Powered by garbled-circuit MPC.
Sensitive data is split across independent nodes; no single node ever sees meaningful information, and no trusted third party is required as computations run directly on encrypted data via secret sharing.
Four layers, zero plaintext.
- 01
GC-MPC engine
Computation runs directly on encrypted data via garbled circuits and secret sharing. Sensitive data is split across independent nodes; no single node ever sees meaningful information, and no trusted third party is required.
- 02
Quantum-resistant AES-256
Inputs are encrypted client-side with AES-256: standards-based, battle-tested, and resistant to quantum attacks.
- 03
The gcVM
A virtual machine for confidential execution: arbitrary programs run over ciphertext, so any financial logic (transfers, auctions, rebalancing) can be made confidential.
Read the gcVM paper → - 04
Selective disclosure
Data is never decrypted during computation; the only disclosure path is the on-chain access list (ACL), through which authorized entities can request scoped decryption. Confidentiality for the market, transparency for oversight.
Built for production. Proven at scale.
The Soda Labs stack is independently audited by Hacken, protected by three granted US patents, and runs in production as the privacy layer of COTI mainnet with 125,000,000+ confidential transactions processed.
Peaking at ~750, over 15,000 private ERC-20 transfers on Arbitrum, July 2026. Methodology and raw results on request.
No other confidential-transaction system publishes an end-to-end figure measured on a live chain.
Analytical ceiling on a commodity CPU core, before parallelization. Parallelized across cores, that projects past 30,000 cTPS.
For scale: the fastest published FHE figure is 1,040 tx/s on a node of eight NVIDIA H100 GPUs, which its authors describe as compute throughput rather than settlement on a live chain.
Measured end-to-end on Arbitrum over 15,000 confidential transfers (July 2026): 500 cTPS sustained, 750 cTPS peak, at $0.14 per million transfers.
A practical comparison of garbled-circuit MPC used by Soda Bubble network versus FHE used in Zama network.
| Capability | Soda Bubble (GC-MPC) | FHE (Zama and others) |
|---|---|---|
| Encryption | ||
| Encrypted amounts (arguments) | Yes | Yes |
| Encrypted addresses (anonymity support) | Yes | No |
| Encryption type | Battle-tested AES | TFHE |
| Encryption adoption | AES: the worldwide standard (internet, banking, government) | Early: no large-scale production deployments yet |
| Performance | ||
| Latency | Near zero – HTTPS equivalent | High latency – requires expensive client-side ZK proofs |
| Computation speed | Fast: near-native circuit evaluation | Slow: encrypted operations take orders of magnitude longer |
| Throughput | 500 cTPS sustained, 750 peak (measured end-to-end) | 20 tx/s in production (vendor-published, CPU) |
| Cost per transfer | Essentially $0 ($0.14 per million transfers, measured) | A ~$10,000/month GPU operator before the first transfer |
| Performant on CPU | Yes | No, relies on GPU or ASIC |
| Compliance & compatibility | ||
| Full EVM/SVM compatibility | Yes | No (doesn't support 256-bit and hash operations) |
Detailed capability comparison: see the Privacy Hub taxonomy for a neutral summary.
How Bubble compares.
GC-MPC vs FHE, ZK, and TEE: an honest, side-by-side look at latency, trust assumptions, and best-fit workloads.
Put GC-MPC to work.
Walk through the architecture with our engineers and see it running on your use case.