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.