EVM Chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon) excel at standardized, battle-tested upgradeability through the EIP-1967 proxy pattern. This creates a mature ecosystem where tools like OpenZeppelin's TransparentUpgradeableProxy and UUPS proxies are the de facto standard, with security audits from firms like Trail of Bits and ConsenSys Diligence. For example, over $50B in TVL across DeFi protocols like Aave and Compound relies on these patterns, demonstrating their resilience. The uniformity simplifies developer onboarding and tooling integration with frameworks like Hardhat and Foundry.
LABS
Comparisons
Proxy Pattern Compatibility: EVM vs Non-EVM Chains
A technical analysis comparing the dominant upgradeability patterns across blockchain architectures, focusing on implementation, security, and operational trade-offs for protocol architects and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Challenge of On-Chain Upgradeability
A technical breakdown of how EVM and Non-EVM chains approach smart contract upgradeability, the core infrastructure for protocol evolution.
Non-EVM Chains (Solana, Cosmos, NEAR) take a fundamentally different approach, often eschewing monolithic proxy contracts for native runtime upgrades or modular design. Solana's upgradeable programs use a Buffer authority model, while Cosmos SDK chains leverage governance-driven chain-level upgrades via proposals. This results in a trade-off: greater architectural flexibility and often lower gas overhead for upgrades, but a more fragmented tooling landscape and a steeper learning curve for developers accustomed to EVM patterns like delegatecall.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, standardized security, and a vast ecosystem of audited tools for a complex DeFi or NFT protocol, choose an EVM chain. If you prioritize architectural sovereignty, minimal upgrade gas costs, and deep integration with a chain's unique consensus model, a Non-EVM chain like Solana or a Cosmos app-chain may be the better foundation.
tldr-summary
Proxy Pattern Compatibility: EVM vs Non-EVM Chains
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of upgradeability mechanisms, developer tooling, and ecosystem maturity for smart contract architecture.
01
EVM Chains: Standardized Upgradeability
Universal Proxy Standard (EIP-1967/EIP-1822): Industry-standard, battle-tested patterns used by protocols like Aave and Uniswap. This matters for interoperability and security audits.
- Tooling: Hardhat Upgrades, OpenZeppelin Defender, and Tenderly provide automated deployment and verification.
- Ecosystem: Seamless integration with 90%+ of DeFi tooling (The Graph, Etherscan, Safe).
EIP-1967
Industry Standard
02
EVM Chains: Massive Developer Leverage
Reusable Expertise & Libraries: Tap into the largest pool of Solidity/Vyper developers (4M+). This matters for recruiting speed and reducing implementation risk.
- Examples: OpenZeppelin Contracts library provides pre-audited, upgradeable base contracts.
- Impact: Faster time-to-market for protocols like Compound and Lido, which rely on proxy patterns for governance upgrades.
4M+
Dev Community
03
Non-EVM Chains: Native Architectural Flexibility
Chain-Specific Optimizations: Design upgradeability into the protocol layer (e.g., Cosmos SDK modules, NEAR's contract migration). This matters for sovereignty and performance.
- Example: CosmWasm on Terra 2.0/Juno allows migration messages for controlled upgrades.
- Benefit: Avoids proxy storage overhead, enabling higher TPS for apps like Osmosis.
Native
Protocol-Level
04
Non-EVM Chains: Avoiding EVM Limitations
Bypass Proxy Gas & Complexity: No need for delegatecall overhead or storage collision checks. This matters for cost efficiency and simplified logic.
- Trade-off: Requires deep chain-specific knowledge (Rust for CosmWasm, Move for Aptos/Sui).
- Use Case: Choose for high-throughput, novel DApps where EVM tooling is not a requirement, like Flow for NFTs.
Lower Overhead
Gas & Complexity
UPGRADEABILITY ARCHITECTURE
Feature Comparison: EVM Proxy Patterns vs Non-EVM Native Upgradeability
Direct comparison of smart contract upgradeability mechanisms across execution environments.
| Metric / Feature | EVM Proxy Patterns (e.g., OpenZeppelin) | Non-EVM Native (e.g., Solana, Aptos) |
|---|---|---|
Upgrade Initiation | Explicit transaction from admin/multisig | Program authority or on-chain governance |
Storage Layout Management | Manual (must preserve), risk of corruption | Automatic, versioned by runtime |
State Migration Complexity | High (requires explicit migration function) | Low (handled by runtime or not required) |
Gas Cost for Upgrade | $50 - $500+ (depends on size) | $0.001 - $0.01 (minimal network fee) |
Audit Surface Area | High (ProxyAdmin, UUPS, Beacon, Storage Gaps) | Low (runtime-level primitive) |
Standardization | Mature (EIP-1967, EIP-1822) | Emerging (chain-specific implementations) |
Tooling & Frameworks | Hardhat-Upgrades, OpenZeppelin CLI | Limited, often CLI-native (e.g., Solana CLI) |
pros-cons-a
Proxy Pattern Compatibility: EVM vs Non-EVM Chains
EVM Proxy Patterns: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for choosing a proxy pattern framework based on your chain's architecture.
01
EVM Chains: Standardized & Battle-Tested
Universal Compatibility: Patterns like OpenZeppelin's Transparent, UUPS, and Beacon are native to Solidity and work identically across Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and all EVM L2s. This matters for multi-chain deployments using tools like Hardhat or Foundry.
Massive Tooling Support: Integrated into every major dev framework (e.g., Hardhat Upgrades plugin, Truffle) and security tool (e.g., Slither). Over 95% of audited DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) use these patterns.
02
EVM Chains: Gas & Complexity Trade-offs
Inherent Overhead: Delegation adds ~2,500-5,000 gas per call vs. direct implementation. UUPS patterns shift upgrade cost to users, which can be problematic for high-frequency dApps.
Storage Collision Risk: Transparent Proxy patterns require careful storage layout management across upgrades. A mismatch can lead to catastrophic state corruption, a common audit finding.
03
Non-EVM Chains: Native Flexibility
Architecture-First Design: Chains like Solana (BPF loader), Cosmos (CosmWasm), and Fuel (Sway) build upgradeability into the VM layer. Solana's program redeployment via buffer allows atomic switches with no proxy indirection.
Performance Optimized: Avoids the EVM's call delegation overhead. Aptos and Sui use object-centric models where capabilities are attached to resources, enabling granular, non-breaking updates.
04
Non-EVM Chains: Ecosystem Fragmentation
No Universal Standard: Each chain has its own paradigm (e.g., CosmWasm migrations vs. Solana buffers). This fragments developer knowledge and increases audit scope.
Immature Tooling: Lack of standardized, chain-agnostic upgrade frameworks. Teams must often build custom admin dashboards and verification tools, increasing dev overhead and risk.
pros-cons-b
Proxy Pattern Compatibility: EVM vs Non-EVM Chains
Non-EVM Native Upgradeability: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. EVM's standardized proxy patterns offer a mature ecosystem, while non-EVM chains provide architectural flexibility at the cost of fragmentation.
01
EVM: Standardized & Battle-Tested
Universal Proxy Standard (EIP-1967/1822): Provides a consistent, audited blueprint for upgradeable contracts. This matters for protocol security and developer onboarding, as tools like OpenZeppelin's Upgrades Plugins, Hardhat, and Etherscan verification are built around it. Over $50B in TVL across protocols like Aave and Compound relies on this standard.
$50B+
TVL on Standard
1000s
Audited Deployments
03
Non-EVM: Architectural Freedom
No Legacy Constraints: Chains like Solana, Cosmos, and StarkNet enable native upgradeability models (e.g., Solana's program upgrade authority, Cosmos SDK governance upgrades). This matters for protocols needing bespoke, high-performance upgrade logic or tight integration with chain-specific features like parallel execution.
< 1 sec
Solana Upgrade Finality
05
EVM: Fragmented Implementation Risk
Admin Key Centralization: The standard proxy model concentrates power in a (hopefully) timelocked admin contract. This matters as a critical single point of failure; incidents like the OUSD proxy admin compromise highlight the operational overhead required to secure upgrade mechanisms properly.
06
Non-EVM: Tooling Fragmentation & Audit Scarcity
No Universal Standard: Each chain (Aptos Move, Sui, NEAR) has its own paradigm, forcing teams to build custom tooling and find auditors with niche expertise. This matters for slower development cycles and higher initial security costs, as seen in early Solana program audits costing 2-3x comparable EVM work.
2-3x
Early Audit Cost Multiplier
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Decision Framework
EVM Chains for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for composability and security. Strengths: The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) standard is the bedrock of DeFi, with battle-tested proxy patterns like TransparentUpgradeableProxy (OpenZeppelin) and UUPS. This enables seamless integration with major protocols (Aave, Uniswap, Compound) and tools (Hardhat, Foundry). The massive Total Value Locked (TVL) on EVM L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) provides deep liquidity and a proven user base. Trade-off: You accept higher base-layer gas costs (mitigated on L2s) and potential congestion during peak activity.
Non-EVM Chains for DeFi
Verdict: A high-performance alternative for novel architectures. Strengths: Chains like Solana and Sui offer sub-second finality and ultra-low fees, ideal for high-frequency trading applications. Their native upgradeability models (e.g., Solana's program-derived addresses) can be more gas-efficient for certain state changes. Trade-off: You sacrifice the vast EVM tooling ecosystem. Smart contract logic and upgrade patterns are chain-specific, increasing development time and limiting cross-chain portability of your codebase.
PROXY PATTERN COMPATIBILITY
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation and Gotchas
Deploying upgradeable contracts via proxy patterns is a cornerstone of modern dApp development, but the implementation details and pitfalls vary drastically between EVM and non-EVM ecosystems. This section dissects the key technical questions and hidden challenges.
Implementing a proxy pattern is significantly easier and more standardized on EVM chains. The ecosystem has mature, battle-tested standards like EIP-1967 (Transparent Proxy) and EIP-1822 (Universal Upgradeable Proxy Standard), with robust tooling in OpenZeppelin and Hardhat. On non-EVM chains (e.g., Solana, Cosmos), you must often build custom upgradeability logic, as there is no native proxy opcode equivalent, leading to greater implementation complexity and audit surface.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between EVM and Non-EVM chains for proxy patterns is a strategic decision that hinges on your project's priorities for ecosystem leverage versus architectural freedom.
EVM-compatible chains excel at developer velocity and capital efficiency due to the massive, established ecosystem. For example, deploying a standard OpenZeppelin TransparentUpgradeableProxy on Arbitrum or Polygon gives you immediate access to battle-tested tooling like Hardhat, Foundry, and Etherscan, a combined TVL exceeding $30B, and a vast pool of Solidity developers. This standardization reduces audit costs and speeds time-to-market for protocols like Aave and Uniswap V3 forks.
Non-EVM chains like Solana, Cosmos, and Starknet take a different architectural approach, often baking upgradeability directly into the runtime or leveraging native program frameworks. This results in a trade-off: you gain superior performance (e.g., Solana's 50k+ TPS for lower-cost upgrades) and can design custom security models, but you sacrifice the vast composability of the EVM DeFi stack and face a steeper, more bespoke development curve with fewer audited template contracts.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment, maximal liquidity access, and leveraging existing audit knowledge, choose an EVM chain like Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism) or high-throughput sidechains (Polygon PoS). If you prioritize ultimate performance, custom governance for upgrades, or are building a novel application domain less dependent on existing DeFi legos, choose a Non-EVM chain like Solana (Sealevel VM), Cosmos (CosmWasm), or a zk-rollup with a custom VM.
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