InfoSat.io

Runes vs BRC-20: Everything you need to know Runes (as of a few hours ago) was just a blog post by Casey. But now, I'm sure there are devs cranking away trying to release the first token/wallet/swap/marketplace. Here's how Runes compares with BRC-20: 1. UTXO bloat UTXO bloat is real. Check out the steep line on the far right. That was due to the creation of BRC-20. Regardless of whether you agree with the UTXO bloat problem, it is probably a good idea to minimize UTXO bloat. Runes does have less UTXO bloat than BRC-20 (and Runes promotes greater consolidation over time) 2. UTXO model BRC-20 and Runes both use a UTXO model for transfers. Then BRC-20 'deploys', 'mints', and 'transfer activations' leverage an account-based model whereas Runes bakes it into the UTXO model. This makes Runes closer in functionality to Bitcoin itself (full UTXO model). 3. Functionality Both standards allow for PSBTs. Runes allows for better Bitcoin interoperability as it is fully UTXO-based (easier to use in Lightning or DLCs). However, with both standards it is difficult to airdrop 1000 addresses with a token (requires 1000 UTXOs in either case). 4. Data storage BRC-20 leverages the witness data within the ord envelope. Runes leverages the op_return. While op_return is more elegant, it doesn't feel like a viable solution due to the op_return size restriction of 83 bytes. This means you can only send tokens to a few people in each transaction which significantly limits the benefits of the Runes model. (possible that miners allow larger op_return though) 5. Reliance on off-chain indexers Both standards use Bitcoin as a full data availability layer and rely on off-chain indexers to provide the full balances/state of the protocol. Runes has a slight advantage as it is independent of the Ordinals protocol, meaning fewer dependencies. 6. Existing infrastructure BRC-20 has thousands of tickers, multiple indexers, an on-chain settlement layer being built, multiple wallet support, multiple marketplace support, and multiple layers working on additional BRC-20 solutions. Runes is just an idea. BRC-20 wins by a landslide here. 7. Similar protocols Runes is most similar to STET and Atomicals as a fully-fledged UTXO model for fungible tokens. BRC-20 is most similar to TAP or ORC-CASH as a flexible UTXO/account model hybrid. 8. Summary of Casey's viewpoints on Runes: - Conflicted about supporting fungible tokens - Maybe value in a safer alternative to BRC-20 - Runes is not fully formed, shared to get feedback - No code written yet - No personal motivation to work on it himself - Open to writing a more formal spec & reference implementation to get feedback - Doesn't want to build it out fully - Thinks Runes could be a *marginally* better way to implement tokens on Bitcoin compared to alternatives - Cautioned to use it at your own risk - Just an idea at this point 9. Bob's final take Runes is interesting (reduces UTXO bloat, pure UTXO model, greater interoperability w/ Lightning and DLCs), but has a massive uphill battle before it becomes widely accepted. Acceptance will require infrastructure building, adoption from existing Bitcoin builders, and solving DeFi problems inherently challenging for a pure UTXO model. What did I miss? Anything you would add?