I don't understand why not invest in the series - SUI vs APT: Move Ecological Gemini There is a lot of debate online about the two giants of the Move series, and it can be said that from the moment they were born, they were destined to be "competitors". Now it is obvious that @ SuiNetwork has been copying cars on the bend, and the momentum is stronger. As an investment target, we must first follow the principle of "don't invest if you can't understand", so we have the original intention of writing this article. Firstly, Solidity language is a universal language for building various types of smart contracts on Ethereum, with a large developer base; The Move language has obvious advantages in resource processing, security, and modularity, and is known as the most suitable language for writing smart contracts, especially for DeFi financial products. Aptos once became the leader of the Move series public chain with a financing of 350 million yuan and a rich ecosystem, while Sui caught up with Aptos with a financing of 335 million yuan and steady technological development, and is known as the twin stars of the Move series along with Aptos. Nowadays, SUI has become one of the most active L1 players with a daily trading volume of 10.9 million transactions, while @ Aptos is somewhat lackluster in comparison, having returned from being a champion to a challenger. Today, I will summarize the similarities and differences between Sui and Aptos, both of which are Move based public chains. I will attempt to analyze the factors contributing to Sui's rise and the potential for Aptos' future development? Firstly, the basic data: Different token economics designs: The difference in supply is determined by token economics: SUI adopts a large supply+long-term unlocking model (10 billion total, unlocked until 2030), aiming to support high-frequency micro transactions and large-scale ecological expansion; APT adopts a small supply+fast unlocking mode (1 billion total, 4-year linear release), pursuing scarcity premium and elite positioning, and focusing on the design of traditional financial grade pledge returns. Different development paths: The design of token economics also reflects to some extent the choices made by Sui and Aptos in their development paths: Sui takes the "ecological priority" route, focusing on user experience innovation and DeFi scale expansion; Aptos takes the "institution first" route, focusing on the layout of traditional financial infrastructure and the introduction of blue chip protocols. Further analysis of the advantages of both: It can be seen that the Sui ecosystem focuses more on user and developer experience, and has invested a lot in applications. Aptos, on the other hand, focuses more on providing enterprise level services and even has a bit of a high demand for quality over quantity. In fact, although both are Move based public chains, Sui and Aptos do not have a direct zero sum competitive relationship. In my opinion, the challenges that Aptos will face in the near future include not only continuous unlocking pressure, but also a relatively small user base and TVL scale, which requires Aptos to provide more diverse protocol types and a richer ecosystem to support user growth. Aptos SUI Move