2026-01-11 12:23:41

The Sui blockchain recently achieved a milestone with the Mysticeti V2 consensus mechanism—supporting 400,000 TPS with 50 nodes. This performance advantage directly benefits decentralized storage protocols within the ecosystem.

From a technical perspective, the modular architecture of Move VM 2.0 and its low lock contention design make dApp deployment smoother, and cross-chain data interaction has also accelerated. Notably, Pilotfish's sharding execution technology opens up new possibilities for storage expansion. These technological innovations are not just theoretical—they have already attracted real investment.

Since the mainnet launch, trading volume on DEXs within the ecosystem has increased, and project teams have completed $140 million in funding, becoming favorites among investors. Native tokens in the ecosystem play a vital role, connecting staking, governance, and trading into a complete closed loop. Users can stake tokens to become storage nodes, earning rewards while participating in protocol governance.

What is the background? The TVL in the BTCfi sector of the Sui ecosystem has surpassed $4.5 billion. In this thriving ecosystem, decentralized storage protocols are becoming a key hub between assets and on-chain storage.

SUI7,84%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MEVvictim

· 21h ago

400,000 TPS sounds impressive, but can it actually be used? It still depends on how the subsequent ecosystem develops.

View OriginalReply0

shadowy_supercoder

· 01-12 10:21

400,000 TPS? That number sounds awesome, but I don't know how it would be used in real-world scenarios.

View OriginalReply0

DAOTruant

· 01-12 06:36

400,000 TPS sounds impressive, but the real key is whether the storage protocol can keep up, that's the bottleneck.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-c802f0e8

· 01-11 12:50

400,000 TPS sounds impressive, but how many projects can actually run at full capacity?

View OriginalReply0

LeverageAddict

· 01-11 12:47

400,000 TPS sounds unbelievable, but Sui is just that competitive. Supporting this scale with 50 nodes... it's indeed not easy. BTCfi TVL has already reached 4.5 billion, is the storage track really about to take off? Staking tokens can both mine and govern, this logic is indeed appealing. Move VM 2.0 modular architecture is essentially about implementation, but raising 1.4 billion in funding is quite convincing. How is Pilotfish's execution sharding technology? Has anyone used it? It feels like there's a high chance it's just a gimmick. Low lock contention design, this technology choice is a bit particular. Is there a screenshot of the DEX trading volume increase? Didn't they say the ecosystem is still in the cold start phase? The consensus mechanism has been upgraded to V2, which is probably not easy; the engineering effort is really impressive. The entire closed-loop design is quite interesting, let's see if it becomes a new wave of hype.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoGoldmine

· 01-11 12:45

A throughput of 400,000 TPS sounds impressive, but the key is to look at actual utilization rates—don't let it become just a number on paper. A funding of 140 million is impressive, but I'm more interested in knowing the ROI cycle for these investments in storage. I need to calculate the staking rewards for storage nodes; this model is somewhat similar to mining pools. BTCfi's 4.5 billion TVL is indeed remarkable, but the ecosystem's depth and breadth still need to be observed. Pilotfish's sharding technology looks promising, but I want to see real-world implementation results—right now, it's all talk.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoDouble-O-Seven

· 01-11 12:41

400,000 TPS sounds impressive, but can it really run at full capacity? I always feel there's a lot of numbers involved in the game.

View OriginalReply0