The traditional economy is sluggish, and many of my friends in the internet industry have been asking me about the situation of Web3 recently, trying to find a suitable entry point. My suggestion is to build your own public chain, which offers greater flexibility and facilitates business development without being constrained by the bottlenecks of other public chains.
At the same time, this has sparked a thought: If a company wants to develop its own public chain, choosing existing development frameworks like Cosmos SDK, StarStack, or Substrate is undoubtedly the simplest and most convenient option. Alternatively, using OP Stack or Polygon CDK to create a Layer 2 is also quite easy. However, my question is whether to choose the EVM virtual machine or Move.
EVM is the first virtual machine created for the blockchain industry and is currently the one with the widest usage and compatibility. As a second-generation development language, Move is more powerful in terms of security and functionality, and it is also developed by a large company like Meta. It's genuinely hard to choose which is better, so I consulted the company's developers and communicated with industry experts. After comparing aspects such as security, compatibility, developer-friendliness, and stability, I hope to provide some reference for friends engaged in public chain development or about to engage in it.
1. Define the type of public chain
Before deciding on public chain development, you must first determine the type of your public chain. The industry generally classifies public chain types based on their decentralization levels, such as public chains, consortium chains, and private chains. However, this classification only pertains to the positioning of public chains. You should first ask yourself several questions:
Do you want to create a development platform that builds many ecosystem applications? Like Ethereum, Solana.
Or do you want to create an independent blockchain that meets your business development needs? Like Uniswap Chain, dYdX Chain.
Or do you want to create a blockchain aggregation platform, allowing many other public chains to be built based on your platform, ultimately forming a multi-chain universe? Like Polygon, Optimism.
Developing a public chain is an extremely complex, time-consuming, and labor-intensive task. Not only does it involve a massive amount of development work, but the post-launch operation and maintenance costs are also high. Therefore, clarifying your positioning for the public chain is the first step in choosing public chain development, as it determines the difficulty of subsequent work.
If you want to create a blockchain similar to Ethereum with a vast ecosystem, the path will be long and challenging. However, if you aim to create an application-level chain like dYdX Chain, the development difficulty might be easier than you think. Currently, highly mature frameworks like Starcoin's StarStack and Cosmos SDK can quickly assist you in developing an independent blockchain.
2. Differences between EVM and Move VM
EVM is the Ethereum virtual machine, compatible with the entire Ethereum ecosystem, while Move VM is not compatible with Ethereum. For example, the two are like mobile phones running on different operating systems; we can liken EVM to the Android system and Move to the iOS system. Applications developed based on the Android system cannot run on the iOS system, and vice versa. Applications from the iOS system also cannot run on Android or be listed in the Android app market.
Thus, it is crucial to consider the choice of virtual machine. Public chains developed based on EVM can be compatible with the Ethereum ecosystem, including its Layer 2 networks, but cannot be compatible with the Move ecosystem. Currently, well-known EVM chains include Ethereum, Bsc, Arbitrum, Polygon, and Avalanche, while prominent public chains in the Move ecosystem include Starcoin, Aptos, Sui, and Movement.
3. Should you choose EVM or Move VM for the virtual machine?
After determining the type of public chain, the next step is the alignment phase: choosing between the EVM ecosystem or the Move ecosystem. EVM is currently the most widely used virtual machine, benefiting from the community effects brought by its long-term development. Move, on the other hand, is a brand new development language with its own ecosystem, featuring star projects such as Sui, Aptos, and Starcoin. Furthermore, many developers consider Move to be a safer and more advanced development language.
3.1 EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine)
EVM is the virtual machine of Ethereum, and being compatible with EVM essentially means being compatible with the Ethereum ecosystem. Since the Ethereum ecosystem occupies a significant portion of the industry ecosystem, compatibility with EVM is essential for better acquiring users and resources. Many public chain developments choose to build on EVM directly. The advantages of EVM are as follows:
Mature ecosystem: EVM is currently the most widely used blockchain virtual machine standard, compatible with the Ethereum ecosystem, possessing a large developer community and rich tools (such as Truffle, Hardhat). Using EVM means easy access to existing DeFi, NFT, and other DApp ecosystems.
Wide compatibility: Many mainstream public chains (such as BNB Chain, Polygon, Avalanche) have adopted EVM, making it relatively easy for developers to migrate projects or collaborate on technologies.
Developer-friendly: Due to the popularity of EVM, a wealth of development documentation, tutorials, and templates already exists, resulting in lower learning costs for developers and a well-equipped toolchain.
Network effect: EVM-based chains are more likely to attract existing blockchain users and projects, quickly matching user habits and rapidly gaining ecosystem traffic.
Of course, there are also some shortcomings:
Technical limitations: EVM has certain architectural bottlenecks, such as the complexity of the Gas mechanism and low flexibility, which restricts innovation in certain scenarios. This is one of the main reasons why applications like dYdX choose to build independent blockchains.
Security issues: The development of Solidity contracts inevitably faces vulnerabilities, especially for beginners who are more prone to errors.
Congestion and high fees: In mainstream EVM chains, with the increase in the number of users, congestion is likely to occur, causing Gas fees to rise. During previous Ethereum congestion, a single transaction's gas often exceeded hundreds of dollars, and even now, executing transactions on Ethereum incurs a fee of over 20 dollars, which is unacceptable for applications requiring high-frequency interactions.
In addition, the EVM ecosystem also has several limitations that prevent user growth. These limitations can be seen from the development of the ecosystem in the past two years, where Solana rapidly captured the market with its excellent network performance and low-cost advantages. As of now, the number of active addresses has completely surpassed that of the Ethereum ecosystem. According to data from defilama, Ethereum's active addresses stand at only 419,600 while Solana's are at 5.68 million, exceeding ten times.
3.2 Move VM (Move Virtual Machine)
Move VM is a virtual machine developed based on the Move language, primarily serving the Move ecosystem. However, the Move ecosystem is currently fragmented, and projects within the ecosystem cannot achieve interoperability. Notably, the recent Move v7 upgrade launched by the Move ecosystem project Starcoin will enable seamless migration of mainstream applications in the Move ecosystem, which may help connect the Move ecosystem and share traffic and resources.
Greater security: The Move language incorporates the concept of 'resource safety' from the design stage, avoiding many vulnerabilities found in traditional smart contracts. For example, it manages asset uniqueness and ownership more effectively, significantly reducing the probability of errors.
Resource-oriented programming: Move VM views assets as tangible, non-replicable resources, ensuring a higher degree of security and integrity in asset management.
Innovative technical design: The Move ecosystem is currently mainly concentrated in emerging chains (such as Aptos, Sui, Starcoin), which often exhibit higher innovation in performance, user experience, and development model. Notably, Starcoin combines parallelization technology with DAG technology, achieving a TPS of 130,000 in its test environment, showcasing impressive network performance.
Development potential: The Move ecosystem is currently in its early stages, and for teams looking to lead technological directions or develop new standards, Move chains may provide more development and differentiation space.
Drawbacks of Move VM:
Ecosystem is not mature enough: Compared to EVM, the scale of the Move ecosystem is smaller, and the developer community and toolchain are still being improved. Projects looking to quickly acquire ecosystem users need to rely on their own development.
Uncertainty exists: The Move ecosystem is still in its early stages, and it is uncertain whether it can achieve the influence of the EVM ecosystem in the future. As a public chain, it may face challenges in attracting developers and users.
Scarcity of developers: Currently, there are relatively few developers proficient in the Move language, and cultivating talent requires time and resources.
However, it is worth mentioning that the Move ecosystem project Starcoin has launched StarStack, a blockchain development framework and toolbox. For developers unfamiliar with the Move language or needing customized development for Move blockchain, StarStack allows for rapid construction of Move blockchain. In simple terms, it is similar to development tools for public chains like Optimism's Stack and Cosmos SDK, easy to get started with and quick to develop.
4. How to choose for public chain development?
Through the above comparison, it can be seen that although EVM has the largest ecosystem, many users have recently been captured by Solana, and the competition is fierce. Various Layer2 and compatible chains have intensified market competition, making the development of public chains based on EVM a search for uncertainty in certainty. In contrast, the Move ecosystem is still in its early stages, with few well-known projects, significant development potential, and less pressure from market competition, making it a search for certainty in uncertainty.
Ultimately, public chain development should align with one's own needs. Here are some preset conditions:
Short-term goal: If your goal is to quickly launch and attract users, EVM may be a better choice, especially if you want to quickly integrate DeFi or NFT applications.
Long-term innovation: If you plan to build a highly innovative public chain focused on security and high performance, investing in Move is a worthy direction.
Ecosystem strategy: If you choose Move technology, you can also be compatible with EVM (e.g., through bridging or dual virtual machine solutions), realizing the complementary advantages of both. For instance, the recently launched Movement aims to bring Move into the EVM ecosystem to enhance Ethereum's security and address its shortcomings.