Sui’s object-centric model treats each asset as an independent object with its own state and ownership. Every object can be owned by a specific address, and its state is updated independently from others. This allows for greater parallelization of transactions because objects can be processed concurrently without affecting each other, as long as they don’t share ownership or state.

On the other hand, Ethereum’s account-based model represents assets and state within an account. Transactions modify the account’s state globally, meaning they often need to be processed sequentially to avoid conflicts, particularly when multiple transactions affect the same account.

The implications are significant:

• Transaction Parallelization: Sui’s model supports more efficient parallel transactions, reducing bottlenecks. Ethereum’s account-based approach requires more sequential processing to maintain consistency.
• Security: Sui’s model minimizes the risk of state conflicts since each object is independent. Ethereum's account-based model can expose vulnerabilities when multiple transactions interact with the same account, leading to potential reentrancy issues or other exploits.
• Developer Experience: Sui gives more flexibility, allowing developers to model complex, object-based applications. Ethereum, while simpler and more familiar, requires developers to think in terms of accounts and global state, which can be limiting for certain use cases.

Sui’s object-centric data model differs fundamentally from Ethereum’s account-based model in how it represents assets, state, and ownership. In Ethereum, all activity revolves around accounts that hold balances and contract states, which requires sequential transaction execution and complex checks to prevent conflicts. In contrast, Sui treats everything — coins, NFTs, smart contract states — as objects with unique IDs and defined ownership rules, enforced by the Move language. This design enables parallel execution, since independent transactions that touch disjoint objects can be processed simultaneously, greatly improving throughput. It also strengthens security, as the linear type system ensures assets cannot be accidentally duplicated or lost, reducing common vulnerabilities like reentrancy. For developers, the shift means thinking in terms of object flows and ownership transfers rather than account balances, which can simplify modeling real-world assets but requires a new mental framework compared to Solidity. Overall, Sui’s model is optimized for scalability, safety, and intuitive asset representation, making it a notable departure from Ethereum’s global state paradigm.

with unique IDs and defined ownership rules, enforced by the Move language. This design enables parallel execution, since independent transactions that touch disjoint objects can be processed simultaneously, greatly improving throughput. It also strengthens security, as the linear type system ensures assets cannot be accidentally duplicated or lost, reducing common vulnerabilities like reentrancy. For developers, the shift means thinking in terms of object flows and ownership transfers rather than account balances, which can simplify modeling real-world assets but requires a new mental framework compared to Solidity. Overall, Sui’s model is optimized for scalability, safety, and intuitive asset representation, making it

Ownership & Access • Sui: Ownership is explicit—objects have a single owner or are shared. • Ethereum: Contracts manage state access internally; ownership is inferred.

Transaction Execution • Sui: Enables parallel execution by tracking object access. Independent object interactions can run concurrently. • Ethereum: Uses a global state, so all transactions are executed sequentially.

Security • Sui: Reduces reentrancy risks by isolating object logic and ownership. • Ethereum: More prone to reentrancy and shared-state bugs.

Sui’s object-centric model differs fundamentally from Ethereum’s account-based model in these key ways:

1. Data Representation • Sui: Everything is an object with a unique ID, owned by an address or shared. • Ethereum: State is stored in accounts, with balances and contract storage.

2. Ownership & Access • Sui: Ownership is explicit—objects have a single owner or are shared. • Ethereum: Contracts manage state access internally; ownership is inferred.

3. Transaction Execution • Sui: Enables parallel execution by tracking object access. Independent object interactions can run concurrently. • Ethereum: Uses a global state, so all transactions are executed sequentially.

4. Security • Sui: Reduces reentrancy risks by isolating object logic and ownership. • Ethereum: More prone to reentrancy and shared-state bugs.

5. Developer Experience • Sui: Requires managing object references and versions explicitly. • Ethereum: Simpler abstractions, but more hidden complexity around state interactions.

Implication: Sui’s model supports scalability and safety through parallelism and fine-grained state control, but has a steeper learning curve for developers used to account-based systems.