Solidity's library deployment strategies vs Rust's binary distribution vs Move's on-chain publishing

Deployed as immutable bytecode: Libraries like OpenZeppelin are deployed once (e.g., at 0x...) and linked by reference, reducing contract size and deployment gas. This enables verified, trust-minimized composability across protocols like Uniswap V3 and Aave. Essential for EVM ecosystems where gas optimization and audit trail are paramount.

Tightly coupled to EVM chains: Library logic is bound to the specific chain it's deployed on. Migrating or forking a protocol (e.g., creating a new L2) requires re-deployment and re-audit of dependencies. Creates vendor lock-in and complicates multi-chain deployments compared to source-level distribution.

Source-level compilation: Dependencies like Anchor or spl-token are imported as source code and compiled directly into the program binary. Enforces version pinning and deterministic builds. Critical for high-throughput chains like Solana and Sei where program size limits and performance are non-negotiable.

No canonical on-chain instance: Each program bundles its own library code, requiring teams to audit the entire dependency tree. Increases security surface and deployment friction, as seen in incidents where vulnerable library versions were widely deployed. Lacks the shared security of a single, battle-tested on-chain instance.

Formal verification & resource-oriented safety: Modules published on-chain (e.g., Aptos Framework) are immutable and enforce strict ownership rules via the Move Prover. Enables secure, standard library patterns as used by Sui's sui::coin. Ideal for asset-centric applications requiring mathematical correctness.

Limited library maturity: While the core framework is robust, the ecosystem of third-party, audited Move modules (like Pontem's liquidity pools) is still developing compared to EVM's OpenZeppelin or Solana's Anchor. Can lead to higher development costs for teams needing custom, secure implementations.

Pro: Reusability & Gas Efficiency

• Deploy a library contract once (e.g., OpenZeppelin's SafeMath), then link it to multiple user contracts.
• Saves significant deployment gas costs for common logic.
• Con: Upgradeability Complexity
• Requires proxy patterns (EIP-1967) for upgrades, adding governance overhead.
• Creates fragmented dependency management across the EVM ecosystem.

Pro: Performance & Security

• Code is compiled to a single, verifiable BPF bytecode binary.
• Enables near-native execution speed on Solana (50k+ TPS).
• Con: Monolithic Bloat
• Every program includes all dependencies, leading to larger on-chain footprints.
• No native on-chain code sharing; duplication increases state costs.

Pro: First-Class Reusability

• Modules are published directly to the chain's global storage (e.g., Aptos Framework).
• Any contract can import and use a published module, guaranteeing compatibility.
• Con: Immutability Pressure
• Published modules are immutable by default, requiring careful upfront design.
• Can lead to version sprawl if upgrade paths aren't planned.

Choose Solidity/Linking for:

• EVM compatibility and existing tooling (Hardhat, Foundry).
• Projects where gas-optimized, incremental deployments are critical.

Choose Rust/Binary for:

• Maximal performance applications on Solana or Sei.
• Teams prioritizing execution speed over code reuse.

Choose Move/Publishing for:

• Systems requiring guaranteed, versioned dependencies (like DeFi primitives).
• Architectures where formal verification and asset-centric security are paramount.

Guaranteed bytecode immutability & verification: Published modules are permanently stored and verified on-chain (e.g., Sui, Aptos). This eliminates dependency hell and ensures every user interacts with the exact, audited code. Critical for DeFi protocols like Aave on Aptos, where trust in the contract's integrity is non-negotiable.

Higher upfront gas costs & upgrade complexity: Deploying a full module is expensive. Upgrades require publishing a new module and migrating state via explicit governance paths (e.g., Aptos' governance proposals). Slows iteration for rapid-prototyping dApps and increases operational overhead compared to simple proxy patterns.

Gas-efficient reuse & flexible upgrades: Deploy shared logic once (e.g., OpenZeppelin libraries), then delegatecall into it from multiple proxies. Enables cheap, granular upgrades via UUPS or Transparent proxies. The standard for Ethereum's EVM ecosystem, allowing protocols like Uniswap V4 to upgrade core logic without migrating liquidity.

Dependency vulnerability & fragmentation: Relies on external addresses for critical logic. A compromised or outdated library (e.g., an early OpenZeppelin version) can affect all dependent contracts. Requires rigorous dependency management and introduces risk for permissioned enterprise chains where audit trails must be watertight.

Off-chain performance & developer ergonomics: Code is compiled into a single WebAssembly (Wasm) binary and deployed (e.g., CosmWasm on Cosmos, ink! on Polkadot). Enables use of rich tooling (Cargo, crates.io) and is ideal for complex application logic like Osmosis' AMM or Astar's multi-chain smart contracts.

Runtime verification overhead & chain bloat: Each node must validate Wasm, adding computational overhead. Large binaries increase state size. Less native to blockchain context than Move's resource model, requiring careful design to avoid reentrancy or overflow issues common in high-value cross-chain bridges.