A technical comparison: @ArchNtwrk vs. @Stacks 🧵
Both want to bring smart contracts to Bitcoin.
But the approaches are VERY different.
One requires bridges. One doesn't. One has 7 years of history. One is brand new. One has $3.2B TVL. One has $20M in funding.
Let me break down the differences (and why they matter) 👇
First, let's acknowledge: Stacks is the incumbent.
• Launched 2017 (7-year head start)
• $3.2B in TVL
• Largest Bitcoin L2 by far
• sBTC bridge live on mainnet
Arch is the challenger:
• Testnet only (mainnet TBD)
• $20M raised (Pantera + Multicoin)
•50M+ testnet transactions • No bridge design
Different stages. Different approaches.
STACKS ARCHITECTURE:
Stacks is a separate blockchain that "anchors" to Bitcoin.
How it works:
• Separate chain with its own blocks
• Uses Proof of Transfer (PoX) consensus
• Miners bid BTC to mine STX blocks
• Block hashes written to Bitcoin
• Smart contracts in Clarity language
Key point: Stacks is a LAYER-1 blockchain that settles to Bitcoin.
ARCH ARCHITECTURE:
Arch is a Bitcoin-anchored sidechain with native UTXO execution.
How it works:
• Validators run ArchVM (eBPF-based)
• Smart contracts in Rust
• FROST/ROAST for decentralized signing
• State changes settle directly on Bitcoin
• No separate token for gas (uses BTC)
Key point: Arch is a SIDECHAIN that executes on Bitcoin's UTXO set.
THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE: Bridges
STACKS:
• Requires sBTC (wrapped Bitcoin)
• Users deposit BTC → receive sBTC
• sBTC is a 1:1 pegged asset
• Managed by decentralized signers
• Trust assumption: signers won't steal
ARCH:
• No bridge required
• Users' BTC stays on Bitcoin
• Native UTXO execution
• No wrapped assets
• Trust assumption: validators won't censor (not steal)
This is the biggest differentiator.
SECURITY MODELS:
STACKS (sBTC):
• Decentralized signer set (threshold signatures)
• Economic security via STX staking
• Bitcoin finality for settlement
• Risk: Signer collusion could drain sBTC
ARCH:
• dPoS validator set
• FROST/ROAST threshold cryptography
• Bitcoin finality for all state changes
• Risk: Validator censorship (but not theft)
Both use threshold signatures. Different trust models.
DEVELOPER EXPERIENCE:
STACKS:
• Clarity language (custom, Bitcoin-specific)
• Designed for safety and predictability
• Steeper learning curve
• Smaller developer ecosystem
ARCH:
• Rust language (industry standard)
• eBPF VM (proven by Solana)
• Easier onboarding from Solana/Ethereum
• Targets 10K+ Solana devs
Arch has a UX advantage for developers.
PERFORMANCE:
STACKS:
• Block time: ~10 minutes (tied to Bitcoin)
• Throughput: Limited by Bitcoin blocks
• Finality: Bitcoin block confirmation
• UX: Slower, but Bitcoin-native
ARCH:
• Block time: Sub-second (pre-confirmations)
• Throughput: Parallel execution (eBPF)
• Finality: Bitcoin settlement (eventual)
• UX: Faster, Solana-like
Arch optimizes for speed. Stacks optimizes for Bitcoin alignment.
ECOSYSTEM & ADOPTION:
STACKS:
• 7 years of development
• 100+ dApps live • $3.2B TVL (largest Bitcoin L2)
• Major exchange support
• Established community
ARCH:
• Testnet only
• 5+ dApps (Saturn, Autara, VoltFi, HoneyB, Ordeez)
• 50M+ testnet transactions
• 34K Archstronauts • Early stage
Stacks has massive first-mover advantage.
TOKEN ECONOMICS:
STACKS (STX):
• Native token for gas fees
• Stacking (staking) earns BTC yield
• Market cap: $787M • Circulating supply: ~1.5B STX
• Established tokenomics
ARCH ($ARCH):
• Token confirmed but not launched
• Use cases: Staking, gas, governance
• Airdrop for testnet participants
• Tokenomics TBD
Stacks has proven token model. Arch is unproven.
FUNDING & BACKING:
STACKS:
• Raised $70M+ over multiple rounds
• Investors: Y Combinator, DCG, others
• Public company (Hiro Systems)
• Established institutional support
ARCH:
• Raised $20M (Seed + Series A)
• Investors: Pantera Capital, Multicoin Capital
• Private company
• Fresh institutional backing
Both have strong VC support. Different stages.
THE TRADE-OFFS:
STACKS:
✅ Proven at scale ($3.2B TVL)
✅ 7 years of development
✅ Large ecosystem
❌ Requires bridge (sBTC)
❌ Slower performance
❌ Custom language (Clarity)
ARCH:
✅ No bridge required
✅ Faster performance
✅ Standard language (Rust)
❌ Unproven at scale
❌ No mainnet yet
❌ Small ecosystem
Different strengths. Different weaknesses.
WHO WINS?
Honest answer: Both can succeed.
STACKS wins if:
• sBTC bridge proves secure long-term
• Clarity ecosystem matures
• First-mover advantage compounds
ARCH wins if:
• Bridgeless execution resonates
• Mainnet launches smoothly
• Solana devs migrate
The market is big enough for multiple winners.
$2T in Bitcoin capital is the prize.
MY TAKE:
Stacks is the safe bet. Proven, established, liquid.
Arch is the high-risk, high-reward play. Novel tech, unproven, but potentially superior UX.
If you're risk-averse → Stacks If you're risk-tolerant → Arch (testnet airdrop) If you're strategic → Watch both
I'm personally bullish on both for different reasons.
4.32K
15
The content on this page is provided by third parties. Unless otherwise stated, OKX is not the author of the cited article(s) and does not claim any copyright in the materials. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent the views of OKX. It is not intended to be an endorsement of any kind and should not be considered investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell digital assets. To the extent generative AI is utilized to provide summaries or other information, such AI generated content may be inaccurate or inconsistent. Please read the linked article for more details and information. OKX is not responsible for content hosted on third party sites. Digital asset holdings, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk and can fluctuate greatly. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition.