Skip to main content
The on-chain layer described in On-chain contracts and Decentralization & verifiability model isn’t written against “EVM” or “a generic L1” and then deployed wherever — it’s built against three Sui-specific primitives that don’t have a drop-in equivalent elsewhere. Pinaivu uses all three together, and that combination is the actual reason Sui was the only realistic choice.

​
The three pieces of the Sui stack Pinaivu depends on

None of these are “a Sui port of a thing that exists elsewhere” — Nautilus attestation verification and Walrus’s blob-to-object binding are specific to Sui’s data model. Reproducing them on another chain would mean Pinaivu building and trusting its own attestation bridge and its own storage network, which defeats the point: the whole reason the coordinator and chat-relayer are verifiable instead of trusted is that Sui already gives anyone a way to check an NSM attestation against a public, on-chain record without asking Pinaivu for anything.

​
Why settlement to node operators specifically needs Sui’s object model

Two properties of how Sui handles assets matter for paying GPU node operators, and neither is free on an account-balance chain:
  • A payee needs zero SUI to receive a payout. pinaivu::vault::settle transfers a Coin<T> object directly to the payee’s address. The coordinator’s operator key pays the gas for that transaction — the node operator’s address doesn’t need to hold any gas token, exist on-chain beforehand, or sign anything to receive funds. On an account-balance model where every address needs a funded balance just to exist or to later move what it received, onboarding a new GPU node operator would require a funding step before their first payout even works.
  • Settlement isn’t pinned to a volatile gas token. Vault<phantom T> is generic over the coin type — the same settle() logic works whether T is 0x2::sui::SUI or a native stablecoin issued on Sui (e.g. USDC). A node operator can be paid in a stable asset for predictable earnings without Pinaivu needing a second settlement path; it’s the same Move module, topped up with a different coin type via top_up<T>.
Put together: gasless-for-the-payee, stable-denominated settlement is a consequence of Move’s object model plus Sui’s native stablecoin support — it isn’t a feature Pinaivu had to build on top of the chain, it’s what falls out of using Coin<T> objects instead of balance entries.
This describes the settlement mechanism’s capability, not a claim that every node operator is being paid in a stablecoin today — which coin type funds a given Vault<T> is an operational choice made at new_vault<T> / top_up<T> time. See On-chain contracts.

​
The shape of the dependency

Each of these is doing a specific job none of the others can substitute for — which is why Pinaivu’s on-chain layer is “built on Sui” rather than “built on a blockchain that happens to be Sui.”

On-chain contracts

pinaivu::enclave, receipts, vault — the Move side of this page

Decentralization & verifiability model

Where Nautilus and Walrus fit into the bigger trust picture