Can SUI grow as SOL killer in the future?

[Cryptoddler]

SOL is becoming ETH killer but can SUI become like SOL killer blockchain?

Is it just temporary hype that will fade out when the season is done?

from my point of view, SUI is becoming a chain that can actually match with SOL in the future.

What is everyone thinking?

[len01]

Anything can happen, but it's still too early to tell. Because Solana and Sui have different advantages, and Solana is strengthened by the larger community. And some of the new projects built on the Solana network are already successful. Whereas Sui currently does not have what Solana has. In terms of market interest, I admit that Sui has almost the same interest as Solana.


Solana vs Sui

[Yaunfitda]

SOL is becoming ETH killer but can SUI become like SOL killer blockchain?

It takes years and wrong decision on the part of ETH to bring their own downturn. So maybe SOL might have gotten the lion share of their prospective clients and or investors, but still boils down on how ETH destroys themselves in the crypto sphere.

Is it just temporary hype that will fade out when the season is done?

from my point of view, SUI is becoming a chain that can actually match with SOL in the future.

What is everyone thinking?

So if SOL will have that one time mistake then maybe SUI will overtake them. But for now, I don't think that they have the consensus to do that. SOL is really taking the altcoin market by storm. They established a new all time high, same with Bitcoin, but then ETH is way behind like -60% still from their previous all time high.

[asonganyi]

i dont think anyone is killing anyone.
anything can happen.
but cheaper, faster and most reliable always wins in long run.

[Zanab247]

SOL is becoming ETH killer but can SUI become like SOL killer blockchain?

Is it just temporary hype that will fade out when the season is done?

from my point of view, SUI is becoming a chain that can actually match with SOL in the future.

What is everyone thinking?

We all know that no altcoins will remain in one position forever, For SUI to overcome Sola in the future, it will take SUI some years before it will get to the position Sola are among other cryptocurrencies.  Sola had pump above $165 while SUI price just managed to hit $3, and there is a big risk for those that will invest all their money in SUI because their developers are still struggling to make the coin pump like other potential altcoins in the market.

If you look at the two coin right now, you will prefer to remain in Sola investment than SUI because Sola has more population of developers than SUI, and it will be hard for SUI to takeover the position of Sola.

[TastyChillySauce00]

i dont think anyone is killing anyone.
anything can happen.
but cheaper, faster and most reliable always wins in long run.

Theoretically speaking  there are many blockchains that are faster than solana and ethereum, but most of them don't get the hype going so people just never put their attention into them.
SUI is a really fast blockchain 300k TPS compared to solana bout 65k TPS only but market cap still below solana.

I think the main deciding factor isn't just cheaper and faster, but also hype.

[Abiky]

SOL is becoming ETH killer but can SUI become like SOL killer blockchain?

Is it just temporary hype that will fade out when the season is done?

from my point of view, SUI is becoming a chain that can actually match with SOL in the future.

What is everyone thinking?

I doubt it. Back then, TON (Telegram's "The Open Network" Blockchain) was hailed to be Solana's "successor" or "killer" only to fail in the long run. Sometimes marketing/PR matters most than the underlying tech of a cryptocurrency. In this case, Solana has better marketing than TON. But the latter has better tech. Especially in its approach for scalability.

I believe the "Solana hype" will last for quite some time. After all, "meme" coins are getting popular on the platform. Not sure if SUI will be able to gather the attention of the masses, though. It's relatively new and widely unproven. Between SUI and Aptos, both are neck-in-neck in their use of the "horizontal scaling" technique. Either one of them could become the "next Solana". That's a big "IF" because of the reasons mentioned before. Crypto land often behaves in many strange and bizarre ways, so anything's possible.

[Satofan44]

i dont think anyone is killing anyone.
anything can happen.
but cheaper, faster and most reliable always wins in long run.

Theoretically speaking  there are many blockchains that are faster than solana and ethereum, but most of them don't get the hype going so people just never put their attention into them.
SUI is a really fast blockchain 300k TPS compared to solana bout 65k TPS only but market cap still below solana.

I think the main deciding factor isn't just cheaper and faster, but also hype.

These numbers are meaningless, nobody needs that kind of TPS for true cryptocurrency. That is why they started also introducing sub second block time, because they do not know how to build anything actually more useful so they end up in a race regrading TPS and block times.

Hype helps only create temporary relevance, and in recent times it is mostly to get the VCs and early investors to cash out massively at the expense of retail. Long-term it does not help that much. As you see in the case of examples as the user below mentions.

I doubt it. Back then, TON (Telegram's "The Open Network" Blockchain) was hailed to be Solana's "successor" or "killer" only to fail in the long run. Sometimes marketing/PR matters most than the underlying tech of a cryptocurrency. In this case, Solana has better marketing than TON. But the latter has better tech. Especially in its approach for scalability.

I believe the "Solana hype" will last for quite some time. After all, "meme" coins are getting popular on the platform. Not sure if SUI will be able to gather the attention of the masses, though. It's relatively new and widely unproven. Between SUI and Aptos, both are neck-in-neck in their use of the "horizontal scaling" technique. Either one of them could become the "next Solana". That's a big "IF" because of the reasons mentioned before. Crypto land often behaves in many strange and bizarre ways, so anything's possible.

[Kryss191]

SUI’s fast, sure, but TPS bragging rights don’t mean much without adoption, utility, and real users. Without serious traction or hype momentum like SOL had, it's just another fast chain in a crowded field.

[o48o]

i dont think anyone is killing anyone.
anything can happen.
but cheaper, faster and most reliable always wins in long run.

Not true. If that would be the case then something like BNB would have been won already. Those metrics however mean very little. People think that something is cheap when transaction fees are cheap, but they don't often even count the smart contracts or how decentralized something is.

True decentralization isn't cheap, but it will be cheaper in the future. That's why people aren't backing TRON or BNB for example.

[nelson4lov]

SUI’s fast, sure, but TPS bragging rights don’t mean much without adoption, utility, and real users. Without serious traction or hype momentum like SOL had, it's just another fast chain in a crowded field.

Even though it's a crowded field, we can all agree that SUI has made significant progress in just a few years, No?

Sui launched after Aptos yet it has more traction (users + TVL) than aptos.
Movement launched after SUI and still has less traction than even aptos which is disappointing considering the consensus is that newer chains with exciting features are better.

I'm not a SUI user or community member but I feel they're on the right path.

[TastyChillySauce00]

These numbers are meaningless, nobody needs that kind of TPS for true cryptocurrency. That is why they started also introducing sub second block time, because they do not know how to build anything actually more useful so they end up in a race regrading TPS and block times.

Hype helps only create temporary relevance, and in recent times it is mostly to get the VCs and early investors to cash out massively at the expense of retail. Long-term it does not help that much. As you see in the case of examples as the user below mentions.

I doubt it. Back then, TON (Telegram's "The Open Network" Blockchain) was hailed to be Solana's "successor" or "killer" only to fail in the long run. Sometimes marketing/PR matters most than the underlying tech of a cryptocurrency. In this case, Solana has better marketing than TON. But the latter has better tech. Especially in its approach for scalability.

I believe the "Solana hype" will last for quite some time. After all, "meme" coins are getting popular on the platform. Not sure if SUI will be able to gather the attention of the masses, though. It's relatively new and widely unproven. Between SUI and Aptos, both are neck-in-neck in their use of the "horizontal scaling" technique. Either one of them could become the "next Solana". That's a big "IF" because of the reasons mentioned before. Crypto land often behaves in many strange and bizarre ways, so anything's possible.

Well, I agree with the fact that TPS is kinda gimmicky, most of these TPS are also lab test being held under controlled condition. In production, nobody knows if the TPS can be consistent and there's no validator outage.
The TON case was also funny, the blockchain itself hailed as the best blockchain in term of scalability only for it to froze over airdrop claiming event.

To be honest, most of altcoins are like that, just temporary hype until market maker and VC cashed out, then it went downhill from there.
Only something like BTC where holders are truly decentralized that can retain price and even growing parabolic.

[Abiky]

Well, I agree with the fact that TPS is kinda gimmicky, most of these TPS are also lab test being held under controlled condition. In production, nobody knows if the TPS can be consistent and there's no validator outage.
The TON case was also funny, the blockchain itself hailed as the best blockchain in term of scalability only for it to froze over airdrop claiming event.

To be honest, most of altcoins are like that, just temporary hype until market maker and VC cashed out, then it went downhill from there.
Only something like BTC where holders are truly decentralized that can retain price and even growing parabolic.

That's the point. So many projects claim to have high TPS, but they fail once they're put up to the test in the real world. The large number of TPS processed are only done in a lab setting like you've said. But the real deal comes when the Blockchain is put under stress in a public setting. I've read somewhere that the more nodes there are on the network, the more latency there will be, effectively undermining the Blockchain's performance. It's why a chain like EOS (now rebranded to "Vaulta") only has 21 validators on the network.

I don't think SUI would be any different than APTOS, TON, or even HBAR in terms of network performance. Even SOL has its own set of limitations. My guess is that Solana will remain the leading coin of its kind after Ethereum. Neither SUI, APTOS, nor the other ones mentioned will be able to compete against it. Why focus on "killing" SOL, though? Isn't that the same as "killing" ETH? We should move past this and focus on working together to make crypto land a better place. The future of crypto is interoperability. This means cross-chain bridges, atomic swaps, and whatnot. Who knows where SUI will be in the long run?

[Satofan44]

SUI’s fast, sure, but TPS bragging rights don’t mean much without adoption, utility, and real users. Without serious traction or hype momentum like SOL had, it's just another fast chain in a crowded field.

Even though it's a crowded field, we can all agree that SUI has made significant progress in just a few years, No? Sui launched after Aptos yet it has more traction (users + TVL) than aptos.
Movement launched after SUI and still has less traction than even aptos which is disappointing considering the consensus is that newer chains with exciting features are better. I'm not a SUI user or community member but I feel they're on the right path.

This is the wrong way to think about it. If SUI didn't do a few thing right, it would be another coin where the attention is. Part of it is VC connections, another part of it is pure luck. Nobody has control over what is currently hyped in the market. The position on a list like Coinmarketcap is not relevant, it does not change the fact that it is yet another altcoin that does pretty much everything the same as many other coins.

Well, I agree with the fact that TPS is kinda gimmicky, most of these TPS are also lab test being held under controlled condition. In production, nobody knows if the TPS can be consistent and there's no validator outage.
The TON case was also funny, the blockchain itself hailed as the best blockchain in term of scalability only for it to froze over airdrop claiming event.

Almost all teams behind private blockchains called altcoins are lying. It is just a question of how blatantly they are doing so. There is a simple rule of thinking that everyone can follow. Did TON need to exist? No. Did SUI need to exist? Also no. They are made to enrich the creators, that is it. There is nothing complicated about it.

To be honest, most of altcoins are like that, just temporary hype until market maker and VC cashed out, then it went downhill from there.
Only something like BTC where holders are truly decentralized that can retain price and even growing parabolic.

Yes. BTC is the only coin aside a couple old ones like Litecoin, Dogecoin and Monero that did not have any VCs, presales and anything scammy like that. These things exist to enrich people with money at the expense of retail.

That's the point. So many projects claim to have high TPS, but they fail once they're put up to the test in the real world. The large number of TPS processed are only done in a lab setting like you've said. But the real deal comes when the Blockchain is put under stress in a public setting. I've read somewhere that the more nodes there are on the network, the more latency there will be, effectively undermining the Blockchain's performance. It's why a chain like EOS (now rebranded to "Vaulta") only has 21 validators on the network.

It is not only about a lack of public testing, in which case we would talk about theoretical TPS. There are some sites that track theoretical against the actually tested TPS, but I don't remember the name now. The thing is, you can have a public chain with absurd TPS numbers but what is the benefit of that when you need very expensive server clusters to run it? All those blockchains are terrible in this case. What is even worse is situations like EOS. With 21 validators, you can't be considered a cryptocurrency of the same category as those that we are talking about. It is a centralized blockchain.

I don't think SUI would be any different than APTOS, TON, or even HBAR in terms of network performance. Even SOL has its own set of limitations. My guess is that Solana will remain the leading coin of its kind after Ethereum. Neither SUI, APTOS, nor the other ones mentioned will be able to compete against it. Why focus on "killing" SOL, though? Isn't that the same as "killing" ETH? We should move past this and focus on working together to make crypto land a better place. The future of crypto is interoperability. This means cross-chain bridges, atomic swaps, and whatnot. Who knows where SUI will be in the long run?

We can't move past it, you are misunderstanding how altcoins come to existence if you even think that this has the faintest possibility of existing. Almost all altcoins get created out of 1 simple reason, greed. The creators want to enrich themselves and their friends, and this already sets it up as a competition. It is not avoidable.

[sabinevolker]

I get the skepticism around high-TPS chains like SUI, Aptos, and TON — especially when most TPS numbers are from controlled environments and don’t reflect real-world performance. That said, dismissing every newer chain as just a VC-backed cash grab feels overly cynical.

SUI, for example, launched later than Aptos but gained decent traction in TVL and user metrics. That doesn’t automatically make it “the future,” but it does show some progress. Also, SUI's use of Move for smart contracts is a legit innovation, even if it doesn’t solve all the problems in the space.

Yeah, most chains have growing pains, and many won’t survive long-term. But that’s part of the open innovation we’ve seen in crypto for over a decade now. Not every project needs to “kill” Ethereum or Solana to be relevant. Some might just carve out useful niches or help push the tech forward.

Interoperability is probably where things are headed anyway. So instead of this constant "X vs Y" mindset, maybe it's better to evaluate chains on actual adoption, developer activity, and what kind of problems they’re trying to solve — not just whether they had a presale.

Just my 2 sats.

[Satofan44]

I get the skepticism around high-TPS chains like SUI, Aptos, and TON — especially when most TPS numbers are from controlled environments and don’t reflect real-world performance. That said, dismissing every newer chain as just a VC-backed cash grab feels overly cynical.

SUI, for example, launched later than Aptos but gained decent traction in TVL and user metrics. That doesn’t automatically make it “the future,” but it does show some progress. Also, SUI's use of Move for smart contracts is a legit innovation, even if it doesn’t solve all the problems in the space.

You are confusing things. A chain can be a VC-backed cash grab and it can still succeed. These are not mutually exclusive things. The fact is, almost all new chains are VC-backed cash grabs that is why they have presales with large discounts for rich people and why often even the coins or tokens can be staked before they are even released into circulation. The rich people get to make twice their money. That said, out of all of these cash grabs, some will inevitably reach moderate or even large success. That does not change the fact that it is a cash grab, it merely turns it into a cash grab that succeeded.  

Interoperability is probably where things are headed anyway. So instead of this constant "X vs Y" mindset, maybe it's better to evaluate chains on actual adoption, developer activity, and what kind of problems they’re trying to solve — not just whether they had a presale.

Interoperability is also useless. It is a solution to a problem that they created, a problem that didn't need to exist. All interoperability solutions follow the same pattern. Greedy teams trying to enrich themselves, and the cycle continues. That is why they issue tokens for each and every project, when it could be realized without a token.