New blockchains promise Web2‑like speed
A hot debate now pits fresh Layer‑1s like @Somnia_Network against established Layer‑2s like @arbitrum
L1s are “main highways” that handle all transactions directly, while L2s act as express lanes built atop Ethereum to boost throughput and cut costs
Which approach better meets the needs of tomorrow’s dApps? (1/7)
Somnia launched on 2 Sep 2025 and aims to break blockchain speed limits and gaming + predicted markets chain
By splitting block production into data chains and a consensus chain, its MultiStream consensus allows validators to generate blocks simultaneously and finalise them in under a second
Combined with compiled EVM bytecode and advanced compression, Somnia’s testnets have pushed 500 k–800 k TPS, even topping 1 M TPS . Fees are sub‑cent and finality is instant (2/7)
Arbitrum launched in Aug 2021 and is the largest Ethereum L2 by value locked.
It uses optimistic rollups to execute transactions off‑chain, posting compressed data and fraud proofs back to Ethereum
Real‑world throughput averages ~27 TPS with a peak of 1 105 TPS and a theoretical ceiling of 40 k TPS . Block time is ~0.25 s and fees around $0.30 for a swap
Finality takes ~13 minutes because transactions can be challenged, but the network enjoys mature tools, billions in liquidity and a large developer base (3/7)
On chainspect data, Somnia’s real‑time TPS (96.66) is more than twice Arbitrum’s (43.22).
Peak TPS (100‑block sample) is 134 642 vs 1 358, and theoretical max TPS is 1.05 M vs 40 k . Somnia’s block time is ~0.1 s with immediate finality, while Arbitrum’s block time is 0.25 s and finality ~13 min
However, Arbitrum has processed ~1.6 B transactions vs Somnia’s 910 M, reflecting its longer time on the market (4/7)
Layer‑1s like Somnia offer native security and independence, deep liquidity and no reliance on external bridges . The trade‑off is scalability; even Ethereum caps at ~15–30 TPS with high fees
Layer‑2s, by contrast, extend L1s: they batch transactions to cut costs and increase speed
Optimistic rollups like Arbitrum inherit Ethereum security and offer cheaper swaps, but bridges can be hack targets, liquidity gets fragmented and sequencers introduce centralisation (5/7)
Arbitrum offers lower risk: it has proven security, a large ecosystem and benefits from Ethereum’s regulatory standing. Performance is sufficient for most DeFi/NFT use‑cases, though finality is slower. Investors and builders should view Somnia as a moon‑shot and Arbitrum as a stable workhorse.
Somnia is a higher‑risk, high‑reward play. Its 1M+ TPS and sub‑second finality could unlock fully on‑chain games and real‑time apps that today’s L2s can’t handle. Yet it launched recently, governance is council‑based and adoption is uncertain (6/7)
The debate isn’t zero‑sum here tho.. @Somnia_Network @arbitrum
Experts expect a multi‑layered future, with high‑value transactions staying on secure Layer‑1s, consumer applications on Layer‑2s, and new L1s tackling ultra‑high‑throughput niches
Somnia and Arbitrum may coexist: one pioneering real‑time, high‑speed dApps; the other scaling Ethereum’s thriving DeFi ecosystem.
The smart move is to diversify exposure and watch how adoption and technical upgrades unfold. to be honest, i am positioned in both, before putting money into either protocol or even using your time to yap about them, DYOR (7/7)
4,74 rb
29
Konten pada halaman ini disediakan oleh pihak ketiga. Kecuali dinyatakan lain, OKX bukanlah penulis artikel yang dikutip dan tidak mengklaim hak cipta atas materi tersebut. Konten ini disediakan hanya untuk tujuan informasi dan tidak mewakili pandangan OKX. Konten ini tidak dimaksudkan sebagai dukungan dalam bentuk apa pun dan tidak dapat dianggap sebagai nasihat investasi atau ajakan untuk membeli atau menjual aset digital. Sejauh AI generatif digunakan untuk menyediakan ringkasan atau informasi lainnya, konten yang dihasilkan AI mungkin tidak akurat atau tidak konsisten. Silakan baca artikel yang terkait untuk informasi lebih lanjut. OKX tidak bertanggung jawab atas konten yang dihosting di situs pihak ketiga. Kepemilikan aset digital, termasuk stablecoin dan NFT, melibatkan risiko tinggi dan dapat berfluktuasi secara signifikan. Anda perlu mempertimbangkan dengan hati-hati apakah trading atau menyimpan aset digital sesuai untuk Anda dengan mempertimbangkan kondisi keuangan Anda.