel execution. The difference between these two development directions lies in how to ensure that parallel transactions do not conflict - that is, whether there is a dependency between transactions.

It can be seen that in the transaction life cycle, the timing of determining the conflict of parallel transaction dependencies determines the differentiation of the two development directions of deterministic parallel execution and optimistic parallel execution. Aptos and Solana have chosen different directions:

• Deterministic parallelism (Solana): Before a transaction is broadcast, the read and write sets must be declared. The Sealevel engine processes non-conflicting transactions in parallel based on the declaration, and conflicting transactions are executed serially. The advantage is high efficiency, but the disadvantage is high hardware requirements.

• Optimistic parallelism (Aptos): Assuming that there is no conflict in the transaction, Block-STM will be executed in parallel and then verified. If there is a conflict, it will be retried. The pre-sorting of the memory pool reduces the risk of conflict and the node burden is lighter.

For example: Account A has a balance of 100, and Transaction 1 transfers 70 to B, and Transaction 2 transfers 50 to C. Solana confirms conflicts in advance through declarations and handles them in order; if Aptos finds that the balance is insufficient after parallel execution, it will readjust. The flexibility of Aptos makes it more scalable.

Optimistic parallelism uses memory pool to complete conflict confirmation in advance

The core idea of optimistic parallelism is to assume that transactions processed in parallel will not conflict, so the application does not need to submit a transaction statement before the transaction is executed. If a conflict is found during verification after the transaction is executed, Block-STM will re-execute the affected transactions to ensure consistency.

However, in practice, if we do not confirm in advance whether the transaction dependencies conflict, a large number of errors may occur during the actual execution, causing the public chain to run slowly. Therefore, optimistic parallelism does not simply assume that there are no conflicts in transactions, but avoids risks in advance at a certain stage, which is the transaction broadcast stage.

On Aptos, after transactions enter the public memory pool, they will be pre-sorted according to certain rules (such as FIFO and gas fees) to ensure that transactions within a block will not conflict when executed in parallel. It can be seen that the proposer of Aptos does not actually have the ability to sort transactions, and there is no block builder in the network. This transaction pre-sorting is the key to Aptos's optimistic parallelism. Unlike Solana, which requires the introduction of transaction declarations, Aptos does not require this mechanism, so the requirements for node performance are greatly reduced. In terms of network overhead to ensure that transactions do not conflict, the impact of Aptos's joining the memory pool on TPS is far less than the cost of Solana's introduction of transaction declarations. Therefore, Aptos' TPS can reach 160,000, more than double Solana. The impact of transaction pre-sorting is that it is more difficult to capture MEV on Aptos, which has both advantages and disadvantages for users, and I will not go into details here.

Security-based narrative is the direction of Aptos

• RWA: Aptos is actively promoting the tokenization of real assets and institutional financial solutions. Compared with Ethereum, Aptos' Block-STM can process multiple asset transfer transactions in parallel to avoid delays in confirmation due to network congestion. On Solana or Sui, although the transaction speed is fast, the memory pool-free design may discard transactions when the network is overloaded, affecting the stability of RWA confirmation. Aptos' memory pool pre-ordering ensures that transactions are executed in order, and the reliability of asset records can be maintained even during peak hours. RWA requires complex smart contract support, such as asset segmentation, profit distribution, and compliance checks. The modular design and security of the Move language make it easier for developers to build reliable RWA applications. In contrast, the complexity and vulnerability risks of Ethereum Solidity increase development costs, while Solana's Rust programming is efficient but requires a high learning curve for developers. Aptos's eco-friendliness is expected to attract more RWA projects to land, forming a positive cycle. Aptos' potential in the RWA field lies in the combination of security and performance. In the future, it can focus on cooperating with traditional financial institutions, putting high-value assets such as bonds and stocks on the chain, and using the Move language to create a highly compliant tokenization standard. This "safe + efficient" narrative will allow Aptos to stand out in the RWA market.

• In July 2024, Aptos officially announced that Ondo Finance's USDY will be introduced into the ecosystem and integrated with major DEX and lending applications. As of March 10, the market value of USDY on Aptos is approximately US$15 million, accounting for approximately 2.5% of the total market value of USDY. In October 2024, Aptos announced that Franklin Templeton has launched the Franklin On-Chain U.S. Government Money Fund (FOBXX) represented by the BENJI token on the Aptos Network. In addition, Aptos has cooperated with Libre to promote the tokenization of securities, bringing Brevan Howard, BlackRock and Hamilton Lane's investment funds on-chain to enhance access for institutional investors.

• Stablecoin payments: Stablecoin payments need to ensure the finality of transactions and the security of assets. Aptos' Move language prevents double payments through a resource model to ensure the accuracy of each stablecoin transfer. For example, when users pay with USDC on Aptos, transaction status updates are strictly protected to avoid fund loss due to contract vulnerabilities. In addition, Aptos' low Gas fees (thanks to high TPS cost sharing) make it extremely competitive in small payment scenarios. Ethereum's high Gas fees limit its payment applications, and although Solana has low costs, the risk of transaction abandonment when the network is overloaded may affect the user experience. Aptos' memory pool pre-sorting and Block-STM ensure the stability and low latency of payment transactions.

• PayFi and stablecoin payments need to balance decentralization and regulatory compliance. AptosBFT's decentralized consensus reduces centralization risks, while its modular architecture supports developers to embed KYC/AML checks. For example, a stablecoin issuer can deploy a compliance contract on Aptos to ensure that transactions comply with local regulations without sacrificing network efficiency. This is better than Ethereum's centralized relay model and also makes up for the potential compliance shortcomings of Solana's proposer-led model. Aptos' balanced design makes it more suitable for financial institutions to enter.

• Aptos' potential in PayFi and stablecoin payment lies in the trinity of "security, efficiency, and compliance". In the future, it will continue to promote the large-scale adoption of stablecoins, build a cross-border payment network, or cooperate with payment giants to develop an on-chain settlement system. High TPS and low cost can also support micropayment scenarios, such as real-time rewards for content creators. Aptos' narrative can focus on the "next generation payment infrastructure" to attract two-way traffic from enterprises and users.

Aptos' security advantages - memory pool pre-ordering, Block-STM, AptosBFT and Move language - not only improve anti-attack capabilities, but also lay a solid foundation for the RWA and PayFi narratives. In the field of RWA, its high security and throughput support asset tokenization and large-scale transactions; in PayFi and stablecoin payments, low cost and high efficiency promote the implementation of real-world applications. Compared with Ethereum's robustness but inefficiency and Solana's high speed but high threshold, Aptos opens up a new situation with a balanced approach. In the future, Aptos can rely on these advantages to shape the narrative of "security-driven value network" and become a bridge connecting the traditional economy and blockchain.

Summary: Aptos’ technical differences and future narrative

Through the perspective of the transaction lifecycle, we can clearly compare the differences in technical design between Aptos and Ethereum, Solana, and Sui, and reveal their respective core narratives. The following table summarizes the similarities and differences between the four in the broadcast, sorting, and execution stages, and Aptos' unique advantages are also highlighted:

Aptos' design strikes a clever balance between performance and security. Its memory pool pre-ordering combined with Block-STM's optimistic parallelism not only lowers the node threshold, but also achieves a high throughput of 160,000 TPS, surpassing Solana's deterministic parallelism and Sui's object-level parallelism. Compared with Ethereum's serial execution, Aptos's parallel capability brings a qualitative leap; and compared with Solana and Sui's radical optimization of cutting off the memory pool, Aptos retains the pre-ordering mechanism to ensure the stability of the network under high load. This "fast and stable" approach, supplemented by the resource model of the Move language, gives Aptos higher security - whether it is resisting DDoS attacks or preventing contract vulnerabilities, it is better than Ethereum's traditional architecture and Solana's high hardware dependence. Compared with Sui, which is also based on the Move language, the differentiation between Aptos and Sui is more inspiring. Sui is object-centric, pursuing extreme performance through DAG sorting and object-level parallelism, and is suitable for high-concurrency asset management scenarios; while Aptos is account-centric, relying on memory pools and optimistic parallelism, taking into account both versatility and ecological compatibility. This difference not only reflects the choice of technical paths, but also foreshadows the differentiation of application directions: Sui may be better at complex asset operations, while Aptos has an advantage in security-driven scenarios. It is based on this combination of security and performance that Aptos has shown great potential in the RWA and PayFi narratives. In the RWA field, Aptos' high throughput supports large-scale asset on-chain, and recent cooperation with Ondo Finance (USDY market value of approximately US$15 million), Franklin Templeton and Libre has begun to bear fruit. In PayFi and stablecoin payments, Aptos' low cost, high efficiency and compliance support micropayments and cross-border settlements, making it a strong candidate for the "next generation payment infrastructure."

In summary, Aptos incorporates security and efficiency considerations into every link of the transaction life cycle, which is different from Ethereum's robustness and inefficiency, Solana's high performance and high threshold, and Sui's object-driven extreme optimization. In the future, Aptos can rely on the narrative of "security-driven value network" to connect traditional finance and blockchain ecology, continue to exert efforts in the fields of RWA and PayFi, and build a new public chain pattern with both trust and scalability.