Original source: Popescu Razvan
Compiled by: Shenchao TechFlow
The Optimistic rollup debate never ends, so let’s compare the performance of Optimism and Arbitrum over the past three months in terms of reach, retention, and revenue to see which one is better.
The “Reach, Retention, and Revenue” framework focuses on the metrics that any blockchain ecosystem cares about. All blockchains should focus on three things: growing their user base (reach), retaining their user base (retention), and monetizing their user base (revenue).
First let’s look at Optimism’s coverage. The average daily transaction volume is 254,566, while the average number of daily active addresses is 72,734, processing 3.23 transactions per second. Coverage looks "good," but that doesn't mean anything without comparison.
Next, let’s look at Arbitrum’s coverage. The average daily transaction volume is 1,230,979, while the average number of daily active addresses is 236,396, processing 11.73 transactions per second. Well, it seems Arbitrum is more active.
Interestingly, even though Arbitrum appears to be 4-5 times busier, Arbitrum’s ratio of average transactions per day divided by active addresses is not too far off between 5.20 and Optimism’s 3.5.
Next we look at the usage and retention of Optimism. Retention seems to be slowly declining (possibly due to the bear market). The number of days per week a user is active is also a great metric.
Now let's look at Arbitrum's retention. Retention seems to be declining at a faster rate (probably due to airdrops). The number of active days per week for "users" is also lower.
Finally, let's analyze Optimism's revenue. The total trading volume of OptimismDEX is $1 billion, the gas consumption is $42,729, and the gas fee is $0.01. Optimism focuses on public goods, so there is little airdrop speculation associated with trading volume. The gas fee paid per active address looks good.
Let’s look at Arbitrum. Arbitrum has approximately $52 billion in DEX trading volume, $303,311,801 in gas consumption and an average gas fee of $2-4. The gas fee paid per active address seems a bit strange and drops suddenly.
To sum up, my conclusion is that both Optimistic Rollups look very healthy and energizing. They have different goals and cannot be compared solely by objective metrics, especially since Arbitrum recently had an airdrop. A more correct analysis should probably be done at the beginning of the next bull market. They both have a great tradition, and both embrace DAO culture and the Web3 funding program.
Don’t forget, Optimism is built on supporting public goods. This is an experiment in sustainable ecosystem funding, powered by protocol revenue. Arbitrum seems to be more focused on decentralization, as it is the first EVM rollup to reach the first stage of decentralization.
(The above content is excerpted and reprinted with the authorization of partner MarsBit, original text link | Source: Deep Chao TechFlow)
Statement: The article only represents the author's personal views and opinions, and does not represent the objective views and positions of the blockchain. All contents and opinions are for reference only and do not constitute investment advice. Investors should make their own decisions and transactions, and the author and Blockchain Client will not be held responsible for any direct or indirect losses caused by investors' transactions.
This article compares Optimism and Arbitrum data: Who is the more popular Layer 2? First appeared in Block Guest.
