Comparing the performance of Optimism and Arbitrum over the past three months with multiple dimensions:
Comparing Optimism and Arbitrum's performance over three months with multiple dimensions:
Original author: Popescu Razvan Translated by: DeepTechFlow
The debate about Optimistic rollup has never ceased, so let’s compare the performance of Optimism and Arbitrum in the past three months from the perspectives of coverage, retention and revenue, to see which one is better.
The “coverage, retention, and revenue” framework focuses on the metrics that any blockchain ecosystem cares about. All blockchains should focus on three things: expanding the user base (coverage), retaining the user base (retention), and profiting from the user base (revenue).
First, let’s take a look at the coverage of Optimism. The average daily transaction volume is 254,566, and the average daily active address is 72,734, handling 3.23 transactions per second. The coverage looks “good”, but it doesn’t mean much without comparison.
- Introducing Reth: High-performance Ethereum node and toolkit
- Best Security Practices for Diamond Agent Contracts
- Include “familiarity with AI application software” in j...
Next, let’s look at the coverage of Arbitrum. The average daily transaction volume is 1,230,979, and the average daily active address is 236,396, handling 11.73 transactions per second. Hmm, it seems that Arbitrum is more active.
Interestingly, even though Arbitrum looks 4-5 times busier, the ratio between Arbitrum’s average transactions per day and active addresses, 5.20, is not far from Optimism’s 3.5.
Next, let’s look at the retention of Optimism. Retention seems to be slowly declining (possibly due to the bear market). The number of “user” active days per week is also a great metric.
Now let’s take a look at the retention of Arbitrum. Retention seems to be declining at a faster rate (possibly due to airdrops). The number of “user” active days per week is also lower.
Finally, let’s analyze the revenue of Optimism. The total transaction volume of OptimismDEX is US$1 billion, the gas consumption is US$42,729, and the gas fee is US$0.01. Optimism focuses on public goods, so there are few airdrop speculation activities related to transaction volume. The gas fees paid by each active address look good.
Let’s take a look at Arbitrum. Arbitrum has about $52 billion in DEX trading volume, $303,311,801 in gas consumption, and an average gas fee of 2-4 dollars. The gas fee paid by each active address looks a bit strange and suddenly drops.
In conclusion, both Optimistic Rollups look very healthy and vibrant. They have different goals and cannot be compared solely on objective metrics, especially since Arbitrum recently conducted an airdrop. A more accurate analysis may need to be conducted at the start of the next bull market. They both have good traditions and both embrace DAO culture and Web3 funding programs.
Don’t forget that Optimism is built on supporting public goods. This is a sustainable ecosystem funding experiment driven by protocol revenue. Arbitrum seems to be more focused on decentralization, as it is the first EVM rollup to achieve phase one decentralization.
