History of Sui

Tracing the Origins and Evolution of Sui Blockchain

Sui's inception is closely tied to Mysten Labs, a company founded by former Meta engineers who previously worked on the Diem project and its core smart contract language, Move. Built as a response to scaling limitations observed in Layer-1s like Ethereum and Solana, Sui was conceptualized to be a high-throughput, low-latency blockchain emphasizing object-centric data modeling over traditional account-based systems.

Development on the Sui protocol began shortly after Mysten Labs secured significant funding, including a noted strategic raise from major crypto-native VCs. The team leveraged their familiarity with Move to create a variant—Sui Move—tailored for parallel execution and improved security guarantees. While some praised the Move-based development environment, early criticisms centered on a steep learning curve and a relatively nascent developer ecosystem.

A key architectural decision in Sui’s evolution was its object-based execution model, designed to enable parallel processing of transactions. Unlike conventional blockchain methods relying on total ordering, Sui differentiates between shared and owned objects, allowing most transactions to bypass consensus altogether. This design was a major departure from chains like Ethereum, and although technically promising, it introduced complexities in interoperability and composability—areas other chains like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/unlocking-polygon-the-future-of-ethereum-scaling aimed to streamline.

Sui’s early ecosystem development coincided with a growing curiosity around modular blockchain architectures. However, Sui opted for a monolithic design—aiming to handle execution, consensus, and storage within a single vertical stack. This choice drew both interest and skepticism. While it eliminated inter-module latency and fragmentation, critics questioned its long-term scalability and adaptability compared to alternatives gravitating toward modularity.

The mainnet launch of Sui marked a pivotal phase, though not without challenges. Network performance during stress testing highlighted the benefits of its parallel execution model, but also revealed bottlenecks in validator coordination and state synchronization during high-volume bursts. Additionally, the initial design lacked robust support for key DeFi primitives—a concern that positioned Sui at a developmental disadvantage relative to ecosystems leading in DeFi, such as https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/aave-explained-the-future-of-defi-lending.

Despite its technical ambitions, community governance and decentralization metrics have come under scrutiny. Validator distribution remains relatively centralized, with Mysten Labs maintaining significant influence over protocol upgrades and codebase decisions. These concerns mirror broader debates in L1 governance across the industry, highlighting the trade-offs between innovation and decentralization.

Sui’s history reflects a blend of technical experimentation and real-world complexity as it positioned itself in the increasingly competitive Layer-1 landscape. As the chain continues to mature, its differentiators—both strengths and liabilities—remain closely watched by developers and investors alike.

How Sui Works

How Sui Blockchain Works: Object-Centric Design, Parallel Execution, and Consensus Layer Decoupling

Sui differentiates itself technically with an object-centric data model, execution layer optimized through parallelization, and a novel approach to consensus. Unlike traditional account-based blockchains like Ethereum, Sui’s architecture centers around programmable objects—each with a unique ID, ownership metadata, and mutable or immutable state. This model enables composability while providing deterministic state access, facilitating granular conflict resolution during transaction execution.

One of the core innovations in Sui is its transaction processing pipeline. Sui can categorize transactions into two types: simple (non-shared object) and complex (shared object). Transactions affecting non-shared objects can bypass consensus entirely and be validated instantly through Byzantine Consistent Broadcast. This allows for enormous throughput improvements under conditions of high user and dApp diversity. Shared-object transactions — such as those involving DeFi protocols or AMMs — are routed to Narwhal and Bullshark, Sui’s mempool and DAG-based consensus layer respectively.

This conditional usage of consensus reduces overhead while enabling composable smart contract interactions when necessary. It also means the performance bottlenecks seen in traditional blockchains under stress (e.g., high gas fees during congestion) may not manifest in the same way on Sui — but that benefit is contextually narrow. For truly decentralized apps with shared state, consensus is still required, and thus, performance scales differently based on workload composition.

Sui also abandons traditional virtual machines in favor of Move, a resource-safe smart contract language originally developed for the Libra project. Move introduces fine-grained control over digital assets at the language level, integrating well with Sui's object-oriented execution model. Developers define objects that can represent fungible tokens, NFTs, or even more abstract computational states. However, Move’s steep learning curve — especially for those coming from EVM-based environments — remains a barrier to ecosystem portability and broader open-source module reuse.

While Sui’s technical architecture provides theoretical scaling advantages, the reliance on efficient categorization of transactions and correct separation between shared and non-shared workloads opens the door for developer error. Applications must be meticulously designed to correctly align with Sui’s object model or risk degraded performance. Additionally, introducing shared object dependencies where avoidable can inadvertently reduce the performance benefits of consensus decoupling.

Though Sui’s object-oriented logic offers unique advantages in performance isolation, these benefits are contextual and not universally applicable to all dApp categories. The approach shares some conceptual distinction from other high-throughput platforms like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/a-deepdive-into-solana, which decouple consensus and execution using a multithreaded runtime but do not enforce op-level transaction types.

Use Cases

SUI Use Cases: Understanding the Real-World Demand for Sui's High-Throughput Blockchain

Sui targets a range of use cases designed around its core technological differentiation: parallel transaction execution, horizontal scalability, and object-centric data modeling. These features aim to unlock applications that struggle with performance or composability bottlenecks in traditional monolithic blockchains.

Gaming and Asset Ownership at Scale

Sui's object model is natively optimized for gaming use cases where each in-game item can be represented as an owned object with distinct states. Developers can script asset ownership, transfers, and mutations without extensive smart contract logic. Unlike conventional account-based models used in Ethereum or Solana, assets in Sui are standalone objects with verifiable lineage, enabling complex interactions between game elements with minimal overhead. This architecture supports massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) or item-rich economies without encountering typical bottlenecks in storage proofs or record contention. However, actual developer adoption remains limited, possibly due to the need to learn the Move language, which, while powerful, introduces friction compared to EVM-based ecosystems.

Payments and Microtransactions

Due to extremely low-latency finality and cost-efficient execution, Sui can support microtransaction-heavy dApps, such as creator tipping systems, marketplace settlements, and autonomous payments in machine-to-machine IoT communication. The per-object parallelism allows fee modeling based on the state scope involved in a transaction—often translating to more predictable and fair pricing. Still, lack of composable DeFi primitives means Sui doesn’t yet rival protocols like Aave Explained The Future of DeFi Lending in permissionless financial applications.

Zero-Cost NFT Minting and Transfer

Sui’s storage gas and transaction model enables minimal-cost NFT deployments, focused on developers who wish to mint NFTs with embedded royalties, metadata morphing, or mutable states without non-standard sidechains or Layer 2 solutions. This supports use cases far beyond PFP drops—such as identity models, ticketing, or digital diplomas bound to a Soulbound-like standard. However, despite technical feasibility, market appetite for such purpose-driven NFTs remains uncertain, and Sui-based marketplaces lack significant liquidity or aggregator integration.

Composable Infrastructure for On-Chain Objects

Sui’s focus on a composable object graph offers promising avenues in logistics, on-chain document verification, and custom DAO governance frameworks. Decentralized applications can interact with modular, composable objects rather than rely on monolithic smart contracts. This expands the design space, but also presents tooling challenges, as debugging and auditing complex object interactions introduces non-trivial overhead.

While Sui introduces novel use case dimensions, ecosystem maturity, developer tooling gaps, and lack of dominant dApps continue to delay mainstream traction. Integration paths with EVM ecosystems or bridges remain complex, making Sui’s use case expansion largely self-contained as of now.

Sui Tokenomics

SUI Tokenomics: Supply Mechanics, Distribution Architecture, and Validator Incentives

SUI, the native asset of the Sui blockchain, operates under a distinct tokenomic structure that prioritizes low-latency scalability and developer flexibility. Rather than mirroring traditional deflationary models, SUI implements a dynamic supply and demand approach with a fixed total supply cap of 10 billion tokens. However, this theoretical cap does not guarantee deflation or scarcity, as circulating supply may be influenced by factors like validator staking rewards, community incentive unlocks, and vesting schedules.

One of the more notable mechanics in SUI’s tokenomics is its stake-weighted proof-of-stake consensus, where validators are selected based on the quantity of staked SUI. Delegators can stake with validators to earn part of the transaction fees and rewards, which introduces centralization pressures as validators with more stake tend to attract disproportionate network influence. This mirrors patterns observed in ecosystems like Solana, discussed in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/examining-solanas-major-blockchain-criticisms.

Gas fees in Sui are paid in SUI tokens and determined through a per-epoch reference gas price, derived from validator voting. Validators vote at the start of each epoch (24 hours) on a reference price that determines network-wide transaction fees, reducing volatility compared to purely market-driven designs. However, criticisms have emerged over how validator coalitions could manipulate gas fee outcomes to favor their own reward structures.

Token allocation has been a source of community scrutiny. A large portion of the initial supply—over 50%—has been allocated to early contributors, investors, and the Sui Foundation. While foundation-controlled allocations aim to fund ecosystem growth and grants, the vesting transparency and potential for unilateral treasury actions remain debated. This echoes governance centralization concerns noted in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/lido-finance-addressing-major-criticisms-and-concerns.

SUI does not burn tokens directly through execution costs. Instead, a portion of the gas fee is redistributed among validators and their delegators while another part is implicitly burned via storage fund adjustments—a mechanism that balances state growth with monetary policy. Yet, the long-term economic visibility of this model is underexplored, as the indirect burn lacks transparent tracking mechanisms seen in other chains.

Overall, while SUI offers a technically novel approach to performance scalability, its tokenomics raise critical concerns around validator dominance, lack of sufficient economic disclosures, and potential centralization risks within treasury operations.

Sui Governance

SUI Governance: Decentralization or Delegation in Motion?

The governance design in the Sui network fuses on-chain protocol coordination with off-chain ecosystem influence, reflecting a hybrid approach that's both intentional and structurally limiting. At the core of Sui governance is Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS), where SUI token holders delegate their stake to a curated validator set. This mechanism determines who can participate in consensus, but not necessarily how protocol upgrades or network-level decisions are made.

Sui validators themselves do not propose or vote on governance proposals in the same on-chain democratic fashion seen in platforms like ENS or Filecoin. Instead, governance currently centers on core developers and infrastructure maintainers within Mysten Labs and affiliated contributors. While the SUI token plays a role in staking and future governance utility, much of what constitutes collective decision-making remains off-chain or semi-transparent.

Token-weighted votes from the broader community are limited in scope. There is no formal DAO infrastructure akin to what ApeCoin DAO utilizes or the tiered governance of protocols like Lido Finance. SUI’s roadmap alludes to greater community input, but mechanisms for proposing or ratifying changes remain vague. Feedback loops between token holders and developers are often established via forums, grants programs, or validator feedback rather than binding on-chain votes.

The absence of quadratic voting or anti-sybil protections raises a concern around governance capture. With delegation power heavily concentrated among a few validator operators, protocol upgrades or treasury decisions (once enabled) may be swayed disproportionately by a small minority. This mirrors criticisms leveled at early-stage DPoS networks, where decentralization is more performance-optimized than governance-weighted.

Furthermore, there is minimal clarity on how treasury management will be executed. Unlike structured community funds managed through democratic voting in projects like Nervos Network, SUI's on-chain treasury remains embryonic in both tooling and access. Without a transparent governance charter or accountability frameworks, the risk of opaque decision-making persists.

Ultimately, while SUI signals intent toward decentralized governance, token holders currently wield limited operational power. Governance, for now, remains developer-governed and validator-intermediated—a setup that may suit early-stage protocol agility but strains long-term decentralization ideals.

Technical future of Sui

Sui Blockchain: Deep Dive into Technical Roadmap and Upcoming Developments

Sui’s architecture, built on the Move language, continues to evolve with a strong emphasis on horizontal scalability and low-latency execution environments. The primary technical development focus remains around improving parallel execution through its Narwhal and Bullshark consensus mechanisms. This choice to decouple consensus and execution has allowed Sui to maintain high throughput while optimizing latency—a crucial distinction from monolithic execution chains like Ethereum.

One of the most notable technical roadblocks has been the complexity of developer tooling associated with the Move language. Although Move offers strong safety guarantees, its steep learning curve has affected developer adoption. To address this, future roadmap milestones include compiler optimization, improved error messages, and a modular plug-in system that allows seamless integration with widely used IDEs and toolchains. Enhancing Move’s developer experience will be crucial in attracting Layer 1 application development, especially as competitors like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/ah-deepdive-into-moonbeam continue to promote cross-ecosystem compatibility using existing Solidity standards.

Sui has also begun transitioning from single-threaded shared object executions to multi-threaded execution frameworks. This approach will allow more efficient utilization of validator node resources and better support for high-throughput applications. However, this system demands much more from its developers, who now need to design apps with object ownership models and concurrency in mind, increasing engineering overhead for simple dApps.

Looking forward, one key feature under development is zkLogin—a mechanism aiming to integrate authentication using OAuth providers (e.g., Google) while preserving non-custodial asset custody. This is particularly significant for onboarding Web2-native users without compromising the core tenet of ownership sovereignty. It's a partial answer to the broader philosophical tension between usability and decentralization, though it raises concerns about fallback trust assumptions if OAuth infrastructures are compromised.

Sui's roadmap also anticipates improved programmability via dynamic field support and asynchronous object ownership, designed to allow more flexible data structures on-chain. This addition is particularly geared toward unlocking more advanced gaming and asset management dApps but also introduces new patterns of complexity and presents risks around upgradeability and serialization bugs.

While Sui positions itself as a high-performance, object-based blockchain with novel solutions to concurrency problems, its divergence from EVM and Solidity norms may slow down adoption unless its developer tooling and community education initiatives gain serious momentum. Comparatively, ecosystems like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/lido-finance-pioneering-the-future-of-liquid-staking have seen faster traction partly due to composability within ETH-based frameworks. Sui's challenge remains to present a compelling enough technical advantage that justifies its divergence.

Comparing Sui to it’s rivals

Sui vs Aptos: A Technical Comparison of Move-Based Layer 1s

Sui and Aptos are two of the most prominent Layer 1 blockchains built on Move, a Rust-based smart contract language originally developed at Meta. However, their technical implementation and architectural decisions diverge sharply despite sharing a common origin.

At the consensus layer, Aptos utilizes a modified version of HotStuff, a well-known BFT consensus mechanism. It integrates pipelined and parallelized consensus processing for high throughput, reportedly handling 160,000+ transactions per second in idealized lab settings. Sui, on the other hand, introduces Narwhal and Bullshark—a separate mempool and consensus protocol duo. Narwhal separates data availability from consensus, while Bullshark ensures low-latency finality. By optimizing DAG-based ordering for simple transactions and offloading complex ones to parallel execution pathways, Sui claims higher real-world performance under load. The practical difference lies in tradeoffs: Aptos aims for low-latency consensus under traditional assumptions, while Sui emphasizes parallelism and scalability by treating asset transfers differently from complex contract executions.

On the object model level, Sui takes a radical departure. Instead of accounts and global state-transition functions like Ethereum or Aptos, Sui uses an object-centric data model. Each piece of data is an independent object with ownership rules embedded directly into the protocol. This allows Sui to execute certain operations client-side, offering true horizontal scalability. Aptos, while also implementing resource-oriented programming via Move, retains a more traditional account-storage abstraction, which could constrain certain forms of scaling.

State storage is another battleground. Sui opts for a versioned object store with fine-grained locking, which enables optimistic parallel transaction execution. Aptos introduces state sharding via “delayed state commitment,” but its approach is more centralized during early phases of adoption due to required validator coordination and system complexity.

The developer experience diverges as well. While both support the Move language, Sui includes an altered dialect known as Sui Move. Some developers express concern over Sui Move’s divergence and learning curve, especially in tooling and community traction. Aptos benefits from earlier developer momentum and broader usage of vanilla Move—though critics point out its reliance on traditional structures limits contract composability potential.

For deeper comparisons in ecosystem scalability approaches similar to Sui and Aptos, projects like Moonbeam’s cross-chain vision or Polkadot-linked innovations offer relevant context. These highlight how L1 choices impact execution environments and decentralized application design.

In sum, while Aptos and Sui share a Move-based lineage, their architectural bets create vastly different execution environments and scalability models that will likely shape developer adoption and network differentiation long term.

Sui vs. Sei: Examining Execution Models and Performance Trade-offs

When comparing Sui to Sei, the contrast in architectural design—specifically around execution engines and parallelization—dominates the discussion. Sui explicitly opted for an object-centric data model and native support for parallel execution of transactions. In contrast, Sei gravitates toward optimizing for order book-based trading with a unique approach to transaction ordering, leveraging frequent batch auction (FBA) mechanics. This ideological divergence highlights two very different interpretations of how to achieve high performance on-chain.

Sui’s Move-based programming model tracks asset ownership at the object level, enabling stateless and deterministic parallelization by default. If transactions don’t touch the same on-chain objects, they can be processed simultaneously. This results in extremely low-latency execution for certain DeFi and gaming use cases. However, the system’s performance is sensitive to how smart contracts are structured, and overly ambitious developers may inadvertently serialize workloads by creating complex cross-object dependencies. The challenge lies in mastering Move’s constraints to fully unlock Sui’s potential.

Sei, on the other hand, isn’t attempting to parallelize everything; it focuses on optimizing high-frequency financial applications, particularly those involving order matching and high-throughput trading. It employs an on-chain central limit order book (CLOB) and deterministic order execution via batch auctions. Transactions are grouped and executed with price-time priority, reducing front-running opportunities but introducing latency windows. The absence of transaction-level parallelism is by design, to maintain the fairness of execution, but it sacrifices the generalized performance scalability Sui offers.

From a performance lens, Sui’s EVM-exempt architecture is designed to break through the bottlenecks inherent in account-based models—yet this comes at the cost of EVM compatibility. For protocols enamored with the Ethereum ecosystem, this trade-off can be limiting. Sei’s architecture is more traditional in some respects—built atop the Cosmos SDK and leveraging Tendermint—but its specialization for DeFi primitives provides composability within that sphere, particularly in markets involving real-time price feeds and slippage-sensitive logic.

Both platforms raise questions around developer tooling and ecosystem maturity. Sui’s Move has steep learning curves with fragmented documentation, while Sei’s niche design may limit adoption outside financial use cases. These limitations parallel the criticisms faced by other specialized architectures, as seen in projects like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/helium-under-fire-key-criticisms-explored, demonstrating that focused design often comes with reduced flexibility.

Ultimately, the Sui vs. Sei comparison zeros in on different use-case priorities: parallelizability and composability on Sui, versus deterministic fairness and speed in trading on Sei. Understanding these trade-offs is pivotal for developers deciding where to deploy capital or code.

SUI vs. INJ: Comparing Smart Contract Architecture and Execution Layer Design

While both SUI and INJ (Injective Protocol) target high-performance, developer-friendly blockchain infrastructure, their technical approaches diverge significantly—especially in smart contract architecture and execution model.

SUI is built on Move, a Rust-based smart contract language originally developed for the Diem project. Move introduces explicit resource management paradigms through linear types, allowing SUI to implement object-centric programming. This creates native support for asset ownership and composability without sacrificing performance. In contrast, INJ is based on the Cosmos-SDK and leverages CosmWasm for smart contract deployment. CosmWasm supports traditional account-based models like Ethereum but introduces WebAssembly (WASM) for cross-chain compatibility. Although expressive, CosmWasm contracts lack the inherent resource control features of Move, potentially resulting in more attack surfaces if users mismanage state variables or logic.

Execution-layer innovation is another key area of divergence. SUI employs a parallel execution engine, Narwhal-Bullshark, to decouple consensus from transaction sequencing. This results in high throughput for non-conflicting transactions while maintaining linearity when needed. It’s well-suited for applications where simultaneous asset state changes are rare. INJ, on the other hand, opts for a more traditional Cosmos Tendermint stack configured for instant finality. While this provides stable and reliable block times, it can fall short in scalability under asynchronous workloads—especially in DeFi environments that involve complex on-chain order matching, which INJ supports natively.

Although INJ’s built-in order book infrastructure and integration with IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) enables seamless interoperability and DeFi-native primitives, it also increases systemic complexity. The centralized order relay network—a core component of INJ’s architecture—stands in contrast to SUI’s fully decentralized transaction validation. This mixed model raises concerns over centralization vulnerabilities, despite performance gains.

Furthermore, INJ’s validator set and governance rely on a delegated proof-of-stake (dPoS) model within the Cosmos framework, which is mature but often critiqued for voter apathy and validator collusion risk. SUI’s Epoch-based consensus and storage gas separation aid in granular accountability and economic isolation of storage in contract-layer logic. For developers building applications sensitive to throughput predictability or storage-intensive workloads, this separation is mechanically advantageous.

While both networks aim to empower permissionless development, understanding their divergent design choices is crucial. Developers considering SUI over INJ should examine not only consensus and virtual machine design but also how these impact constraints on scalability, composability, and developer experience.

For additional insight into how governance and network structure affect scalability and risk, see our coverage on Decentralized Governance The Heart of Polygon's MATIC and The Overlooked Layer of Accountability in Decentralized Finance.

Primary criticisms of Sui

Key Criticisms of Sui: Centralization, Tokenomics, and Ecosystem Frictions

One of the most persistent criticisms aimed at the Sui blockchain revolves around its centralization concerns. Although marketed as a next-gen, high-performance Layer 1 network, Sui’s validator set has raised red flags due to its relatively small and institutionally-linked participants during early mainnet stages. This limited validator diversity fuels skepticism about true decentralization, especially when compared to more battle-tested networks like Ethereum or even emerging chains like Moonbeam (https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/critiques-of-moonbeam-challenges-ahead-for-glmr) that emphasize community-led decentralization models.

Sui’s Move-based programming model, while innovative, also introduces a steep barrier to entry for developers. Unlike EVM-compatible chains that enjoy broad tooling and developer familiarity, Move requires retooling and retraining—complicating onboarding for devs used to Solidity-based ecosystems. This friction has caused bottlenecks in dApp migration and adoption, highlighting a potential disconnect between Sui’s technical elegance and its real-world developer usability.

Tokenomics represent another heavily scrutinized aspect. SUI’s supply mechanics have been criticized for their opaque distribution strategy, particularly regarding early backers and insiders. A significant portion of tokens are allocated to venture capitalists and the Sui Foundation, leading to concerns about long-term dumping and network control by a concentrated minority. Critics highlight the lack of proactive mechanisms (such as lock-ups with gradual, transparent releases) to mitigate value extraction by early stakeholders. This issue echoes similar criticisms faced by other networks with heavy early-stage VC involvement, such as those surfaced in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/apecoin-under-fire-key-criticisms-explored.

Another friction point lies in Sui’s gas fee design. Unlike models where gas is consistently burned to create deflationary pressure (e.g., EIP-1559 in Ethereum), Sui returns unused gas directly to users, which some argue reduces incentives for long-term holding of the SUI token. While potentially positive for UX, it undercuts typical value accrual expectations for native tokens, calling into question SUI’s role as a long-term store of value within its own ecosystem.

Finally, governance still lacks clarity. Although aspirations for decentralization exist, Sui currently does not offer clear on-chain governance pathways for token holders, mirroring early-stage governance gaps seen in protocols like Lido Finance (https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/lido-finance-addressing-major-criticisms-and-concerns). The absence of genuine community-driven decision-making mechanisms limits trust and user engagement.

Founders

Meet the Founders of Sui: Ex-Meta Engineers Behind the Move-Inspired Blockchain

The founding team behind Sui consists primarily of former Meta (Facebook) engineers who worked on the Novi crypto wallet and the Diem blockchain project. At the forefront is CEO Evan Cheng, a seasoned technologist with a deep systems engineering background. Before launching Sui under Mysten Labs, Cheng served as the Director of Engineering at Meta’s Novi Financial and spent over a decade at Apple, contributing to the LLVM compiler infrastructure — crucial experience when building performant blockchain architectures.

Cheng co-founded Mysten Labs alongside Sam Blackshear, George Danezis, Adeniyi Abiodun, and Kostas Chalkias. Blackshear is the creator of the Move programming language, which was originally developed at Meta to power Diem and has become foundational to Sui’s smart contract capabilities. Sui's implementation of Move prioritizes safety and parallel execution, distinguishing it from other smart contract platforms. However, critics have noted that the Move ecosystem remains fragmented, and onboarding developers unfamiliar with the language has proven to be a hurdle for adoption beyond ex-Meta insiders or Rust-heavy communities.

George Danezis brings cryptography expertise and academic credentials, having previously published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and co-founded Chainspace, a sharded smart contract platform acquired by Meta. His work on privacy-preserving technologies brings some credibility to Sui’s claims of scalability and security, though some in the cryptography community have questioned the execution of theoretical frameworks at production scale.

Adeniyi Abiodun and Kostas Chalkias both held leading cryptographic roles at Meta’s blockchain division and bring further depth in applied cryptography and protocol security. Chalkias has contributed to threshold signatures and zero-knowledge proof systems, though Sui has yet to implement these primitives in meaningful decentralized finance or privacy-protecting dApps.

The core strength of the Sui founding team lies in its heavy concentration of infrastructure-level engineering talent. However, this can be a double-edged sword. The team’s academic and corporate pedigree has raised concerns in cypherpunk circles about whether Sui leans too heavily toward a "Web2.5" model — one that prioritizes performance and control over decentralization. Unlike projects shaped by grassroots crypto communities like Aave’s evolution from EthLend to a DeFi leader, Sui’s top-down development has at times drawn fire for being opaque and corporate-driven.

Moreover, Mysten Labs’ significant ownership of SUI tokens has sparked debates about power concentration and the authenticity of future “community governance.” These governance dynamics will be scrutinized further as Sui matures and attempts to transition toward a decentralized model, a path many protocols — including Lido Finance — have stumbled through with mixed results.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://sui.io
• https://docs.sui.io
• https://sui.io/whitepaper.pdf
• https://github.com/MystenLabs/sui
• https://blog.sui.io/
• https://docs.sui.io/concepts/object-centric-model
• https://docs.sui.io/concepts/sui-transaction-model
• https://docs.sui.io/build/move-on-sui/overview
• https://docs.sui.io/learn/network-architecture-overview
• https://docs.sui.io/learn/tokenomics
• https://explorer.sui.io
• https://validators.sui.io/
• https://github.com/MystenLabs/sui/blob/main/crates/sui-framework/README.md
• https://github.com/MystenLabs/sui/blob/main/crates/sui-framework/docs/token.md
• https://github.com/MystenLabs/sui/blob/main/crates/sui-framework/docs/object.md
• https://github.com/MystenLabs/sui/blob/main/crates/sui-adapter/README.md
• https://www.coinbase.com/price/sui
• https://messari.io/asset/sui/profile
• https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/sui/
• https://www.binance.com/en/price/sui