EVM is a legacy system. Its synchronous, single-threaded execution model creates a hard ceiling for throughput and composability, forcing projects like Solana and Monad to build entirely new VMs.
developer-ecosystem-tools-languages-and-grants
Blog
Why the EVM Is Becoming a Legacy Anchor for Innovation
An analysis of how the Ethereum Virtual Machine's foundational design—its stack-based architecture and the dominance of Solidity—creates inherent bottlenecks for scalability, security, and the adoption of modern smart contract paradigms.
introduction
THE ANCHOR
Introduction
The EVM's technical debt is now a primary bottleneck, forcing innovation to occur outside its constraints.
Innovation is now parallel. High-performance chains bypass the EVM's core architecture, using optimistic parallelization (Aptos, Sui) or deterministic scheduling (Sei) to achieve orders-of-magnitude higher throughput.
The ecosystem is fragmenting. EVM-centric tooling (MetaMask, Hardhat) creates friction for non-EVM users, while intent-based architectures (UniswapX, CowSwap) abstract the VM layer entirely.
key-trends
WHY THE MONOLITH IS CRACKING
The Great Unbundling: EVM's Core Constraints
The EVM's integrated design, once a strength, now anchors innovation by forcing a one-size-fits-all approach to security, execution, and data availability.
01
The Synchronous Execution Bottleneck
EVM's atomic, single-threaded execution blocks parallel processing, capping throughput and inflating fees for all apps.\n- Blockspace Contention: A single NFT mint can congest the entire chain, creating a tragedy of the commons.\n- Hard Throughput Ceiling: Theoretical max of ~100 TPS per shard, while Solana's Sealevel runtime demonstrates ~50,000 TPS.
~100 TPS
EVM Ceiling
500x
Parallel Gap
02
The Gas Model: A Universal Tax on Complexity
A single, inelastic gas market inefficiently prices diverse operations, overcharging simple logic and making advanced cryptography (ZKPs, FHE) economically impossible.\n- Opaque Pricing: Developers can't optimize for cost without deep EVM opcode knowledge.\n- Innovation Tax: A zk-SNARK verification costs the same gas as a trivial transfer, killing native privacy apps.
$1M+
Annual Gas Waste
Prohibitive
Advanced Crypto Cost
03
Monolithic Security Overhead
Every dApp pays for the full security of the entire EVM state, a massive cost burden for applications that don't need it. This funds the $30B+ re-staking economy.\n- Blunt Instrument: A decentralized casino requires the same security as a $10B DeFi protocol.\n- Sovereignty Trade-off: Apps cannot customize their security/trust assumptions without forking the entire chain.
$30B+
Security Overhead
0 Customization
Trust Models
04
The State Bloat Time Bomb
The EVM's global, perpetually growing state forces every node to store all data forever, centralizing infrastructure and increasing sync times to weeks.\n- Node Centralization: Archive node requirements exceed 10TB, pushing out smaller operators.\n- No Pruning: Inefficient state models (Merkle Patricia Tries) lack native expiry, unlike Celestia's data availability sampling.
10TB+
State Size
Weeks
Sync Time
05
The Opcode Prison
The fixed EVM instruction set is a legacy artifact, preventing native support for modern primitives like zk-friendly hashes (Poseidon) or parallel primitives.\n- Hard Fork Governance: Adding a new opcode requires ecosystem-wide coordination, taking years.\n- Performance Debt: Keccak256 is slow in ZK circuits; new chains like zkSync and Starknet use STARK-friendly hashes by default.
Years
Update Cycle
100x Slower
ZK Penalty
06
Intent-Based Architectures Render It Obsolete
New paradigms like UniswapX and CowSwap's solver networks abstract away direct EVM execution. Users express what they want, not how to do it, making the underlying VM irrelevant.\n- Execution as a Service: Solvers compete across chains using the most efficient VM for the job (EVM, SVM, Move).\n- The Endpoint, Not the Highway: The EVM becomes just one possible destination in a cross-chain intent fulfillment flow.
90%+
Better Prices
Multi-VM
Execution
deep-dive
THE LEGACY ANCHOR
The Stack Bottleneck: More Than Just Gas
The EVM's architectural constraints are stifling innovation in parallel execution, state management, and intent-based design.
EVM is a sequential bottleneck. Its single-threaded execution model forces all transactions into a global queue, capping throughput regardless of layer-2 scaling. This design prevents the parallel processing that modern chains like Solana and Sui use for 100k+ TPS.
State growth is unmanaged. The EVM's flat address space lacks native rent or state expiry, forcing protocols like Arbitrum and Optimism to implement complex, ad-hoc fee markets and state pruning to manage bloat.
Bytecode limits new primitives. The EVM's 256-bit word size and stack-based architecture are inefficient for modern cryptography (e.g., BLS signatures) and complex computations, hindering adoption of ZK-proof systems and intent-centric architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap.
Evidence: The migration of major DeFi protocols to Solana VM and Move-based chains demonstrates the innovation tax. Ethereum's ecosystem processes ~15 TPS; Aptos' Block-STM achieves 160k TPS in parallel.
WHY THE EVM IS BECOMING A LEGACY ANCHOR FOR INNOVATION
Smart Contract Language & VM Landscape: A Comparative View
A first-principles comparison of dominant execution environments, highlighting the technical trade-offs that define the next generation of blockchain infrastructure.
| Core Feature / Metric | Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) | Move VM (Aptos/Sui) | Solana Runtime (Sealevel) | Fuel VM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Execution Model | Single-threaded, sequential | Parallelizable by default | Parallelizable by default | Parallelizable UTXO model |
State Access Overhead | SLOAD/SSTORE gas (2100/20000) | Deterministic, gas-free reads | Deterministic, low-cost reads | Deterministic, static access lists |
Max Theoretical TPS (Sustained) | ~30-50 | ~160,000 (Aptos), > 100k (Sui) | ~65,000 (realistic net) | Theoretically unlimited via fraud proofs |
Contract Language Paradigm | Imperative (Solidity/Vyper) | Resource-oriented (Move) | Imperative (Rust/C) | Predicate-based (Sway, Rust-like) |
Formal Verification Support | Limited (requires external tools) | Native via Move Prover | No native support | Native via Sway's type system |
State Bloat Mitigation | State rent (proposed), EIP-4444 | Automatic via Move's resource model | State expiry (proposed) | Native via UTXO model |
Developer Onboarding Friction | High (gas, reentrancy, tooling) | Medium (new paradigm, strong safety) | Medium (concurrency, Rust req.) | Low (predictable, no reentrancy) |
Dominant Ecosystem | Ethereum, L2s (Arbitrum, OP), Avalanche C-Chain | Aptos, Sui | Solana | Fuel Network |
counter-argument
THE LEGACY ANCHOR
The Network Effect Defense (And Why It's Fraying)
Ethereum's once-unassailable network effect is now a technical anchor, actively stifling architectural innovation and creating exploitable market gaps.
The EVM is a legacy constraint. Its 256-bit architecture and global state model are technical relics. Modern chains like Solana and Sui prioritize parallel execution and object-oriented state, making the EVM's sequential processing a bottleneck for high-throughput applications.
Developer liquidity is not user liquidity. The EVM's developer tooling moat (Hardhat, Foundry) traps talent. However, users migrate to chains offering superior UX and lower cost, as seen with Solana's retail dominance and Sui's gaming traction, decoupling developer convenience from end-user adoption.
Composability is now a vulnerability. EVM's synchronous composability, once a strength, creates systemic risk and limits design. Intent-based architectures like UniswapX and Across Protocol abstract this away, proving users prefer guaranteed outcomes over manual, risky chain hops.
Evidence: The EVM's market share for new DeFi TVL has collapsed. In 2024, over 60% of major new DeFi primitives launched on non-EVM chains like Solana, Aptos, and Sei, seeking unshackled execution models and cheaper state.
takeaways
WHY THE EVM IS A LEGACY ANCHOR
Takeaways for Protocol Architects
The EVM's design constraints are now actively hindering the next wave of blockchain applications. Here's where to focus your build.
01
The Parallel Execution Trap
The EVM's sequential execution model is a fundamental bottleneck for high-throughput DeFi and gaming. It forces all transactions into a single queue, creating artificial congestion and high fees even on L2s.
- Solana and Sui demonstrate 10,000+ TPS is possible with parallel processing.
- Architect for concurrency-first; treat sequential execution as a legacy tax.
~65k TPS
Solana Max
~15 TPS
EVM Base
02
State Bloat & The Archive Node Crisis
EVM's global state model requires every node to store everything, leading to terabyte-scale syncs and centralization pressure. This is unsustainable for mass adoption.
- Solutions like Celestia (modular DA) and zk-rollups (state diffs) externalize data availability.
- Design for statelessness or light client verifiability from day one.
>12 TB
Ethereum Archive
~50 GB
Celestia Node
03
Gas Abstraction Is Non-Negotiable
Requiring users to hold the native token for fees is a catastrophic UX failure that stifles adoption. The EVM makes this primitive and cumbersome.
- ERC-4337 (Account Abstraction) and Solana's native fee delegation are becoming table stakes.
- Build with sponsored transactions and session keys as a core feature, not an afterthought.
0
User Gas
10M+
AA Wallets
04
Move Over, Solidity
Solidity's security flaws (reentrancy, overflow) and inefficiency are well-documented. New VMs offer safer, more expressive foundations.
- Move (Aptos, Sui) uses resource-oriented programming for inherent safety.
- FuelVM introduces predicate-based UTXO model for parallelizable contracts.
- The future is multi-VM; don't chain your protocol to one language.
$2B+
Solidity Exploits
0
Move Reentrancy
05
Modularity Is Eating the World
The monolithic EVM stack (execution, consensus, DA, settlement) is being disaggregated. Building on a monolithic chain is like building a website on a single server in 2024.
- Leverage Celestia for DA, EigenLayer for shared security, Arbitrum Orbit for custom L3s.
- Your protocol should be a sovereign app-chain in waiting, not a trapped smart contract.
100x
Cheaper DA
$15B+
Restaked TVL
06
Intent-Centric Architectures
The EVM's transaction-centric model forces users to be mechanics. The next paradigm is intent-based systems where users specify what they want, not how to do it.
- UniswapX, CowSwap, and Across use solvers to optimize execution.
- Design as a coordination layer for solver networks, not just a state transition function.
20-30%
Better Prices
1-Click
Complex Swaps
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall