Explore
Connect with communities and discover new ideas.
Communities
Sui is a Layer 1 protocol blockchain designed as the first internet-scale programmable blockchain platform.
Top postsTop members- 701
- 630
- 595
Move is an executable bytecode language used to implement custom transactions and smart contracts.
Top postsTop members- 271
- 260
- 251
Peera is a decentralized questions and answers protocol for Web3 where users can organize and store their interests and skills, creating a common community platform
Top members- 328
- 286
- 225
The InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) is a protocol, hypermedia and file sharing peer-to-peer network for storing and sharing data in a distributed file system.
Top postsTop members- 25
- 20
- 20
Walrus is a decentralized storage and data availability protocol designed specifically for large binary files, or "blobs"
Top postsTop members- 41
- 40
- 38
Bounty
- +15Xavier.eth313ForSuiJun 27, 2025
Sui Transaction Failing: Objects Reserved for Another Transaction
I'm encountering a persistent JsonRpcError when trying to execute transactions on Sui. The error indicates that objects are reserved for another transaction, even though I've implemented sequential transaction processing with delays. JsonRpcError: Failed to sign transaction by a quorum of validators because one or more of its objects is reserved for another transaction. Other transactions locking these objects: AV7coSQHWg5vN3S47xada6UiZGW54xxUNhRv1QUPqWK (stake 33.83) 0x1c20f15cbe780ee7586a2df90c1ab70861ca77a15970bea8702a8cf97bd3eed9 0x1c20f15cbe780ee7586a2df90c1ab70861ca77a15970bea8702a8cf97bd3eed9 0x1c20f15cbe780ee7586a2df90c1ab70861ca77a15970bea8702a8cf97bd3eed9 I've tried: Sequential transaction execution (waiting for previous transaction to complete) Added 3-second delays between transactions And still getting the same error consistently. Using Sui RPC for transaction submission. The same object ID appears multiple times in the lock list. Error occurs even with careful transaction sequencing. What causes objects to be "reserved" for other transactions? How can I properly check if an object is available before using it in a transaction? Are there best practices for handling object locks in Sui? Could this be related to transaction finality timing? Has anyone encountered this issue before? Any insights on proper object management in Sui transactions would be greatly appreciated!
25 - +15Xavier.eth313ForSuiJun 17, 2025
How do ability constraints interact with dynamic fields in heterogeneous collections?
I'm building a marketplace that needs to handle multiple asset types with different ability requirements, and I've hit some fundamental questions about Move's type system. I want to store different asset types in the same collection, but they have different abilities: Regular NFTs: key + store (transferable) Soulbound tokens: key only (non-transferable) Custom assets with transfer restrictions public struct Marketplace has key { id: UID, listings: Bag, // Want to store different asset types here } // This works for transferable assets public fun list_transferable( marketplace: &mut Marketplace, asset: T, price: u64 ) { /* ... */ } // But how to handle soulbound assets? public fun list_soulbound( // No store ability marketplace: &mut Marketplace, asset_ref: &T, // Can only take reference price: u64 ) { /* How do I store metadata about this? */ } Key Questions: Ability Requirements: When using dynamic_field::add(), does V always need store at compile time? Can wrapper types work around this? Heterogeneous Storage: Can a single Bag store objects with different ability sets (key + store + copy vs key + store), and handle them differently at runtime? Type Safety: Since dynamic fields perform type erasure, how do I maintain type safety when retrieving values? What's the pattern for storing type metadata? Witness Pattern: How do ability constraints work with phantom types? Can I store Asset and Asset in the same collection and extract type info later? Building a system where NFTs, soulbound tokens, and restricted assets all need marketplace functionality but with different transfer semantics. I’ve tried wrapper types, multiple collections per ability set, separate type metadata storage. Each has tradeoffs between type safety, gas costs, and complexity.
05 - +10ForSuiMay 29, 2025
Why does BCS require exact field order for deserialization when Move structs have named fields?
Why does BCS require exact field order for deserialization when Move structs have named fields? I've been diving deep into BCS encoding/decoding in Move, particularly for cross-chain communication and off-chain data processing. While working through the examples in the Sui Move documentation, I encountered some behavior that seems counterintuitive and I'm trying to understand the underlying design decisions. According to the BCS specification, "there are no structs in BCS (since there are no types); the struct simply defines the order in which fields are serialized." This means when deserializing, we must use peel_* functions in the exact same order as the struct field definition. My Specific Questions: Design Rationale: Why does BCS require exact field order matching when Move structs have named fields? Wouldn't it be more robust to serialize field names alongside values, similar to JSON or other self-describing formats? Generic Type Interaction: The docs mention that "types containing generic type fields can be parsed up to the first generic type field." Consider this structure: struct ComplexObject has drop, copy { id: ID, owner: address, metadata: Metadata, generic_data: T, more_metadata: String, another_generic: U } How exactly does partial deserialization work here? Can I deserialize up to more_metadata and ignore both generic fields, or does the first generic field (generic_data) completely block further deserialization? Cross-Language Consistency: When using the @mysten/bcs JavaScript library to serialize data that will be consumed by Move contracts, what happens if: I accidentally reorder fields in the JavaScript object? The Move struct definition changes field order in a contract upgrade? I have nested structs with their own generic parameters? Practical Implications: In production systems, how do teams handle BCS schema evolution? Do you version your BCS schemas, or is the expectation that struct field order is immutable once deployed?
53
Newest
- ForSuiJul 10, 2025
Sui vs. Aptos: Which Diem Successor Will Dominate the Next Blockchain Era?
The blockchain landscape is witnessing an intense rivalry between two high-performance networks with shared Meta (Facebook) DNA: Sui and Aptos. Both leverage the Move programming language, deliver sub-second finality, and aim for mass adoption. But which architecture is better positioned for long-term success? This comprehensive comparison examines: 🔧 Core technological differences in consensus and execution 📊 Ecosystem traction and developer adoption rates 💎 Tokenomics: SUI vs. APT economic models 🔮 Future outlook: Strategic advantages and potential pitfalls 1. Architectural Breakdown: Sui's Innovation vs. Aptos' Stability Consensus Mechanisms & Performance | Parameter | Sui | Aptos | |---------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------------| | Consensus Model | Narwhal-Bullshark (DAG-based) | DiemBFT v4 (HotStuff variant) | | Finality Time | <1 second | 1-2 seconds | | Execution Model | Full parallel processing | Pipelined processing | | Peak Throughput | 100,000+ TPS | 30,000 TPS | Critical Observations: Sui's object-centric model enables true parallel execution, giving it superior scalability for high-frequency applications Aptos offers more predictable enterprise-grade stability with its battle-tested DiemBFT implementation Both networks significantly outperform Ethereum in finality speed, but Sui's architecture is more revolutionary than evolutionary 2. Ecosystem Growth: Developer Momentum & Market Traction Adoption Metrics Comparison | Growth Indicator | Sui | Aptos | |----------------------|------------------------|------------------------| | Total dApps | 120+ (60% DeFi/Gaming) | 80+ (40% Enterprise) | | TVL (DeFi) | $220M | $160M | | Daily Active Users | 350K | 250K | | Key Partnerships | Mysten Labs, Cetus | Microsoft, Jump Crypto | Market Position Analysis: Sui demonstrates stronger organic growth in consumer-facing sectors (DeFi, gaming, NFTs) Aptos maintains strategic enterprise relationships that could prove valuable for institutional adoption Both chains benefit from Binance and Coinbase listings, but Sui shows marginally better retail traction 3. Economic Models: SUI vs. APT Tokenomics Token Supply & Incentives | Economic Factor | SUI | APT | |----------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------| | Total Supply | 10 billion (fixed) | 1 billion (fixed) | | Staking Yield | 3-7% APY | 7-10% APY | | Inflation Model | Zero inflation | 1.5% annual emission | | Vesting Schedule | Gradual (4+ year unlocks) | Accelerated (early investor exits) | Economic Implications: SUI's fixed supply creates stronger scarcity dynamics long-term APT's higher staking yields attract short-term capital but risk dilution Both networks allocate significant tokens to ecosystem development, though Sui's approach appears more sustainable 4. Strategic Advantages: Where Each Network Excels Sui's Winning Propositions ✅ Unmatched throughput for gaming and social applications ✅ Object-oriented Move implementation enables novel DeFi primitives ✅ Superior congestion resistance during network spikes Aptos' Competitive Edges ✅ Proven institutional relationships with major tech firms ✅ More mature developer tools from earlier mainnet launch ✅ Higher nominal yields for staking participants 5. Long-Term Outlook: Critical Factors for Dominance Potential Growth Scenarios Sui's Path to Leadership: Captures next-generation gaming and socialFi applications Maintains technology lead in parallel execution Builds decentralized finance hub to rival Solana Aptos' Comeback Potential: Emerges as preferred enterprise blockchain for Fortune 500 adoption Leverages Microsoft's cloud infrastructure for hybrid solutions Develops regulatory-friendly institutional products Final Assessment: The Verdict on the Diem Successors Projected Timeline 2024-2025:** Near-parity with Sui leading in retail adoption 2026-2027:** Potential divergence based on enterprise vs. consumer dominance Strategic Recommendations: Developers** building cutting-edge dApps should prioritize Sui's advanced architecture Institutional investors** may find Aptos' stable positioning more appealing Retail users** benefit most from Sui's growing DeFi and gaming ecosystems The Bottom Line: While Aptos offers stability and enterprise appeal, Sui's technological superiority in parallel processing positions it as the likely long-term winner—provided it can maintain developer momentum and navigate decentralization challenges. The coming 18-24 months will be decisive in determining whether Aptos' institutional strategy can overcome Sui's technical advantages.
0 - Benjamin XDV237ForSuiJul 10, 2025
Designing a Sustainable Token Economy for Sui Projects
A well-structured token economy is critical for any project building on Sui. Unlike speculative token models, sustainable designs balance supply, demand, and utility to ensure long-term growth. Core Components of Token Design Defining Token Utility Tokens must serve concrete purposes to maintain demand. On Sui, common utilities include: Governance - Voting on protocol upgrades Access - Paying fees or unlocking features Staking - Securing networks and earning yields Incentives - Rewarding liquidity providers Example: A Sui DEX token might combine governance rights with trading fee discounts. Supply and Distribution Strategy Fixed vs. Inflationary Supply Fixed caps create scarcity, while controlled inflation funds ongoing incentives. Allocation Best Practices Community & Ecosystem (40-50%) Team & Advisors (15-20%, vested over 2-4 years) Investors (20-30%, with gradual unlocks) Treasury (10-15% for future development) Critical Avoidance: Over-allocating to insiders, which risks supply dumps. Driving Sustainable Demand Deflationary Mechanisms Token burns (e.g., % of protocol fees) Buyback-and-stake programs Behavioral Incentives Tiered rewards for long-term holders Time-locked staking bonuses Leveraging Sui’s Technical Advantages Low-Cost Transactions Enable micro-rewards and frequent governance participation. Dynamic NFTs Represent staking positions or membership tiers as upgradable assets. Move Language Security Ensure tamper-proof token contracts. Common Pitfalls in Token Design Governance Tokens Without Revenue** - Leads to speculative collapse Unsustainable APYs** - High yields that can’t be maintained Poor Vesting Schedules** - Early team/investor unlocks crash prices Overly Complex Models** - Confuses users and obscures value Case Studies: Successful Models on Sui Cetus (DEX)** - Fee sharing + buybacks maintain price stability Navi (Lending)** - Staking rewards tied to protocol revenue Scallop (DeFi)** - Deflationary burns from transaction fees Implementation Checklist Define all token utilities Model supply emission schedules Allocate with long-term alignment Calibrate incentives carefully Integrate Sui-specific optimizations Conclusion The most sustainable Sui token economies will be those that: Anchor to real utility Balance supply and demand mechanics Leverage Sui’s technical strengths Prioritize long-term participation over short-term gains
0 - ForSuiJul 10, 2025
Could you also try running the deploy command with the --max-concurrent=1 flag?
In the meantime we(the walrus-sites team) have started a full investigation
01
Unanswered
Trending
AMM Bot in Sui Ecosystem
What are the key features and functionalities of AMM bots within the Sui ecosystem? How do they improve upon traditional trading mechanisms, and what advantages do they offer to users engaging with DeFi protocols on the Sui network? Do I need to build one or I can use Turbos Finance for example
83- 0xduckmove630ForSuiApr 08, 2025
👀 SEAL- I Think Web3 Data Privacy Is About to Change
👀SEAL is Live on Sui Testnet – I Think Web3 Data Privacy Is About to Change In the Web3, it’s common to hear phrases like “users own their data” or “decentralized by design”. But when you look closely, many applications still rely on centralized infrastructures to handle sensitive data — using services like AWS or Google Cloud for key management. This introduces a contradiction: decentralization on the surface, centralization underneath. But what if there was a way to manage secrets securely, without giving up decentralization?Introducing SEAL – Decentralized Secrets Management (DSM), now live on the Sui Testnet. SEAL aims to fix one of Web3’s biggest hypocrisies: shouting decentralization while secretly using AWS You maybe ask me: What is SEAL? SEAL is a protocol that lets you manage sensitive data securely and decentrally – built specifically for the Web3 world. Think of it as a privacy-first access control layer that plugs into your dApp. You can think of SEAL as a kind of programmable lock for your data. You don’t just lock and unlock things manually — you write policies directly into your smart contracts, using Move on Sui. Let’s say you’re building a dApp where: Only NFT holders can unlock a premium tutorial Or maybe a DAO has to vote before sensitive files are revealed Or you want metadata to be time-locked and only accessible after a specific date SEAL makes all of that possible. The access control lives onchain, fully automated, no need for an admin to manage it. Just logic, baked right into the blockchain. SEAL makes all of that possible. The access control lives onchain, fully automated, no need for an admin to manage it. Just logic, baked right into the blockchain. Another interesting piece is how SEAL handles encryption. It uses something called threshold encryption, which means: no single node can decrypt the data. It takes a group of servers to work together — kinda like multi-sig, but for unlocking secrets. This distributes trust and avoids the usual single-point-of-failure problem. And to keep things truly private, SEAL encrypts and decrypts everything on the client side. Your data is never visible to any backend. It stays in your hands — literally — on your device. and SEAL doesn’t care where you store your data. Whether it’s IPFS, Arweave, Walrus, or some other platform, SEAL doesn’t try to control that part. It just focuses on who’s allowed to see what, not where things are stored. So yeah, it’s not just a library or API — it’s an onchain-first, access-controlled, privacy-by-default layer for your dApp. SEAL fills a pretty critical gap. Let’s break that down a bit more. If you’re building a dApp that deals with any form of sensitive data — gated content, user documents, encrypted messages, even time-locked NFT metadata — you’ll run into the same problem: ➡️ How do you manage access securely, without relying on a centralized service? Without something like SEAL, most teams either: Use centralized tools like AWS KMS or Firebase, which clearly goes against decentralization Or try to patch together half-baked encryption logic themselves, which usually ends up brittle and hard to audit https://x.com/EmanAbio/status/1908240279720841425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1908240279720841425%7Ctwgr%5E697f93dc65359d0c8c7d64ddede66c0c4adeadf1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.notion.so%2Fharryph%2FSEAL-Launches-on-Sui-Testnet-1cc4f8e09bb380969c0dcc627b96cc22 Neither of those scales well. Especially not when you’re trying to build trustless apps across multiple chains or communities. SEAL makes that entire process modular and programmable. You define your access rules in Move smart contracts, and SEAL handles the rest — key generation, decryption approvals, and access enforcement — all without anyone manually issuing keys or running backend checks. Even better, those rules are auditable and immutable — once they’re onchain, they follow the contract, not a human admin. So instead of asking “who should manage access to this data?” you just ask: “What logic should define access?” …and let the chain handle it. Clean and scalable. That’s what makes SEAL relevant for more than just “security tools” — it’s a base layer for any dApp that cares about privacy, compliance, or dynamic access logic. It’s a small shift — but it changes a lot about how we think of data in Web3. Instead of encrypting after deployment, or relying on external services, you start with privacy built-in — and access handled entirely by smart contract logic. And that’s exactly what Web3 needs right now. How Does SEAL Actually Work? We’ve covered what SEAL is and why Web3 needs it, let’s take a look at how it’s actually built under the hood. This part is where things get more technical — but in a good way. The architecture is elegant once you see how all the pieces fit together. At a high level, SEAL works by combining onchain access logic with offchain key management, using a technique called Identity-Based Encryption (IBE). This allows devs to encrypt data to an identity, and then rely on smart contracts to define who is allowed to decrypt it. Step 1: Access Rules in Smart Contracts (on Sui) Everything starts with the smart contract. When you’re using SEAL, you define a function called seal_approve in your Move contract — this is where you write your conditions for decryption. For example, here’s a simple time-lock rule written in Move: entry fun seal_approve(id: vector, c: &clock::Clock) { let mut prepared: BCS = bcs::new(id); let t = prepared.peel_u64(); let leftovers = prepared.into_remainder_bytes(); assert!((leftovers.length() == 0) && (c.timestamp_ms() >= t), ENoAccess); } Once deployed, this contract acts as the gatekeeper. Whenever someone wants to decrypt data, their request will get checked against this logic. If it passes, the key gets released. If not, they’re blocked. No one has to intervene. Step 2: Identity-Based Encryption (IBE) Here’s where the magic happens. Instead of encrypting data for a specific wallet address (like with PGP or RSA), SEAL uses identity strings — meaning you encrypt to something like: 0xwalletaddress dao_voted:proposal_xyz PkgId_2025_05_01 (a timestamp-based rule) or even game_user_nft_holder When the data is encrypted, it looks like this: Encrypt(mpk, identity, message) mpk = master public key (known to everyone) identity = the logic-defined recipient message = the actual data Later, if someone wants to decrypt, the key server checks if they match the policy (via the seal_approve call onchain). If it’s approved, it returns a derived private key for that identity. Derive(msk, identity) → sk Decrypt(sk, encrypted_data) The user can then decrypt the content locally. So encryption is done without needing to know who will decrypt ahead of time. You just define the conditions, and SEAL figures out the rest later. It’s dynamic. Step 3: The Key Server – Offchain, But Not Centralized You might wonder: who’s holding these master keys? This is where SEAL’s Key Server comes in. Think of it as a backend that: Holds the master secret key (msk) Watches onchain contracts (like your seal_approve logic) Only issues derived keys if the conditions are satisfied But — and this is key — SEAL doesn’t rely on just one key server. You can run it in threshold mode, where multiple independent servers need to agree before a decryption key is issued. For example: 3-of-5 key servers must approve the request. This avoids central points of failure and allows decentralization at the key management layer too. Even better, in the future SEAL will support MPC (multi-party computation) and enclave-based setups (like TEE) — so you can get even stronger guarantees without compromising usability. Step 4: Client-Side Decryption Once the key is returned to the user, the actual decryption happens on their device. This means: The server never sees your data The backend never stores decrypted content Only the user can access the final message It’s a solid privacy model. Even if someone compromises the storage layer (IPFS, Arweave, etc.), they still can’t read the data without passing the access logic. Here’s the quick mental model: This structure makes it easy to build dApps where access rules aren’t hardcoded — they’re dynamic, auditable, and fully integrated into your chain logic. The Team Behind SEAL SEAL is led by Samczsun, a well-known figure in the blockchain security community. Formerly a Research Partner at Paradigm, he has audited and saved multiple ecosystems from major exploits. Now, he’s focused full-time on building SEAL into a core piece of Web3’s privacy infrastructure. With his background and credibility, SEAL is not just another experimental tool — it’s a serious attempt at making decentralized data privacy both practical and scalable. As SEAL goes live on the Sui Testnet, it brings a new standard for how Web3 applications can manage secrets. By combining onchain access control, threshold encryption, and client-side privacy, SEAL offers a more trustworthy foundation for decentralized data handling. Whether you’re building dApps, DAOs, or decentralized games — SEAL provides a powerful toolkit to enforce access control and protect user data without compromising on decentralization. If Web3 is going to move forward, secure infrastructure like SEAL is not optional — it’s essential
8 Is the only way to publish Move packages through an EOA?
I assume there is no way on Sui chain as there is no module on chain which publishes packages.
73