Live Dual-Pipeline Execution Visualizer
Real-Time STM Scheduling & Reversion Engine
Sequential EVM
Single FIFO Queue
128 TPS
Queue Backlog
340 txs
Avg Wait Time
680 ms
Stale Revert Rate
24.2%
Parallel State-Partitioned VM
8 Threads Active
840 TPS
STM Abort & Retry
18.5%
Effective Latency
42 ms
Commit Efficiency
92.4%
Agent Swarm Unit Economics Ledger (Per 1,000 Task Batch)
+42.8% Parallel Alpha
Gross Opportunity Value
$1,200.00
Theoretical gross spread before execution friction
Slippage & Depth Drag
$342.10
Price impact from pool volume & depth
Re-Execution & Stale Gas Waste
$188.40
Burned on failed/aborted tx cycles
Net Swarm Profit / Batch
$669.50
Min Breakeven: 14.2 bps
Economic Friction Waterfall (Sequential vs. Parallel)
Sequential EVM Execution Friction
Parallel VM Execution Friction
Net Retained Profit
Base Gas Burn
Revert / Abort Waste
Slippage & Latency MEV Decay
Sensitivity Matrix: Contention vs. Pool Depth
Net Profit Advantage of Parallel VM over Sequential EVM (Green = Economic Alpha, Red = Liquidity-Constrained Demo).
| Contention \ Depth | $100k | $500k | $2M | $10M |
|---|
Quantitative Finding
High Contention on Deep Liquidity: Parallel Alpha Maximized
Parallel VM achieves a +42.8% net profit increase because high state contention is resolved via optimistic concurrency in sub-50ms cycles rather than blocking the entire sequencer FIFO queue.
Core takeaway: Parallel execution converts latency into pure economic surplus only when on-chain market depth is wide enough to absorb high-frequency settlement without 100+ bps slippage decay.