Arbitrum Stylus drives Rust deployments ahead of Superchain expansion

Arbitrum developers are moving heavy computation to Stylus after Trail of Bits and OpenZeppelin finished audits on the Stylus SDK. This upgrade allows developers to submit contracts in WASM, and it enables the use of Rust and C. Stylus contracts execute at near-native speed and use much less gas for computation. RedStone demonstrated that for workloads involving eight data feeds and three signers, Stylus reduces computation gas to 87,000, and this equals a 46.0% saving over the 161,000 gas required for the equivalent Solidity contract. Arbitrum’s Stylus upgrade provides a clear computational advantage over the Optimism Superchain’s existing infrastructure.

Developers utilize the Stylus Rust SDK to build complex systems like scoring engines and AI agents. ETHGlobal currently hosts a bounty for creators building AI agents on Arbitrum using Rust. This new target allows backend engineers to use their existing toolchains and crates without learning Solidity. The blockchain handles the trust layer while it maintains full interoperability with existing Solidity contracts. One shared crate can define types for both the onchain contract and the offchain API server, so that they match through the Rust compiler. You should look at the gas numbers if you want to see the real difference in compute efficiency. RedStone uses this architecture to implement its oracle infrastructure, as it leverages WASM-optimized cryptographic primitives and direct memory manipulation. Because storage operations cost the same on both VMs, the savings come from more efficient data processing and loop execution. For a workload with two data feeds, Stylus requires 39,000 gas for computation, while the EVM implementation requires 67,000 gas.

The Superchain constraint

The Optimism Superchain relies on the OP Stack, which uses an op-geth fork to provide EVM compatibility. This architecture focuses on shared standards and interoperability through protocols like ERC 7802 and the Message Passing Protocol. However, the Superchain lacks the native WASM extension found in Arbitrum Orbit. Coinbase Base developers operating within the Superchain ecosystem still work primarily with Solidity instead of WASM. While the Superchain aims for a unified network of interconnected chains, it remains constrained by the legacy Solidity-only execution environment of the OP Stack. Can the Superchain match this computational breadth?

The Superchain aims for a 2025 goal where interoperable Stage 1 chains perform $250m per month in cross-chain asset transfers. Users on OP Stack chains face a seven-day withdrawal delay because of the optimistic fraud proof challenge window. Arbitrum Orbit chains also use an optimistic model with a seven-day window for Rollup mode, but AnyTrust offers different configurations. Arbitrum’s Nitro stack compiles the Geth core directly into the L2 engine, while the OP Stack uses a different approach to combine execution, settlement, and data availability. Arbitrum Orbit includes independent chains with no formal revenue sharing, whereas the Superchain includes shared governance and sequencer revenue sharing to the Collective.

Scaling and performance

Arbitrum One processes roughly 1.74 million transactions daily, manages 219,000 active addresses, and holds $15.12 billion in total value secured. RedStone’s benchmarks highlight the gap between WASM and EVM for data-intensive tasks. This occurs because the EVM uses a stack machine with a 1024 depth limit and requires converting all operations to 256-bit words. WASM uses native 32/64-bit operations, which matches actual hardware and provides higher efficiency for typical data types. For example, the EVM forces all operations into 256-bit words, while WASM allows for efficient handling of 8-bit or 32-bit values. For a workload with two data feeds, Stylus requires 39,000 gas for computation, while the EVM implementation requires 67,000 gas. Arbitrum also processes 1.38 million daily operations.

The centralized sequencer in Arbitrum still presents a risk for MEV extraction, as it retains the ability to extract value from transactions. This remains a concern for users of the network.