AO vs ICP: Which Will Become the True World Computer?

Summary ( within 50 words)

One is a modular, infinitely scalable decentralized computing network, the other is a structured, tightly governed distributed system. Which one is the most ideal computing infrastructure for the AI era?

Author : Blockpunk@Trustless Labs

Translator : Emily

Reviewer : 0xmiddle

Source :Content Guild Research

In the world of blockchain, a practical decentralized computer has long been an elusive promised land. Traditional smart contract platforms like Ethereum are hampered by high computational costs and scalability limitations, while next-generation computing architectures are attempting to break these barriers. AO and ICP are two of the most representative paradigms today—one focuses on modular decoupling and infinite scalability, while the other emphasizes structured management and rigid security.

The author of this article, @blockpunk2077, is a researcher at Trustless Labs and an OG in the ICP ecosystem and created the ICP League incubator and has long been immersed in technical development and the developer community. The author has also shown significant interest and deep understanding of AO. If you are intrigued by the future of blockchain, eager to explore what a truly verifiable and decentralized computing platform might look like in the AI era, or seeking new narratives and investment opportunities in public blockchains, this article is well worth your time. It not only provides a detailed analysis of the core mechanisms, consensus models, and scalability of AO and ICP, but also explores in-depth comparisons of their security, decentralization, and future potential.

In the ever-changing world of crypto, who will be the true “world computer”? The result of this competition could decide the future of Web3. Read on to get a head start on the latest landscape of decentralized computing!

The integration of AI has become a major trend in today’s crypto world, with countless AI agents beginning to issue, hold, and trade cryptocurrencies. The explosion of new applications, coupled with a demand for new infrastructure, has made verifiable and decentralized AI computing infrastructure all the more important. However, smart contract platforms like Ethereum, represented by ETH, and decentralized computing power platforms like Akash and IO, are unable to meet both the verifiability and decentralization needs simultaneously.

In 2024, the team behind the leading decentralized permanent storage protocol Arweave announced the AO protocol—a decentralized general-purpose computing network designed for fast, low-cost scaling. This architecture can support computation-intensive workloads, such as AI inference. The computing resources on AO are organically integrated through AO’s messaging rules, while Arweave’s holographic consensus ensures immutable recording of the request call sequence and content. As a result, anyone can recompute the system state to verify correctness, achieving computational verifiability under optimistic security assumptions.

AO’s computing network does not require consensus on the state of processes (akin to “smart contracts”), which guarantees network flexibility and extreme efficiency. The processes run in an Actor model and interact via messages, without needing to maintain a shared state database. This approach sounds somewhat similar to DFINITY’s Internet Computer (ICP) design, which also achieves similar goals by structuring computing resources into subnets. This is just one of the reasons developers often draw comparisons between the two.

Consensus Computation vs General-Purpose Computation

Both ICP and AO’s ideas focus on decoupling consensus and computation to achieve flexible scalability, thus offering lower-cost processing and allowing more complex computations. In contrast, traditional smart contract networks—such as Ethereum—share a common state memory among all the network’s computing nodes. Any computation that alters the state requires all nodes to perform the same computation simultaneously to reach a consensus. With this fully redundant design, consensus of the global state is ensured, but the computation cost becomes very high, and scaling the network’s capacity becomes very difficult. As a result, it can only handle high-value business. Even high-performance public chains like Solana can hardly support the computational demands of AI.

Both AO and ICP, as general-purpose computing networks, do not have a universally shared state. Therefore, there is no need for consensus on the computation process itself. Instead, consensus is only required on the execution order of transactions/requests, with the computation result verified. Based on the optimistic assumption of virtual machine security for the nodes, as long as the input request content and order are consistent, the final state will also be consistent. The state-changing computation of smart contracts (called “containers” in ICP and “processes” in AO) can be executed in parallel on multiple nodes without requiring all nodes to compute the same task at the same time. This significantly reduces computation costs and increases scalability, making it possible to support more complex use cases including decentralized AI model operations. Both AO and ICP claim “infinite scalability,” and we will compare the differences later.

Since the network no longer maintains a large public state database, each smart contract can be treated independently. Smart contracts interact with each other via messages, and this process is asynchronous. As a result, decentralized general-purpose computing networks often adopt the Actor programming model. This makes the composability between contract business in networks like Ethereum more challenging, posing difficulties for DeFi. However, specific business programming standards can still solve this issue. For example, the FusionFi Protocol in the AO network standardizes DeFi business logic through a unified “ticket-settlement” model, ensuring interoperability. At this early stage in AO’s ecosystem, such protocols appear quite forward-thinking.

AO’s Implementation Method

AO is built on the Arweave permanent storage network, but runs on a new node network. The nodes are divided into three groups: Messaging Unit (MU), Computing Unit (CU), and Sequencing Unit (SU).

In AO, smart contracts are called “processes,” which are executable code groups permanently stored on Arweave.

When users need to interact with a process, they sign and send requests. AO defines the message format, and the messages are accepted by AO’s Messaging Unit (MU), which validates the signature and forwards it to the Sequencing Unit (SU). SU continuously receives requests, assigns each message a unique identifier, and uploads the results to the Arweave network, where consensus is reached on the transaction sequence. After consensus on the transaction sequence, tasks are assigned to the Computing Unit (CU). CU performs the actual computations, alters the virtual state of the process, and returns the results to MU, which eventually forwards them to the user or re-enters SU as a request for the next process.

SU can be viewed as the connection point between AO and Arweave’s consensus layer, while CU acts as the decentralized computing network. Thus, the consensus and computing resources in AO are completely decoupled. As more and higher-performance nodes join the CU group, the entire AO network gains stronger computational power, supporting more processes and more complex computations, with flexible on-demand scaling.

How to Ensure Verifiability of Results in AO? AO chooses an economic model, requiring CU and SU nodes to stake a certain amount of AO assets. CU nodes compete based on computing performance, pricing, and other factors to earn rewards for providing computing power.

Since all requests are recorded on Arweave’s consensus, anyone can trace these requests back to reconstruct the state changes of the process. If malicious attacks or computational errors are discovered, users can initiate a challenge within the AO network. By introducing more CU nodes to recalculate, the correct result is obtained, and the AO assets staked by the error-producing node are forfeited. Arweave itself does not validate the state of the processes running on AO; it only faithfully records transactions. The challenge process takes place entirely within the AO network, as Arweave does not possess this kind of computation capability. Processes on AO can be seen as sovereign chains with their own consensus, while Arweave serves as the DA (Data Availability) layer.

AO gives developers complete flexibility, allowing them to choose CU market nodes, customize virtual machines for running programs, and even select consensus mechanisms for processes within the system.

ICP’s Implementation Method

Unlike AO, which decouples resources into different node groups, ICP employs a more consistent data-center node structure, offering a multi-subnet organization system. From bottom to top, it consists of data centers, nodes, subnets, and software containers.

At the core of ICP is a decentralized data center running the ICP client program, which virtualizes nodes with standard computational resources. These nodes are randomly combined by ICP’s core governance system, the Network Nervous System (NNS), to form subnets. Within each subnet, nodes process computational tasks, reach consensus, and generate and propagate blocks. Subnet nodes reach consensus via an optimized Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) within each subnet.

ICP’s network consists of multiple subnets. Each set of nodes operates a single subnet and maintains internal consensus. Subnets generate blocks in parallel at the same rate and can interact via cross-subnet requests.

Within each subnet, node resources are abstracted into “containers,” and business logic runs within these containers. Subnets do not share a global state, and containers maintain their own internal state with a capacity limit (due to the WebAssembly virtual machine). The state of containers is not recorded in subnet blocks.

Computational tasks within the same subnet are redundantly executed by all nodes in that subnet, while tasks across different subnets are executed in parallel. When more network capacity is needed, ICP’s NNS governance system dynamically adds new subnets or merges existing ones to meet the increased demand.

AO vs ICP

Both AO and ICP deploy the Actor message-passing model, a common framework for concurrent distributed computing networks, and both default to WebAssembly as their execution virtual machine.

However, unlike traditional blockchains, neither AO nor ICP operates using the concepts of data or chains. In the Actor model, the results of the virtual machine are inherently deterministic. This means the system only needs to ensure consistency of transaction requests to guarantee the consistency of process state values. Multiple actors can run in parallel, providing significant scalability, making computational costs low enough to support AI and other general-purpose computations.

Nevertheless, the design philosophies of AO and ICP are fundamentally different.

1. Structured vs Modular

ICP's design approach resembles a traditional network model, abstracting resources from underlying data centers into fixed services, including resources for hot storage, computation, and transmission. In contrast, AO adopts a modular design that is more familiar to cryptography developers, fully separating resources like transmission, consensus verification, computation, and storage, and thus distinguishing multiple node groups.

As a result, ICP has very high hardware requirements for nodes in the network because they must meet the minimum consensus requirements of the system.

Developers must accept a unified standard for program hosting services, where resources for these services are constrained within containers. For example, the maximum available memory for a container is 4GB, which limits certain applications, such as running large-scale AI models.

ICP also attempts to meet diverse needs by creating different subnets, but this requires the overall planning and development by the DFINITY Foundation.

For AO, however, CU is more like a free computing power market, where developers can choose node specifications and quantities based on their needs and price preferences. This allows developers to run almost any process on AO. Moreover, it is more user-friendly for node participants, as CU and MU can be scaled individually, offering higher decentralization.

AO’s high degree of modularity supports customization of virtual machines, transaction ordering models, messaging models, and payment methods. Therefore, if developers need a private computing environment, they can choose a CU in a TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) without waiting for official AO development. Modularization brings greater flexibility and reduces entry costs for developers.

1. Security

ICP relies on subnets to operate. When processes are hosted on a subnet, the computation process is executed on all subnet nodes, and state verification is completed by an improved BFT (Byzantine Fault Tolerant) consensus among all subnet nodes. While this introduces redundancy, the security of the process is fully aligned with that of the subnet.

Within a subnet, when two processes invoke each other, such as when process B’s input is process A’s output, there is no need to consider additional security concerns. Only when crossing two subnets must the security differences between them be considered. If a subnet’s node count ranges between 13 and 34, the final determinism formation time is 2 seconds.

In AO, the computation process is entrusted to CUs selected by the developer in the market. In terms of security, AO adopts a token-economics-based solution, requiring CU nodes to stake $AO, assuming that the computed results are trustworthy. AO records all requests via consensus on Arweave, so anyone can access the public records and verify the correctness of the current state by recomputing it step by step. If issues arise, additional CUs can be selected from the market to compute and achieve a more accurate consensus, and the stake of faulty CUs can be forfeited.

This completely separates consensus and computation, giving AO far superior scalability and flexibility compared to ICP. Without requiring verification, developers can even perform computations on their local devices and simply upload the commands to Arweave via SU.

However, this introduces challenges for inter-process invocation, as different processes may operate under different security guarantees. For example, process B might have 9 CUs performing redundant calculations, while process A runs on only one CU. If process B is to accept a request from process A, it must consider whether process A might transmit erroneous results. Therefore, inter-process interaction is impacted by security concerns, which also leads to a longer determinism formation time. It may take up to 30 minutes for confirmation on Arweave. A potential solution is to set a minimum CU number and standard, and require different final confirmation times for transactions with varying values.

However, AO also has an advantage that ICP lacks: perpetual storage that includes all transaction histories. Anyone can replay the state at any moment. Although AO does not follow the traditional block and chain model, this more closely aligns with the cryptographic principle of "verifiability by everyone." In contrast, ICP’s subnet nodes are only responsible for computation and consensus on results, not storing each transaction request. Therefore, historical information cannot be verified. In other words, ICP lacks a unified DA (Data Availability), meaning that if a container commits wrongdoing and is deleted, there will be no trace of the offense. Although ICP developers have independently created a series of ledger containers to record invocation histories, this remains difficult for cryptography developers to accept.

1. Decentralisation

ICP has long been criticized for its decentralization level. Tasks such as node registration, subnet creation, and merging are all decided by a governance system called the "NNS" (Network Nervous System). ICP holders must participate in NNS governance by staking, and to achieve multi-replication general computing capabilities, node hardware requirements are very high. This results in a very high participation threshold. Therefore, the implementation of new features in ICP depends on new subnets exiting, which must be governed by NNS and, further, driven by the DFINITY Foundation, which holds substantial voting power.

In contrast, AO’s approach completely decouples control, returning more power to developers. An independent process can be considered an independent subnet, a sovereign Layer 2. Developers only need to pay fees to participate. The modular design also facilitates the introduction of new features. For node providers, the cost of participation is lower compared to ICP.

Conclusion

The ideal of a world computer is grand, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution. ICP offers better security and faster finality, but the system is more complex, has more limitations, and in some design aspects, it struggles to gain the approval of cryptography developers. AO’s highly decoupled design makes scaling much easier and offers greater flexibility, which will be appreciated by developers, but it also introduces complexity in terms of security.

Let’s approach this from a developmental perspective: in the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency, it’s unlikely for any single paradigm to maintain absolute dominance over a long period, and even ETH isn’t immune to this (with Solana quickly catching up). Only through greater decoupling and modularity—making it easier to replace components—can a system rapidly evolve in response to challenges, adapt to changes, and survive. As a newcomer, AO is poised to become a powerful contender in decentralized general-purpose computing, particularly in the AI field.

🏆 Spot typos, grammatical errors, or inaccuracies in this article? Report and Earn !

Disclaimer: This article does not represent the views of PermaDAO. PermaDAO does not provide investment advice or endorse any projects. Readers should comply with their country's laws when engaging in Web3 activities.

🔗 More about PermaDAO ：Website | Twitter | Telegram | Discord | Medium | Youtube