New blockchains promise Web2‑like speed
A hot debate now pits fresh Layer‑1s like @Somnia_Network against established Layer‑2s like @arbitrum
L1s are “main highways” that handle all transactions directly, while L2s act as express lanes built atop Ethereum to boost throughput and cut costs
Which approach better meets the needs of tomorrow’s dApps? (1/7)
Somnia launched on Sep 2, 2025, and aims to break blockchain speed limits and gaming + predicted markets chain.
By splitting block production into data chains and a consensus chain, its MultiStream consensus allows validators to generate blocks simultaneously and finalize them in under a second.
Combined with compiled EVM bytecode and advanced compression, Somnia’s testnets have pushed 500k–800k TPS, even topping 1M TPS. Fees are sub-cent and finality is instant (2/7)
Arbitrum launched in Aug 2021 and is the largest Ethereum L2 by value locked.
It uses optimistic rollups to execute transactions off‑chain, posting compressed data and fraud proofs back to Ethereum.
Real‑world throughput averages ~27 TPS with a peak of 1 105 TPS and a theoretical ceiling of 40 k TPS. Block time is ~0.25 s and fees around $0.30 for a swap.
Finality takes ~13 minutes because transactions can be challenged, but the network enjoys mature tools, billions in liquidity and a large developer base (3/7)
On chainspect data, Somnia’s real-time TPS (96.66) is more than twice Arbitrum’s (43.22).
Peak TPS (100-block sample) is 134 642 vs 1 358, and theoretical max TPS is 1.05 M vs 40 k. Somnia’s block time is ~0.1 s with immediate finality, while Arbitrum’s block time is 0.25 s and finality ~13 min.
However, Arbitrum has processed ~1.6 B transactions vs Somnia’s 910 M, reflecting its longer time on the market (4/7)
Layer‑1s like Somnia offer native security and independence, deep liquidity and no reliance on external bridges . The trade‑off is scalability; even Ethereum caps at ~15–30 TPS with high fees
Layer‑2s, by contrast, extend L1s: they batch transactions to cut costs and increase speed
Optimistic rollups like Arbitrum inherit Ethereum security and offer cheaper swaps, but bridges can be hack targets, liquidity gets fragmented and sequencers introduce centralisation (5/7)
Arbitrum offers lower risk: it has proven security, a large ecosystem and benefits from Ethereum’s regulatory standing. Performance is sufficient for most DeFi/NFT use‑cases, though finality is slower. Investors and builders should view Somnia as a moon‑shot and Arbitrum as a stable workhorse.
Somnia is a higher‑risk, high‑reward play. Its 1M+ TPS and sub‑second finality could unlock fully on‑chain games and real‑time apps that today’s L2s can’t handle. Yet it launched recently, governance is council‑based and adoption is uncertain (6/7)
The debate isn’t zero‑sum here tho.. @Somnia_Network @arbitrum
Experts expect a multi‑layered future, with high‑value transactions staying on secure Layer‑1s, consumer applications on Layer‑2s, and new L1s tackling ultra‑high‑throughput niches
Somnia and Arbitrum may coexist: one pioneering real‑time, high‑speed dApps; the other scaling Ethereum’s thriving DeFi ecosystem.
The smart move is to diversify exposure and watch how adoption and technical upgrades unfold. to be honest, i am positioned in both, before putting money into either protocol or even using your time to yap about them, DYOR (7/7)
4.58K
29
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.