All Aboard the Sui Express — SUI Fundamental Analysis

This fundamental analysis was published November, 2023, and is part of a weekly paid newsletter from the Crypto Consulting Institute that provides market insights, actionable trade signals, and monthly fundamental analyses. For more information on receiving FAs as they are released, visit: https://www.cryptoconsultinginstitute.com/newsletter

A train picks up passengers along its route.

As everyone is headed in the same direction, it is an effective transport method at scale to move everyone in a shared direction. While trains can run behind schedule, they eliminate congestion from other travel methods, such as driving a car. If you had 1000 commuters each take their vehicle along a single-lane road in a busy city, it would be slow and likely stressful.

However, it’s often not that simple. Of those 1000 commuters, half of them may need to get off at various stops along the way to change track lines to reach their target destination. Coordinating multiple routes and destinations with one transport mechanism can lead to congestion within the service. Further, commuters who have to change lines may take a bus or a taxi for the remainder of their journey, adding congestion back onto overcrowded roads.

But what if the track was modifiable that could break a part of a train and group commuters with a common destination?

In a perfect world, trains would break into relevant components defined by commuters with a shared destination and then merge components from convergent routes to reach a common destination. To say this would be immensely complex to implement would be an understatement. Undoubtedly trains unbound by physics that could fly through a 4-dimensional space straight out of Sci-Fi would be the most efficient solution for commuters.

While it may be a pipe dream for this to work with the physics of the real world, the digital world does not tend to experience these kinds of limitations, but arguably traditional blockchains are more concerned with the train and the users that get off at each stop than they are about the tracks or route that guides them.

Sui Blockchain can be thought of as the tracks that form a route, where the train itself and the users are objects that travel along the tracks that branch off to pursue their unique routes at the end of their shared journey. For smart contracts and complex transactions, trains need to follow a similar track, but the users’ objects form their own path free of the computational burdens of an intensive validation process.

Within the busy L1 narrative, we have covered many extensively throughout our FA series; Sui Blockchain builds upon our knowledge of alternative consensus mechanics of the previous L1/L0 blockchains (L1s; Solana, Theta, Near, Ripple, Monero, BNB Chain, Avalanche. L0s; Cosmos, Polkadot) and partial Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs; Fantom, Casper).

This FA will explore the origins of Sui’s unique proposition of an object-centric data model and intended goals. Further, we will explore how they plan to tackle network congestion to be the first to reach “internet scale” adoption and their tokenomics. We will close out the FA with a discussion of the implications of Sui’s technology, where they stand in the hyper-competitive L1 landscape, and any potential risks or limitations to Sui fulfilling a bullish thesis that potential investors could construct.

In June 2019, Facebook, which later rebranded to Meta, announced its intention to develop a permissioned blockchain and digital wallet to facilitate a worldwide payment network. Meta headed an independent group known as the Diem Association (initially called the Libra Association) to create the blockchain, while its subsidiary, Novi Finance (previously Calibra), was tasked with constructing the digital wallet.

Apart from publishing their open-source code, both products never saw the light of day. Diem ceased operations in January 2022 due to regulatory challenges and liquidated all its assets. Subsequently, Meta terminated the Novi project that year without providing a direct explanation. Prior to shutting down, many in the team admitted that Meta’s ambition for a global payment network was heading toward failure.

Consequently, two blockchains, Aptos and Sui, originated from the initial Diem and Novi research teams. While Aptos continues Diem’s legacy by expanding on existing technological features, Mysten Labs built an innovative solution inspired by Diem: Sui.

Mysten Labs, the primary contributor to Sui, was established in 2021 by ex-Novi project leads Evan Cheng, Adeniyi Abiodun, Sam Blackshear, George Danezis, and Kostas Chalkias. The founders possess research and product expertise in software language compilers, static analysis (programming safety), distributed systems, cryptography, and cloud computing. Having worked at companies like Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, R3, and Facebook, they appear to have sufficient experience for a highly technical project. Notably, co-founder Evan Cheng was awarded the ACM Software System Award for designing LLVM, a technology widely used in Apple and Google devices today.

Sui aims to be the premier decentralized platform for applications, products, and services that address real-life issues. To accomplish this, Sui needs to be sufficiently fast, affordable, secure, and adaptable to cater to billions of users conducting a wide variety of activities.

However, realizing this vision is not straightforward. The blockchain trilemma, which cannot go without mention in any of our FAs exploring various L0/1/2 technologies, — is the balancing act between decentralization, security, and scalability. This is why the development of Sui required a comprehensive review of existing blockchain technology (an R&D approach reminiscent of our Near). Based on the team’s experience and failure to get Diem off the ground, identifying what was effective and what was preventing the industry from achieving widespread use was required.

The team at Mysten Labs landed on a novel hybrid DAG/Blockchain design by integrating both strategies into a mixed model where its historical records are stored in objects with universally unique IDs. These objects also carry metadata that defines various object attributes, such as ownership and transaction history (partly extracted from object nonce values, also known as version numbers). The object-centric data model of Sui suggests that the global state is essentially a compilation of all Sui objects. This structure manifests as a directed acyclic graph (DAG), where objects align with vertices, transactions align with edges, and a category of objects known as “live objects” align with vertices that have no outgoing edges.

To recap, as it warrants repeating to save time reviewing past FA explanations, A DAG is a concept in computer science and mathematics that represents a particular kind of graph that resembles a Merkle Tree with a set of vertices and edges, where:

Directed: Each edge has a direction. That is, the edge goes from one vertex (or node) to another specific vertex, not the other way around.

Acyclic: The graph doesn’t contain any cycles. This means that if you start at any vertex and traverse the graph following the directions of the edges, you can’t return to the starting vertex.

In the context of blockchains and distributed ledger technologies, DAGs are used in some systems as an alternative to the traditional blockchain structure. Instead of forming a single chain of blocks, these systems create a graph of transactions where each transaction verifies one or more previous transactions, allowing for potentially greater scalability and parallelism. Examples of dedicated systems include IOTA, Hedera Hashgraph, and Nano; previous FAs covered Fantom and Casper, which have their own partial implementations of DAGs within a traditional blockchain structure.

Mysten Labs adapted the Move programming language into Sui Move to align with its object-focused data model, as it was initially designed for an account-based system. Sui Move primarily supports two types of objects: smart contracts (Move packages, which consist of Move modules) and digital assets (referred to as resources).

Sui’s support for resources is implemented through bytecode verification. Once Sui Move source code is compiled into bytecode, a static analysis tool called the Move bytecode verifier ensures the bytecode follows Sui’s rules for type, memory, and resource safety. This verification process confirms that objects can’t be created, copied, or unintentionally destroyed by code outside their defining module, and it safeguards against potential exploits like double-spending and reentrancy.

By insisting that all code passes the bytecode verifier before it’s added to the blockchain, the burden on smart contract developers to write specific safety rules is reduced. Unlike in other blockchains that use accounts to maintain the ledger state, these safety measures aren’t guaranteed by the virtual machine and must be manually coded by each smart contract developer working with the digital asset. For instance, account checks on Solana, a type of safety measure ensured by the Move bytecode verifier, can be challenging to implement correctly, leading to significant Solana ecosystem hacks, most notably through the $326M Wormhole bridge exploit.

Objects at the Centre of the Universe

Sui Blockchain uses a novel approach to blockchains through an object-centric model design worth exploring deeply.

Objects on Sui are not stored by smart contracts or wallet addresses, only their internal attributes, including ownership, are changed. History is stored within the object rather than on sequential transactions recorded to a linear blockchain.

Most blockchains track Unspent Transaction Outputs (UXTO; the amount of an asset remaining after a transaction) that change user balances in accounts to determine the blockchain’s state and typically apply a range of validator processes to every transaction on a blockchain. In Sui, each object is programmable, and the collection of all objects determines its state.

Sui focuses on the route, whereas blockchains focus on each train and each passenger’s movements. Each cross-over stop for a commuter is akin to complex transactions with a smart contract. If you wanted to deposit liquidity pool tokens to a farm on a DeFi protocol, you would likely need to swap tokens to meet liquidity requirements, deposit asset(s) into a liquidity pool, receive LP tokens, then stake them in a farm. A minimum of 4 changeover stops to switch tracks to get to the closest approximation to a target destination requires a series of smart contract functions to reconcile the UXTO and account balances throughout those processes, each functional instance requiring validation that incurs a gas fee.

What enables Sui to scale is how they treat objects. On Sui, Byzantine Fault assumptions are only applied to shared objects in the ecosystem, i.e. smart contracts. Basically, it ensures a consistent broadcast protocol to secure common operations on the network and often takes computational work.

Sui’s data model enables validators to carry out transactions simultaneously using a method called causal ordering instead of total ordering, which finalizes transactions one after the other. This causal ordering is based on cause-and-effect relationships, which evaluate how a transaction influences a specific object’s state. As a result, Sui can group transactions by the objects they involve.

If several transactions don’t affect the same object (meaning they’re unrelated), they can be processed at the same time in any sequence. However, transactions involving the same object must follow a specific order within that object’s transaction queue. In Sui, all basic transactions skip the consensus process, which makes it more efficient.

Programmable Transaction Blocks upgrade the basic execution unit to a complex, composable series of transactions. Developers are able to design intricate, indivisible, and expressive sequences (up to 1024 operations of any on-chain Move functions) tailored to their application needs, all in real-time, without needing to publish any new smart contract code. Commuters could reach their destination in one operation that would otherwise take up to 1024 changeover stops.

In Sui, every transaction uses objects as inputs and generates new or altered objects as outputs. Each object holds the hash (a unique code) of the last transaction that created or changed it. “Live” objects can be used as inputs, so you can determine the global state by looking at all the live objects.

Sui’s object-centric data model enables it to manage object interactions in parallel on a large scale. Transactions in Sui are grouped based on the object they involve. If several transactions happen at the same time, validators can process these transactions simultaneously on different machines as long as the transactions don’t depend on each other. This system offers a unique way to improve scalability, where the network’s capacity grows as validators add more computing capacity to their nodes.

Four specific object operations take place on Sui that change metadata ownership and then return it to the global objects pool:

• Objects owned by an address (Fungible and Non-Fungible tokens)
• Objects owned by other objects; send messages that can be changed to parent and child objects. (Enables parallel processing)
• An object that can be shared so anyone can read or write it in the Sui network (mutable sharing).
• An object can be shared so anyone can read it, but not anyone can write it (immutable sharing; no one owns the contract; DEX, liquidity pool contracts, etc).

Complex transactions that involve shared objects go through ordering and consensus using Sui’s Narwhal and Bullshark protocols. The Narwhal mempool ensures the availability of submitted transaction data and offers a structured path in the shape of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) for selecting an order for this data. The Bullshark consensus selects a specific sequence for the structured data by agreeing on a particular DAG traversal, which means deciding on an order based on the DAG structure.

In sequence, complex transactions go through five stages to reach finality:

1. Users or clients send transactions to nodes across the network.
2. Upon receiving the transaction, Validator nodes cast a vote on its validity, with the weight of their vote depending on the size of their stake.
3. The user or client gathers a majority of these votes that are resistant to Byzantine faults, creates a certificate as a record, and shares the certificate with the validators.
4. The transaction certificate goes through Narwhal and Bullshark, where a Byzantine-resistant majority of validators agree on the arrangement of the transaction data.
5. Validators send their final response, and the user gathers an “effects” certificate, which serves as evidence of the state change and guarantees the transaction’s finality.

Simple transactions involving only non-shared objects don’t need to go through the sequencing process using Narwhal and Bullshark. In other words, they can bypass step 4 of the transaction processing pipeline. Simple transactions are subject to a less demanding and more scalable algorithm called Byzantine Consistent Broadcast rather than a Byzantine consensus. This broadcast makes sure all nodes receive the same message from the user or client, but it doesn’t require nodes to agree on the network’s state, which is one of the more complex aspects of consensus algorithms.

Sui validators don’t group transactions into blocks like traditional blockchains do. Instead, they validate each transaction individually, and the transactions receive a certificate of finality at the end. Sui claims that validating transactions separately reduces network latency. Since transactions are organized by objects, validators can process transactions related to different objects simultaneously, both in relation to one another and on their individual machines, known as “workers.” This parallel transaction processing allows for large-scale execution.

Sui also lowers latency by needing less communication between validators compared to other networks. It shifts much of the communication to users, typically represented by a client gateway service run by the application used (such as a wallet for transfers or a DEX entity for trades). Although this may add an extra layer of trust, it doesn’t necessarily increase trust assumptions. Using an app like MetaMask on Ethereum also requires users to trust that MetaMask is accurately relaying user intent on the blockchain. The same level of trust in the application exists in Sui’s client communication, with clients participating in transaction processing.

With Sui’s object-centric data model, wallets or applications executing a transaction can display the transaction signing request to the user in a way similar to Android-style permissions. Besides the signing request, the wallet or app also presents a list of objects and their modifications, revealing the potential consequences of the signed transaction.

Client communication is necessary for all transactions. However, whether a transaction undergoes Sui’s ordering and consensus mechanism depends on whether the object is shared or non-shared.

Excuse Me, May I See Your Ticket?

There is scarce information on one of Sui’s imminent developments; ZK Logins. As such, we will take this opportunity to explore an emergent concept; Account Abstraction (AA). We believe this advancement will be critical to ushering in the next phase of adoption.

Let’s first contextualize by recapping Ethereum, where each Ethereum account is linked to a cryptographic entity known as a signer.

A signer, also referred to as a keypair, consists of two keys: a private key and a public key.

The private key, often known as the secret, can be used to digitally sign messages, while the public key allows anyone to confirm that a specific signature was created using its corresponding private key. The intricate mathematics underlying cryptography ensures that if I provide you with my public key, there’s no way you can deduce my private key. Also, if I offer you a message signed with my private key, you can be confident that I’m the only one who could have provided that signature.

A number of problems with self-custody today arise from the rigid authorization logic embedded in the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). A strong link exists between the account holding a user’s tokens and the signer authorized to move these tokens.

AA addresses these structural issues by transforming Ethereum’s current dual-account structure (Externally Owned Accounts and Contract Accounts) to a single type — Contract Accounts. These Contract Accounts can not only initiate transactions and cover transaction fees but they can also be tailored to users’ specific requirements.

To understand what that looks like, we need to review Ethereum Improvement Plan (EIP) 4337.

EIP4337 is the latest proposal toward achieving Account Abstraction, and it can be considered an advancement of smart contract wallets. Essentially, it simplifies the creation and management of smart contract wallets on Ethereum by sharing some of the on-chain and off-chain infrastructure requirements.

With EIP4337, users don’t create transactions in the traditional sense. Instead, they send UserOperations to a higher-level mempool. Then, miners or bundlers can assemble a group of UserOperations into a bundle transaction, which is sent to the EntryPoint contract for execution. This EntryPoint contract ensures the correct execution of operations and makes certain that the miner/bundler is appropriately rewarded with the transaction fee.

With EIP4337, any developer can write custom smart contract wallets with minimal code and without worrying about how to cover transaction fees.

Like smart contract wallets, EIP4337 was designed to mimic Account Abstraction without requiring protocol modifications. However, as with smart contract wallets, EIP4337 doesn’t eliminate Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs), and wallets created using EIP4337 still remain limited by their potential on Ethereum.

We will watch with abated breath how Sui’s ZK logins will function when more information is released in the coming months.

As a hint, the benefits of AA are atomic transactions through multi-calls, session keys, social recovery (the end of seed phrases), multi-factor authentication, plug-ins, pay fees with any token, DApps paying their users fees, upgradeability, and more efficient signature algorithms.

SUI [Object]enomics (As of 10/05/23)

$SUI Price: $1.21

Market Cap: $633M

Fully Diluted Valuation: $12B

Circulating Supply: 528,273,718 (5.28% of max supply)

Maximum Supply: 10,000,000,000

Token Publicly Traded May 3rd with Sui Mainnet Launch

Tokenomic risks are present in the emission schedule.

SUI Foundation, Mysten Labs treasury, and early contributors hold over 75% of the total supply.

October 2023 will see a significant spike in the $SUI circulating supply, with early contributors in Series A and Series B fundraisers being the largest recipients.

The Byzantine Generals are Hard to Please — Discussion

Unsurprisingly, and with precedent, we have only skimmed the surface of Sui as there are many finer-grain aspects to the technology. Fortunately, we do not need to code or understand too many formulae to achieve a sufficient high-level understanding to form an investment thesis. We need only understand the core value proposition, risks, and investor catalysts.

We are all too familiar that there is more than one way to crack an egg. Given Layer-1s were, on aggregate, the best-performing narrative of the previous bull market, one cannot be blamed for experiencing a bit of fatigue by feeling that this is like groundhog day.

Scaleability — true scalability that can facilitate millions of users simultaneously without network hiccups is still yet to be substantially demonstrated in a live environment. That is to say, many blockchains claim to be scaleable and can demonstrate their claims based on tests made in controlled testnet environments.

We have seen the likes of Polygon and BNB Chain experience latency in their networks as a result of high demand that was often contrary to their own claims around network resilience. Ethereum, and most recently Bitcoin with the release of Ordinals and BRC-20s, have generated gas fees as high, and in some cases higher, than the previous bull market. Excessive gas fees are an issue that is alive and well. Even Solana showed promise in being able to handle high demand at low cost, only to have multiple outages from system timeouts due to lags in consensus-level processes.

Layer-2s have performed well in recent times to scale demand, but it is yet to be seen how they will cope during bull market conditions. Indeed during this bear market, Arbitrum had overtaken the number of transactions on Ethereum in a day. Yet, they share the same challenge as L1s that we have touched on repeatedly: complexity as a barrier to entry.

Users that are proficient and have matured in their understanding of blockchain technologies tend to religiously subscribe to narratives around decentralization — which are of critical importance but often manifest tribalism that can lead to missed investment opportunities. Similar to how a Bitcoin maxi may ignore all other opportunities because they don’t align with the need for decentralized applications and alternate blockchains. As a result, DAGs are often dismissed as viable alternative to blockchains based on perceptions of centralization. E.g. As our analysis of XRP stated — it is a distributed ledger that is structurally not decentralized. However, it is obviously an investment opportunity leading to an SEC determination. This is an example of where biases could lead to missed investment opportunities.

Sui is an investment opportunity that addresses the narratives of scaleability and complexity as a barrier to entry.

DAGs have been labeled on many occasions as “Blockchain 3.0”. While they structurally differ from traditional blockchains as a way of processing transactions, it is likely the most efficient consensus mechanism to date. It is the difference between taking multiple trains to reach one destination (traditional blockchain consensus) or taking one train that takes you directly to your location (DAGs).

The challenges for DAGs to gain traction is typically perceptions around centralization from proficient users that can understand the technology yet cannot break free from buzzwords like “Blockchain,” given DAGs are not entirely consistent with what a blockchain is by definition. Centralization in previous DAGs, like Hedera Hashgraph, have hand-picked companies that run enterprise nodes which every transaction must first filter through. Similarly, a limited number of available validators adds to these perceptions. As well as the token distribution, which, if in the hands of a few, presents investment risks disproportionate to the fair value of the technology at any given point in its lifespan.

Ultimately, this line of logic concludes that existing users accustomed to using Metamask on EVM blockchains are not the primary target market. Complexity as a barrier to entry has been discussed at length; while most of us are used to securing seed phrases and protecting our private keys, then using web3 interfaces to sign smart contracts, this process is not attractive to new users.

Adoption, one of the three A’s we often discuss (the other two, Application and Access), can only occur by onboarding new users. For this reason, Account Abstraction, a recent concept to begin manifesting in blockchain products, will likely be a significant development in blockchain technology.

Not everyone is interested in non-custodial solutions if there are learning barriers to becoming proficient and ongoing security protocols to manage assets.

Everyone reading this, and has spent some time in cryptocurrencies, is at an immediate advantage in the event that AA comes to fruition. You have gotten in before the next wave of investors that put non-custodial solutions into the ‘too-hard basket’, and should ZK Proofs eliminate seed phrases, will have fewer barriers to participation.

What Sui ZK Logins will look like is difficult to say, and there will likely be more information in the coming months. In the case of Ethereum, there have been a number of proposals to achieve ZK logins, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. ZK Proof-based Layer-2s like ZKSync are pursuing AA implementations to achieve mass adoption.

Now let us explore the potential of $SUI as an investment.

First, the emission schedule is the biggest concern to address. As highlighted, the Mysten Labs team, Sui Foundation, and early contributors control 75% of the token’s total supply. Currently, only 5.28% of the total $SUI supply is in circulation. For $SUI to maintain the current price of $1.16 with every token in circulation in some years’ time, it would need to exceed the $12B fully-diluted market cap.

While this is by no means an impossible price target, as $SOL had a similarly high emission schedule and experienced massive gains in 2022, it does present some short-term risks. In terms of investment strategies, a small dollar-cost averaging allocation would be ideal for building long-term positions while seeking to grow holdings with lump sum bids after vested tokens have been sold into the market.

In the short term, a lump sum entry would be predicated on the thesis that token scarcity will squeeze the price until newly released tokens dilute it. For those confident in their short-term plays, there is an opportunity to speculate on fundamentals that will arguably be predicated on increased onboarding of users onto Sui or relatively hyped product launches.

Whether a revolutionary DApp catches investors’ attention, similar to how Arbitrum onboarded users through innovative DApps like GMX, or if Sui could achieve interoperability with EVM and Non-EVM environments, there are ways to manage the risks associated with a Sui investment by observing these events. If network demand is sufficient, as with $SOL and $MATIC’s higher rate of emissions and foundational holdings, then new tokens entering circulation can scale with demand.

Secondly, as an extension of the above, Sui has competition not only broadly speaking in the L1 narrative but more specifically with solutions like Solana and Aptos (a faction within the original team that built Libra/Diem blockchains).

Aptos and Solana employ an account-based system to log the global ledger state. They use a method called head-of-line blocking, arrange transactions in a complete sequence, and write blocks into a shared data structure one after the other. On the other hand, Sui’s object-centric data model operates differently: the global state is simply a compilation of all Sui objects, with each transaction being recorded on its own.

Given that one may take the position that Sui is a superior product, the difference will come down to siphoning existing users from Solana and Aptos. Only the latter is likely to seriously compete with AA to onboard non-crypto-savvy users, whereas the former already has a significant user base.

However, in terms of data storage, Sui could indirectly rival on-chain storage protocols such as Arweave and Filecoin, particularly considering that its direct competitors, Aptos and Solana, haven’t devised strategies for handling on-chain storage of non-specific data. Incentives for long-term data storage and horizontal scaling of computational capabilities make running a Sui validator node an attractive business proposition. Although given data grows exponentially, entry costs may become prohibitive to set up a validator node that could sufficiently scale to meet the data demands of the network.

Indirectly, Sui competes with L2s in the scaleability narrative. Many of these L2s, such as ZKSync, are working on AA to onboard non-crypto users. These developments would likely be the greatest source of competition for Sui. As much as I admire the ingenuity of their design, at the end of the day, the network that will do the best will likely be the one that provides the most user-friendly experience.

This leads to the third concern around the Sui Move Programming Language. While there are advantages to using a language with structural protections against known exploits, it is a novel programming language. In large part, developers proficient in Rust would have less difficulty assimilating to Sui Move. Which makes Solana a target to siphon developers from. But as mentioned above, users and perhaps even developers that have become accustomed to the complexities of the EVM may be less likely to move over to Sui. That said, Sui would likely be an attractive development opportunity for those proficient in web-based programming languages like Rust that tend to assimilate well with Sui Move. The more high-quality DApps available on Sui that are easily accessible by non-crypto users, the greater the network effects of $SUI collateralizing tokens that release on their network. DApps that achieve popularity on the Sui network will likely do much of the legwork in terms of new users entering $SUI positions.

To close, if L1s are a key component of your investment portfolios, and you have allocated specifically into Non-EVM L1s (like Aptos or Solana), then it is worth considering Sui for a long-term investment. The vesting schedule is unlikely to lead to massive price appreciation in the short term, but it is not impossible, given what we have seen with Solana’s performance in the face of heavy vested token releases. A key point to examine is whether Non-EVMs will be able to outperform EVMs on aggregate in a Web3 environment where complexity is not a barrier to participation. If the answer is ‘yes’, it may be worth considering slowly winding out portions of Non-EVM positions that do not simplify the user experience and slowly build a Sui position. Average your entries over time from the inevitable vesting token dumps and hold steady should they deliver heading into the bull market.

References

Argent, ‘WTF is Account Abstraction’, March 28th 2022, https://www.argent.xyz/blog/wtf-is-account-abstraction/

Beincrypto, ‘Sui Token Release Sparks Worries’, May 4th 2023, https://beincrypto.com/sui-token-release-sparks-worries/

Binance Research, ‘Sui (SUI) A DPoS Layer 1 Blockchain based on Move Programming Language’, April 30th 2023, https://research.binance.com/en/projects/sui

Defiant, ‘Layer 1 Blockchain Sui Raises $300M At $2B Valuation’, September 9th 2022, https://thedefiant.io/sui-raises-300m

Medium, Overview of Move Programming Language, https://medium.com/coinmonks/overview-of-move-programming-language-a860ffd8f55d

Messari, ‘Diving into Sui’, May 3rd 2023, https://messari.io/report/diving-into-sui?referrer=asset:sui

Sui Documentation, https://sui.io/research

Sui Economics and Incentives Whitepaper, https://github.com/MystenLabs/sui/blob/main/doc/paper/tokenomics.pdf

Sui Smart Contracts Platform Whitepaper, https://github.com/MystenLabs/sui/blob/main/doc/paper/sui.pdf

YouTube, DApp University, ‘The TRUTH about new Sui Blockchain… Next Solana!?’, August 2022,