Zero to Hero: ICP vs. AO

Overview

• Topic: Comparison between ICP (Internet Computer Protocol) and AO (AO the computer).
• Controversy: AO claims to be superior to ICP, especially in running large language models AI directly on-chain.
• Support Structures: RVe (Arweave)

Introduction

• Importance: Both systems are worth comparing based on data, charts, metrics, and indicators.
• Arweave & Rwe: Many blockchains like Solana, Avalanche, Near Protocol, and Polygon use Arweave for permanent data storage.

Metrics & Comparisons

Transactions

• Arweave (RWe): 6.6 billion transactions
• ICP: 12.6 million transactions since 2021
• Users of RWe: Many big players in the industry

Transactions Per Second (TPS)

• Arweave (RWe): 292 TPS
• ICP: ~5,000 TPS

Transaction Fees

• Arweave: $140,000 in monthly fees
• ICP: $114,000 in monthly fees

Storage Sizes & Costs

• Arweave: 77 Terabytes stored, $20/Gigabyte
• ICP: 4.55 Terabytes stored, $5/Gigabyte per year

Blocks

• Arweave: ~154 blocks/day
• ICP: 45 blocks/second

Active Addresses

• Arweave: 853 active addresses
• ICP: 2,609 active addresses

Total Addresses

• Arweave: 211,000 addresses
• ICP: 2 million addresses
• Internet Identities (ICP): 2.5 million

AO: The Computer

Comparison Points

• Governance: AO has minimized governance, resembling Bitcoin’s model. ICP has a governance-heavy approach.
• Centralization: ICP has some centralization, which SEC mentions in Coinbase case.
• AI Capabilities: AO claims to run large language models on-chain.
• Technical Metrics: AO claims 16GB memory versus 4GB for ICP.

Performance & Capabilities

• Full large language models: Capable of financial decisions
• TVL (Total Value Locked): AO claims $400 million, but realistic assessment is challenging.

Tokenomics

• Supply: 21 million AO tokens with halving every four years
• Fair Launch: No pre-mine, pre-sale; community-focused

Key Characteristics of AO

• Parallel Processing: Infinite scalability
• Trustless Computation: States uploaded permanently
• Decentralized Cloud Services: Shared network resources
• Modular Architecture: Enhances scalability

Benefits and Features

• Consumption & Verification: Uses Rwe for trustless and verifiable storage
• Plug & Play: Convenient for developers
• Autonomous Agents: Run AI directly in smart contracts

Comparisons with ICP

• Marketing & Adoption: ICP has stronger team and higher development maturity.
• Usage: ICP has more established use cases but currently lags behind in marketing and adoption.
• Utility: AO presents novel aspects, different from traditional ICP strengths.

Conclusion

• Competitors: Strengthens ICO's push for innovation.
• Focus: Both projects serve to advance blockchain technology but in different manners.
• Further Research: AO's claims need to be scrutinized over time for real-world validation.

Personal Investment & Perspective

• Arweave: Long-term investment due to its extensive usage.
• ICP: 10% of portfolio due to strong capabilities.
• AO: Potential worth exploring due to their innovative approach.