2026-01-07 07:28:27

Stop making unfair blockchain comparisons—the real distinction lies in execution architecture.

When evaluating throughput and settlement speed, you need to separate sequential processing from parallelized systems. The numbers tell the story:

Base operates at roughly 1.4k TPS with approximately 16-minute finality using sequential processing. Ethereum sits at around 119 TPS with 6-minute finality, also relying on sequential execution. Compare this to Sei, which achieves 12.5k TPS with approximately 400-millisecond finality through parallelized execution.

The performance gap isn't a design flaw in some chains—it's a fundamental architectural choice. Sequential processors handle transactions one after another, while parallelized systems process multiple transactions simultaneously when dependencies allow. This is why finality speed and transaction throughput differ so dramatically. Understanding this distinction matters when evaluating blockchain scalability and choosing where to deploy applications.

ETH-0,86%

SEI-2,43%

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MoonWaterDroplets

· 2h ago

I've already said it, it's not that Ethereum is slow, it's just that the architecture is different... This guy is quite right.

View OriginalReply0

RugResistant

· 5h ago

ngl, parallelized execution sounds great on paper but where's the audit trail when things break? sei's 400ms finality doesn't mean much if the validator set can't actually catch exploits in time. analyzed thoroughly and the devil's always in the implementation details here...

Reply0

GasFeeNightmare

· 9h ago

Staring at the gas tracker late at night reading this article, to be honest, Sei's 400 milliseconds is indeed impressive... but parallel processing sounds like it would be more expensive, right?

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseHomeless

· 01-07 07:55

Haha, finally someone clarified it. The difference between sequential and parallel has been overhyped, and some people still don't get it... Sei's 400ms finality is indeed impressive, but the prerequisite is that the ecosystem needs to keep up. No matter how high the TPS is, without applications, it's all pointless.

View OriginalReply0

BitcoinDaddy

· 01-07 07:54

Wow, someone finally explained it clearly. Not all chains should be compared based on TPS, bro.

View OriginalReply0

DaoGovernanceOfficer

· 01-07 07:49

ngl this sequential vs parallel framing is just *the* framework everyone's ignoring when they shill their chain... empirically speaking, the data suggests most devs still don't grasp why finality actually matters for protocol health lol

Reply0

OvertimeSquid

· 01-07 07:44

Differences in architecture can indeed be easily overlooked, but honestly, Sei's parallel processing reaching 12.5k TPS is quite impressive. That said, these numbers look great on paper, but whether they hold up in real-world operation is another matter. Parallel ≠万能; it depends on whether the ecosystem is strong enough.

View OriginalReply0

rugged_again

· 01-07 07:44

Haha, alright. To be honest, it's just a difference in technical approach. Comparing a sequential processing chain to parallel processing is just funny to begin with.

View OriginalReply0

DegenGambler

· 01-07 07:30

To be honest, the parallel execution setup really changes the game... but does Sei's 400ms sound a bit exaggerated? Have you actually used it?

View OriginalReply0