Optimism and Arbitrum have emerged as prominent layer-two networks designed to enhance scalability within the Ethereum ecosystem. Both protocols employ optimistic rollups to consolidate numerous transactions into a single batch, alleviating the congestion on the Ethereum network. While they share common objectives, these networks possess distinctive features that set them apart, leading users to evaluate their suitability for specific projects.
One of the key technical distinctions between Optimism and Arbitrum lies in their approaches to fraud proofs. Optimism adopts a single-round fraud proof system, whereas Arbitrum employs a multi-round fraud proof mechanism. This technical contrast translates into varying transaction speeds and costs. Optimism’s use of single-round fraud proofs allows for faster transactions but comes with higher gas fees.
The increased cost associated with single-round fraud proofs is attributed to their execution on Layer-one. In contrast, Arbitrum opts for a more cost-effective approach, albeit at the expense of transaction speed. Therefore, from a technical perspective, Optimism offers swifter transaction processing, while Arbitrum favors cost-efficient transactions.
Technical Differences Between Optimism and Arbitrum
Furthermore, in terms of technical disparities, Optimism operates on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), limiting its programming language to Solidity. In contrast, Arbitrum utilizes a native Arbitrum Virtual Machine (AVM) and supports all programming languages compatible with the EVM.
To gauge the level of adoption for both projects, Total Value Locked (TVL) serves as a valuable metric. Data sourced from DeFiLlama, a digital asset data aggregation platform, reveals that Arbitrum boasts nearly three times the TVL of Optimism. As of September 1, 2023, Arbitrum commands a TVL of $1.733 billion, while Optimism trails with a TVL of $655.13 million.
DeFiLlama’s data also unveils that Arbitrum enjoys a more extensive developer community, with 44 core developers actively contributing to its ecosystem. This surpasses Optimism, which counts nine fewer core developers, totaling 35. Additionally, Arbitrum hosts 397 projects within its network, all of which contribute to its TVL. In contrast, Optimism accommodates 164 projects, less than half the number supported by Arbitrum.
Evidently, Arbitrum holds a competitive edge in terms of adoption and developer engagement based on the provided metrics. However, the choice between these two solutions ultimately hinges on the specific requirements of individual projects and the unique features offered by each layer-two network.