In the context of a recession in the traditional economy, many of my internet friends have recently consulted me about Web3, trying to find a suitable entry point. My advice is to create a public chain, as it offers more flexibility and facilitates business operations without being restricted by the bottlenecks of other public chains.
At the same time, this raises a thought for me: if a company wants to develop its own public chain, choosing existing development frameworks like Cosmos SDK, StarStack, or Substrate for development is undoubtedly the simplest and most convenient option. Alternatively, using technologies like OP Stack or Polygon CDK to create an L2 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 currently has the widest range of use and ecosystem compatibility. Move, as a second-generation programming language, is more powerful in terms of security and functionality. Since it is also developed by a large company like Meta, choosing between the two is not straightforward. Therefore, I consulted with the company's developers and communicated with industry experts, conducting a comprehensive comparison based on security, compatibility, developer-friendliness, stability, and other aspects to provide references for friends currently engaged in or about to engage in public chain development.
1. Define the type of public chain
Before deciding on public chain development, you must first determine the type of public chain you want. The classification of public chains in the industry mainly revolves around the degree of decentralization, such as public chains, consortium chains, and private chains. However, this classification only pertains to the positioning of the public chain. You should first ask yourself several questions:
Are you looking to create a development platform that builds many ecological applications? For example, Ethereum or Solana.
Or do you want to create an independent blockchain that meets your own business development needs? For example, Uniswap Chain or dYdX Chain.
Or do you want to create a blockchain aggregation platform where many other public chains can be built based on your platform, ultimately forming a multi-chain universe? For example, Polygon or Optimism.
Public chain development is an extremely complex, time-consuming, and labor-intensive task. Not only is the development workload enormous, but the subsequent operation and maintenance costs are also high. Therefore, clarifying one's positioning for the public chain is the first step in choosing to develop a public chain, determining the difficulty of subsequent work.
If you want to create a public chain with a large ecosystem similar to Ethereum, the path will be long and challenging. However, if you want to create an application-level chain like dYdX Chain, the development difficulty may be easier than you think. Currently, very mature frameworks like Starcoin's StarStack, Cosmos SDK, and other Layer 1 frameworks can quickly help you achieve independent blockchain development.
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 smartphones with different operating systems; we can compare 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 based on the iOS system also cannot run on Android or be listed in the Android application market.
Thus, it is crucial to choose a virtual machine. Public chains developed based on EVM can be compatible with the Ethereum ecosystem, including its second-layer networks, but cannot be compatible with the Move ecosystem. Currently, well-known EVM chains include Ethereum, Bsc, Arbitrum, Polygon, Avalanche, etc., while renowned public chains in the Move ecosystem include Starcoin, Aptos, Sui, Movement, etc.
3. Virtual machine selection: EVM or Move VM?
Once the type of public chain is determined, the next step is to choose sides, whether to align with the EVM ecosystem or the Move ecosystem. EVM is currently the most widely adopted virtual machine, benefiting from the group effects of its long-term development. Move is a brand new programming language with its own ecosystem, where projects like Sui, Aptos, and Starcoin are its star projects. Moreover, Move is considered by most developers to be a safer and more advanced programming 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, which occupies a significant portion of the industry ecosystem. Therefore, compatibility with EVM is aimed at better acquiring users and resources, leading many public chain developers to choose to develop based on EVM. 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, boasting 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 easier for developers to migrate projects or collaborate on technologies.
Developer-friendly: Due to the popularity of EVM, there are plenty of development documents, tutorials, and templates available, resulting in low learning costs for developers and a well-developed toolchain.
Network effects: EVM-based chains are more likely to attract existing blockchain users and projects, quickly matching user habits and 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 limits innovation in certain scenarios. This is one of the main reasons why applications like dYdX choose to build independent blockchains.
Security issues: Developing Solidity contracts is prone to vulnerabilities, especially for beginners who are more likely to make mistakes.
Congestion and high fees: In mainstream EVM chains, congestion can easily occur as the number of users increases, leading to rising Gas fees. During previous Ethereum congestion, the Gas fee for a single transaction often exceeded hundreds of dollars, and even now, conducting a transaction on Ethereum incurs over twenty dollars in fees, which is unacceptable for applications requiring high-frequency interactions.
In addition, the EVM ecosystem has many limitations, preventing the expansion of the user base. These limitations have become evident in the ecological development over the past two years, as Solana has rapidly seized the market with its excellent network performance and low-cost advantages. Currently, the number of active addresses on Solana has completely surpassed that of the Ethereum ecosystem. According to data from defilama, there are only 419,600 active addresses on Ethereum, while Solana has 5.68 million, exceeding tenfold.
3.2 Move VM (Move Virtual Machine)
Move VM is a virtual machine developed based on the Move language, primarily functioning within the Move ecosystem. However, currently, projects within the Move ecosystem operate independently, and there is no interoperability among them. Notably, the Move ecosystem project Starcoin has recently launched the Move v7 upgrade, which will enable seamless migration of mainstream applications in the Move ecosystem. This may help facilitate the integration of the Move ecosystem and achieve shared traffic and resources.
Stronger security: The Move language introduces the concept of 'resource safety' from its design, avoiding many vulnerabilities found in traditional smart contracts. For example, it can better manage the uniqueness and ownership of assets, significantly reducing the probability of errors.
Resource-oriented programming: Move VM treats assets as tangible, irreplaceable resources, ensuring a higher level of security and integrity in asset management.
Innovative technical design: The Move ecosystem is currently mainly focused on emerging chains (such as Aptos, Sui, Starcoin, etc.), which often exhibit higher innovation in performance, user experience, and development models. Notably, Starcoin combines parallelization technology and DAG technology, achieving a TPS of 130,000 in a trial environment, demonstrating 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 offer more room for development and differentiation.
Drawbacks of Move VM:
The ecosystem is not mature enough: Compared to EVM, the Move ecosystem is smaller in scale, and the developer community and toolchain are still being improved. Projects that want to quickly acquire ecosystem users need to build it themselves.
There is uncertainty: The Move ecosystem is still in its early stages, and it is uncertain whether it can reach the influence of the EVM ecosystem in the future. As a public chain, it may face challenges in attracting developers and users.
Developer scarcity: Currently, there are relatively few developers familiar with the Move language, and cultivating talent requires time and resources.
It is worth mentioning that the Move ecosystem project Starcoin has launched StarStack, which is a blockchain development framework and toolbox. For developers unfamiliar with the Move language or those needing customized development of Move blockchains, StarStack allows for rapid construction of Move blockchains. In simple terms, it is similar to Optimism's Stack, Cosmos SDK, and other public chain development tools, making it easy to get started and progress quickly.
4. How to choose for public chain development?
From 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 Layer 2 and compatible chains have intensified market competition. Developing a public chain based on EVM is like finding uncertainty in certainty. In contrast, the Move ecosystem is still in its early stages, with not many well-known projects and substantial development potential, resulting in lower market competition pressure, which is like finding certainty in uncertainty.
Ultimately, public chain development must be combined with one's own needs, and the following are preset situations:
Short-term goals: If your goal is to go live quickly and attract users, EVM may be the better choice, especially if you want to rapidly integrate DeFi or NFT applications.
Long-term innovation: If you plan to build a highly innovative public chain focused on security and high performance, Move is worth investing in.
Ecosystem strategy: If you choose Move technology, you can also be compatible with EVM (for example, through bridging or dual virtual machine solutions) to complement the advantages of both. For instance, Movement, which launched this year, aims to bring Move into the EVM ecosystem to enhance Ethereum's security and address its shortcomings.
