DEV Community

Duro xapa
Duro xapa

Posted on

NEAR vs Arbitrum: A Senior Dev's Honest Take After 3 Years in the Trenches


Published on - August 17, 2025

Alright, Both platforms have their place, and I'm tired of the tribal BS in this space.

But after spending nearly 3 years building production systems on both NEAR and Arbitrum (yes, sometimes simultaneously because clients have... interesting requirements), I figure it's time to share what I've actually learned in the trenches.

This isn't going to be your typical "blockchain X is the future!" post. Both chains have made me want to rage-quit development at various points, and both have also saved my ass when I needed them most. That's just how it is in this business.

Background: Why I Even Care About This

I run a small dev shop that focuses on DeFi and social applications. We've shipped everything from yield farming protocols to NFT marketplaces to DAO governance tools. Over the years, we've deployed on pretty much every major chain, but NEAR and Arbitrum have become our go-to choices for different use cases.

The thing is, I'm not here to sell you on either platform. I'm here to tell you what it's actually like to build on them when your reputation (and bank account) depends on things working properly in production.

The Setup Experience: First Impressions Matter

NEAR: Surprisingly Smooth

NEAR's developer onboarding is genuinely good. Like, suspiciously good compared to other blockchain platforms I've used.

npm install -g near-cli
near login
near create-account myapp.testnet
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

That's it. No fighting with RPCs, no weird network configs, no "why isn't this working" moments. It just... works.

The first contract I deployed took maybe 10 minutes from zero to deployed and tested:

import { NearBindgen, call, view } from 'near-sdk-js';

@NearBindgen({})
class SimpleCounter {
  constructor() {
    this.count = 0;
  }

  @call({})
  increment() {
    this.count += 1;
  }

  @view({})
  get_count() {
    return this.count;
  }
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Yeah, that's actual JavaScript running on a blockchain. I know it sounds weird if you're coming from Ethereum-land, but it works surprisingly well for most use cases.

Arbitrum: Familiar Territory

Arbitrum setup is basically "Ethereum but cheaper." If you've deployed on Ethereum before, you already know how to use Arbitrum.

// hardhat.config.js
module.exports = {
  networks: {
    arbitrumOne: {
      url: "https://arb1.arbitrum.io/rpc",
      accounts: [process.env.PRIVATE_KEY],
      chainId: 42161
    }
  }
};
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Every tool you're already using just works. Hardhat, Foundry, OpenZeppelin, all of it. This is both a blessing and a curse - you get the entire Ethereum ecosystem, but you also inherit all of Ethereum's complexity.

Development Experience: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

NEAR's Unique Approach

NEAR feels different from other blockchains, and that's both good and bad.

The Good:

  • Human-readable addresses (durovcap.near vs 0x1234...)
  • Predictable gas costs
  • Built-in social features that actually make sense
  • Cross-contract calls that don't make you want to cry

The Annoying:

  • Smaller ecosystem means building a lot from scratch
  • Some features are poorly documented
  • The async nature of cross-contract calls takes getting used to
  • Storage staking can be confusing for users

Here's what a typical NEAR integration test looks like:

import { Worker } from 'near-workspaces';

const worker = Worker.init();
const root = worker.rootAccount;

// Deploy contract
const contract = await root.devDeploy('./build/contract.wasm');

// Create test account
const alice = await root.createSubAccount('alice');

// Test the functionality
const result = await alice.call(contract, 'some_method', {
  param: 'value'
});

// Usually works as expected
assert.equal(result, 'expected_value');
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The testing framework is solid. It spins up actual blockchain instances which is slow but catches real-world issues that unit tests miss.

Arbitrum's Ethereum Compatibility

Arbitrum's biggest strength is also its main weakness - it's basically just Ethereum with different economics.

The Awesome:

  • Every Ethereum tool works out of the box
  • Massive ecosystem and liquidity
  • Battle-tested patterns from years of Ethereum development
  • Sub-second finality most of the time

The Pain Points:

  • Still inherits Ethereum's complexity
  • Gas estimation can be wonky during high traffic
  • Bridge delays when moving to/from L1
  • Sometimes too much choice in tooling/patterns

Most of my Arbitrum code looks identical to Ethereum code:

pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

contract SimpleAggregator {
    mapping(address => uint256) public balances;

    event Deposit(address indexed user, uint256 amount);

    function deposit() external payable {
        require(msg.value > 0, "Must send ETH");
        balances[msg.sender] += msg.value;
        emit Deposit(msg.sender, msg.value);
    }

    function withdraw(uint256 amount) external {
        require(balances[msg.sender] >= amount, "Insufficient balance");
        balances[msg.sender] -= amount;
        payable(msg.sender).transfer(amount);
    }
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

If you know Solidity, you know Arbitrum development. That's powerful.

Performance and Economics

NEAR's Predictable Model

NEAR's transaction costs are boring in the best way possible:

  • Simple function call: ~0.001 NEAR ($0.001-0.003)
  • Complex operation: ~0.01 NEAR ($0.01-0.03)
  • Storage costs: You stake NEAR, get it back when you delete data

No surprises, no "WTF why did that cost $20" moments. As someone who's had to explain unexpected gas spikes to confused users, this predictability is gold.

Finality is usually 1-2 seconds, consistently. I've never had a NEAR transaction take longer than 5 seconds to finalize, even during network stress.

Arbitrum's Ethereum-ish Economics

Arbitrum costs are usually 90-95% cheaper than Ethereum mainnet, but they're still somewhat unpredictable:

  • Simple transfer: $0.001-0.01 (vs $5-50 on mainnet)
  • DeFi interaction: $0.01-0.1 (vs $20-200 on mainnet)
  • Complex contract deployment: $1-10 (vs $100-1000 on mainnet)

The issue is gas price volatility. During high traffic periods, transactions can fail or cost more than expected. Your frontend needs robust error handling.

Ecosystem and Tooling

NEAR's Growing But Small Community

NEAR's ecosystem is... cozy. That's the nice way to put it.

Pros:

  • Everyone knows everyone, very collaborative
  • Core team is incredibly responsive
  • High signal-to-noise ratio in community discussions
  • Innovative features like chain signatures and social layer

Cons:

  • Limited DeFi protocols to integrate with
  • Fewer third-party tools and libraries
  • Sometimes feel like you're building infrastructure instead of applications
  • Market making and liquidity can be thin

Arbitrum's Ethereum Inheritance

Arbitrum basically inherits the entire Ethereum ecosystem, which is massive.

Pros:

  • Every major DeFi protocol has an Arbitrum deployment
  • Huge selection of tools, libraries, and patterns
  • Deep liquidity across most asset pairs
  • Battle-tested infrastructure providers

Cons:

  • Information overload - too many choices sometimes
  • Some tools/protocols are just Ethereum ports without optimization
  • Community can feel impersonal compared to smaller ecosystems
  • Higher noise-to-signal ratio in forums/Discord

Real-World Deployment Experience

NEAR Production Gotchas

Things I wish I'd known before shipping to NEAR mainnet:

  1. Storage Staking: Users need to stake NEAR to store data. This confused the hell out of our first users.

  2. Account Creation: Creating new accounts costs NEAR. Factor this into your UX design.

  3. Cross-Contract Calls: They're async and can fail. Your error handling needs to be bulletproof.

  4. Gas Estimation: It's pretty accurate, but complex contracts can sometimes exceed estimates.

Arbitrum Production Reality

Lessons learned from running stuff on Arbitrum mainnet:

  1. Bridge Delays: L1 to L2 is fast, L2 to L1 takes ~7 days. Plan accordingly.

  2. Gas Price Volatility: Even though it's cheaper than mainnet, prices can spike during high usage.

  3. Sequencer Dependency: If the sequencer goes down (rare but happens), transaction processing stops.

  4. Contract Size Limits: Same as Ethereum, but some patterns that work on L1 might be too gas-expensive on L2.

When I Choose What

After 3 years of production experience, here's my decision framework:

Choose NEAR for:

  • Social applications (those human-readable addresses are killer for UX)
  • Applications where gas cost predictability matters
  • Projects exploring cross-chain functionality
  • Teams comfortable with JavaScript/TypeScript
  • Applications that benefit from built-in social/identity features

Choose Arbitrum for:

  • DeFi applications (the ecosystem is unmatched)
  • Porting existing Ethereum contracts
  • Projects needing maximum liquidity/composability
  • Teams already familiar with Ethereum development
  • Applications requiring complex financial integrations

My Controversial Take

Neither NEAR nor Arbitrum is going to "kill" Ethereum or become the one true blockchain. They're solving different problems for different use cases.

NEAR excels at user-friendly applications where gas predictability and human-readable accounts matter. Arbitrum dominates when you need Ethereum's ecosystem with better economics.

The future isn't about choosing one chain - it's about choosing the right chain for each specific use case.

What's Coming Next

NEAR is doubling down on social applications and cross-chain functionality. The chain signatures feature is genuinely innovative, and I expect more social-first applications to choose NEAR.

Arbitrum is focusing on scaling and decentralization. The upcoming features like BoLD for enhanced security and the planned decentralized sequencer for 2025 should address some of the current centralization concerns.

Both chains are evolving rapidly, so this comparison might look different in 6 months.

The Bottom Line

After building on both platforms extensively, here's what I tell other developers:

If you're exploring new paradigms and building user-centric applications, NEAR is worth serious consideration. The developer experience is genuinely good, and the features like human-readable accounts can significantly improve your application's UX.

If you need to ship fast with maximum ecosystem support and don't mind inheriting Ethereum's complexity, Arbitrum is probably your best bet. The tooling is mature, the liquidity is deep, and you can leverage years of Ethereum development patterns.

Both are solid choices. Your decision should be based on your specific requirements, not which blockchain has the loudest Twitter community.

Final Thoughts

The blockchain space moves fast, and these platforms are constantly evolving. What's true today might not be true in six months.

My advice? Pick one platform, build something real on it, and learn from actual user feedback. You'll learn more from shipping a single application than from reading a hundred comparison articles.

And remember - the best blockchain is the one your users can actually use without thinking about it.

Top comments (0)