A brief discussion on EVM compatibility: Why are non-EVM public chains embracing EVM? What problems are they facing?

Author: Denis

Original title: EVM compatibility and the future of blockchains

Compiled by: Gu Yu, Chain Catcher

Ethereum survived the first wave of “ETH killers,” and then low-cost chains running the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) gained popularity (Polygon, BSC, Fantom). And now, after launching with limited success, these same ETH killers are integrating the EVM and racing into the multi-chain world.

Specifically, Polkadot has added Moonbeam , Near is launching Aurora , and soon (announced but not yet released), Evmos will be available on Cosmos and Neon will be available on Solana.

When these chains were first launched (without EVM compatibility), they claimed to have superior designs, with features such as popular programming language support and speed. As these chains have started supporting the EVM, they now seem less bullish on the merits of their own technology and are instead realizing the need to support Ethereum. By doing so, these chains are backtracking on their original vision to build an alternative technology stack to Ethereum.

Here we look at different architectures and how emerging standards around the EVM across blockchains will create more composability. Additionally, we see the resulting chain-specific ecosystems becoming a hotbed for product experimentation.

Construction Phase

Think of the EVM as a computer that computes the output of a smart contract's operations given certain inputs. A copy of the EVM runs on each node - it's important to remember that it's not located in one place. The EVM is also called a "runtime" or "environment."

In addition to the runtime, there are some important tools built around the EVM, which are highlighted in red below.

The EVM receives programs written in the Solidity language, and to make this language more powerful, many "libraries" were created. Developer tools such as Truffle or Hardhat make it easier to write and test smart contracts. In addition, since we are talking about a web environment, external wallets connect to the EVM through API libraries such as Web3.js.

Among these tools that are more familiar to ordinary users, there is the powerful blockchain browser Etherscan. It knows how to view thousands of transactions and present them in a human-readable way. In addition, there is the MetaMask wallet, which connects users to the EVM by broadcasting their commands over the network.

Hundreds of highly skilled developers have spent thousands of hours building these tools and infrastructure. In some cases, the difference in time required to create a dApp using mature tools and immature tools can be 100:1. This is why the tools and infrastructure built by proprietary stack blockchains are progressing very slowly by industry standards.

In addition to its superior technology, the EVM ecosystem also has a large market of blockchain developers and open source projects that can be quickly replicated without time-consuming code rewrites.

Model comparison

Proprietary stack chains use different approaches in their EVM integration.

Solana and Near use a single chain, so in these cases the EVM will run alongside the blockchain’s main “smart contract computer.” This can also be seen in Near’s Aurora EVM design.

To quote an Aurora developer:

“We rewrote all the EVM logic and compiled it to WASM bytecode, so it executes in the WASM fragment of the Near runtime. Now it’s a near-native contract, there’s nothing special about EVM contracts. Just adding the EVM to the Near kernel would have introduced a lot of complexity.”

So it is important to note that Aurora is not a chain, but an EVM environment on Near (although it has its own block explorer). This is why the Near-Aurora bridge is not a bridge between chains, but a bridge between runtimes. This technical design affects the business strategy: Aurora has no validators and its tokens cannot protect the network.   Therefore, a different model must be used when evaluating Aurora or Neon, which use a similar design, versus Evmos or Moonbeam, which have their own native fee tokens.

Interestingly, EVM + Near's PoS consensus and data availability sharding make the overall architecture similar to the vision of ETH 2.0. Neon's advantage is Solana's speed: Neon EVM claims to process 4,500 transactions per second and support confirmation times of less than one second. Overall, this experimentation with combining EVM with different types of architectures drives innovation in the industry. Ethereum is now too big to change flexibly, so the emergence of the EVM market creates an opportunity to move quickly and break things without the cost and risk of the Ethereum mainnet.

Polkadot and Cosmos, which support Moonbeam and Evmos respectively, are blockchains with multi-chain designs. Instead of adding the EVM side by side with the main computer, they created a child chain specifically for it. This means that if scalability is needed, more EVM instances can be launched as new child chains on Cosmos/Polkadot (and new shards on Near), paving the way for scalability. Solana’s model, on the other hand, seems to lack this scalability.

There are other smaller differences in the design between the EVM integrations. Aurora uses ETH to pay transaction fees, which (potentially indirectly) helps them gain support from the Ethereum ecosystem. Evmos will reward developers based on the activity of their dApps, sharing part of the fees between developers and network operators through a built-in shared fee revenue model.

Blockchain EVM Future

From the perspective of the underlying chain, there are various advantages and disadvantages to using EVM. The main issues they need to consider are as follows.

advantage:

• These EVMs also connect the tokens of the underlying blockchain to the broader EVM ecosystem. For example, Polkadot's token DOT is connected to Moonriver through the official cross-chain bridge, and then further propagated through widely available EVM cross-chain bridges such as Synapse, Allbridge, etc. Check out the image below, which highlights mining with DOT on EVM-based Moonriver. In general, it is easier to build an EVM-EVM bridge than an EVM different consensus bridge.

• The EVM environment can be the entry point for assets from the EVM chain to these underlying chains. Users will choose the bridge that is most convenient and secure for them. The following figure shows an example of the Cosmos Hub and Evmos interacting with the EVM chain.

• The EVM environment can be a demo version of the underlying blockchain for new users. By using familiar tools, they will learn about new ecosystems, technologies, native projects, and assets. Imagine Toyota starting to generate interest in its electric vehicles after buyers first get used to the Prius.

shortcoming:

• This model further strengthens Ethereum, where more demand for Ethereum tools means more resources are spent improving them at the expense of the underlying chain’s proprietary stack.

• Early Ethereum killers initially differentiated themselves through popular programming language support and unique designs such as application specificity of the chain. This new direction has taken them further away from their initial philosophy. Will the lack of differentiation commoditize blockchain for users and developers?

• The inclusion of the EVM also brings with it the threat of product cannibalization. If the same application is available via both the EVM and the base blockchain implementation, the latter must offer tangible advantages to users to justify giving up the familiar experience.

In summary , the biggest advantage of base-layer chains in adding EVM compatibility may be that they provide a new entry point for users and assets. But there is a downside. If all chains provide the same user experience, the brand premium they can capture will become smaller.

EVM Standards

The emergence of the EVM market creates opportunities for protocol architects to drive innovations such as sharding (something Ethereum has been slow to deliver) or application-specific chains.

A widely accepted standard will likely lead to more composability, which will strengthen network effects in DeFi. The rapid growth of independent blockchains in 2021 was fast enough, but greater connectivity thanks to a common EVM-backed standard could spark even faster growth in the coming years.

Whether it is good for the industry or not, the fact that almost all large developers are integrating EVM shows that this stack is a must-have today, and without EVM compatibility, it is difficult to compete.