Full EVM Compatibility excels at developer onboarding and liquidity access because it offers a zero-friction environment for existing Solidity developers and tools. For example, chains like Arbitrum Nova and Polygon zkEVM leverage this to attract projects like TreasureDAO, which migrated its ecosystem with minimal code changes, instantly tapping into billions in DeFi TVL and established wallets like MetaMask. This path prioritizes ecosystem velocity over absolute performance.
LABS
Comparisons
Full EVM Compatibility vs Custom VM with Bridges for Gaming Interoperability
A technical analysis for CTOs and protocol architects on the core trade-offs between leveraging the Ethereum Virtual Machine ecosystem and building a custom VM with specialized bridges for gaming applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Foundational Choice for Gaming Interoperability
Choosing between full EVM compatibility and a custom VM with bridges is the first and most consequential architectural decision for a gaming chain.
A Custom VM with Bridges takes a different approach by designing an execution environment optimized for gaming's unique demands—high TPS, low deterministic latency, and native asset primitives. This results in a trade-off: superior performance and control at the cost of a steeper development curve. Immutable zkEVM and Ronin (with its custom EVM) demonstrate this, achieving thousands of TPS for games like Illuvium and Axie Infinity, but requiring dedicated bridges and SDKs for cross-chain asset movement.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid developer adoption and seamless integration with the broader DeFi/ERC-20 ecosystem, choose a Fully EVM-Compatible chain. If you prioritize maximizing game-specific performance, controlling gas economics, and building a dedicated asset bridge, choose a Custom VM. The former is a strategy of integration; the latter is a strategy of optimization.
tldr-summary
Full EVM Compatibility vs Custom VM with Bridges
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key architectural trade-offs for gaming interoperability, focusing on developer access versus performance and sovereignty.
01
Full EVM Compatibility
Instant Developer Onboarding: Access to 4M+ existing Solidity developers and a $500B+ ecosystem of tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask. This matters for teams prioritizing speed-to-market and leveraging existing DeFi composability (e.g., Aave, Uniswap).
02
Full EVM Compatibility
Seamless Asset Portability: Native support for ERC-20, ERC-721, and ERC-1155 standards. This matters for games that want fungible tokens or NFTs to flow frictionlessly between mainnet (Ethereum, Arbitrum) and the gaming chain via native bridges.
03
Custom VM with Bridges
Optimized Performance & Cost: Custom VMs (e.g., Solana's SVM, Fuel's UTXO) enable sub-second finality and near-zero fees by design. This matters for real-time gameplay and microtransactions where Ethereum's ~12-second block time and variable gas are prohibitive.
04
Custom VM with Bridges
Architectural Sovereignty: Enables game-specific opcodes, parallel execution, and state models not possible in EVM. This matters for complex game logic, true asset ownership models, and avoiding the gas overhead of EVM's 256-bit architecture.
05
The Interoperability Trade-off
EVM: Interoperability is native and trust-minimized via canonical bridges to Ethereum L1/L2s, but constrained by EVM's performance ceiling. Custom VM: Interoperability requires external, often trust-assumed bridges (e.g., Wormhole, LayerZero) to connect with EVM chains, introducing complexity and security considerations.
06
Decision Guide
Choose Full EVM if: Your game integrates heavily with DeFi, uses standard NFT mechanics, and your team's expertise is in Solidity. Examples: Treasure DAO on Arbitrum, Illuvium on Immutable zkEVM. Choose Custom VM if: Your game requires ultra-low latency, high TPS (>10k), or novel economic models. Examples: Star Atlas on Solana, Pixels on Ronin.
GAMING INTEROPERABILITY COMPARISON
Full EVM Compatibility vs Custom VM with Bridges
Direct comparison of technical approaches for building interoperable game economies.
| Metric / Feature | Full EVM Compatibility | Custom VM with Bridges |
|---|---|---|
Native Asset Portability | ||
Ecosystem Tooling (e.g., Hardhat, Foundry) | ||
Time to Onboard Web3 Devs | < 1 week | 1-3 months |
Cross-Chain Tx Latency | ~15-20 min (via bridges) | ~2-5 min (native) |
Protocol-Level Customization | Limited by EVM | Full (e.g., custom fee, storage) |
Primary Interop Standard | ERC-20, ERC-721 (bridged) | Native IBC/Custom Messaging |
Example Protocols | Polygon, Arbitrum | Solana, Immutable zkEVM |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL TRADEOFFS
Full EVM Compatibility vs Custom VM: Gaming Interoperability
Choosing your gaming chain's execution environment is a foundational decision. Full EVM compatibility offers immediate network effects, while a custom VM provides design freedom. Here are the key strengths and trade-offs for each approach.
01
Full EVM: Instant Developer Onboarding
Leverage the largest Web3 dev ecosystem: Tap into 4M+ EVM developers and tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask. This drastically reduces time-to-market for studios like Immutable and Gala Games, who can deploy existing Solidity/Vyper code with minimal changes.
4M+
EVM Devs
100%
Tool Compatibility
02
Full EVM: Seamless Asset Bridges
Native interoperability with DeFi and NFTs: Use standardized, battle-tested bridges (e.g., Axelar, Wormhole) and canonical bridges to Ethereum L1s. This allows in-game assets from chains like Polygon to flow freely into your game's economy, enhancing liquidity and player ownership.
$10B+
Bridged TVL
03
Custom VM: Optimized Performance & Cost
Design for game-specific throughput: Architect a VM for high-frequency, low-cost transactions. Chains like Solana (Sealevel VM) and Fuel achieve sub-second finality and sub-cent fees, critical for real-time gameplay and microtransactions without L2 complexity.
<$0.001
Avg. Tx Cost
3k+
TPS Potential
04
Custom VM: Tailored Security & Economics
Isolate game logic from external risks: A custom VM prevents reentrancy attacks common in EVM and allows novel fee models (e.g., sponsored transactions, session keys). This gives projects like Illuvium full control over economic security and user experience.
0
EVM Attack Vectors
05
Full EVM: Constrained by Legacy Design
Inherit EVM's scalability limits: The 30M gas block limit and sequential execution can bottleneck complex game state updates. Projects often must deploy custom L2s (like Arbitrum Nova) or sidechains, adding architectural complexity to achieve needed performance.
06
Custom VM: Fragmented Liquidity & Tooling
Sacrifice ecosystem composability: Require custom bridges (increasing security surface) and force developers to learn new languages (e.g., Move, Sway). This creates friction for asset portability and delays development, as seen in early Aptos/Move gaming projects.
pros-cons-b
FULL EVM COMPATIBILITY VS. CUSTOM VM
Custom VM with Bespoke Bridges: Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs for gaming interoperability, focusing on developer reach versus performance optimization.
01
Full EVM Compatibility: Pros
Immediate Developer Access: Tap into the largest Web3 dev pool with 4,000+ monthly active developers (Electric Capital). Use existing tooling like Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask. This matters for rapid prototyping and leveraging battle-tested DeFi primitives (e.g., Aave, Uniswap V3) for in-game economies.
02
Full EVM Compatibility: Cons
Inherited Bottlenecks: Bound by EVM's ~15M gas limit and sequential execution, capping complex game state updates. High-throughput games face unpredictable fees on L1s and even L2s during congestion. This matters for real-time, mass-scale gameplay where low-latency and cost certainty are critical.
03
Custom VM with Bridges: Pros
Optimized Performance: Design a VM for parallel execution and custom fee markets, enabling 10,000+ TPS for game-specific logic (see: Solana's Sealevel, Fuel's UTXO model). This matters for MMO-scale economies and gasless transactions for players, as seen in Immutable zkEVM's StarkEx-based scaling.
04
Custom VM with Bridges: Cons
Bridge Security & Fragmentation: Rely on bespoke trust assumptions (validators, multisigs) for asset transfers, introducing risk vectors (e.g., Nomad hack, $190M). Fragmented liquidity across chains complicates player onboarding. This matters for securing high-value assets and ensuring a seamless, unified player experience.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Architecture
Full EVM Compatibility for Gaming
Verdict: Suboptimal for high-frequency, low-cost in-game economies. Strengths:
- Immediate Tooling: Access to battle-tested engines like Unity SDKs (e.g., Immutable X) and Web3 libraries (ethers.js, web3.py).
- Asset Portability: NFTs minted on standards like ERC-721 are instantly tradable on major markets (OpenSea, Blur).
- Liquidity Access: Can tap into DeFi protocols for in-game asset lending/borrowing (Aavegotchi). Weaknesses:
- Performance Bottleneck: EVM's ~15-50 TPS and 2-12 second block times create lag for real-time actions.
- Cost Prohibitive: Mainnet gas fees make microtransactions impossible; scaling requires optimistic/zk rollups (Arbitrum, Polygon zkEVM).
- State Bloat: Every item interaction is an on-chain transaction, leading to high operational overhead.
Custom VM with Bridges for Gaming
Verdict: Superior for performance and user experience, but adds integration complexity. Strengths:
- Tailored Performance: VMs like Solana's SVM (1000s of TPS, 400ms slots) or custom environments (Ronin, Immutable zkEVM) enable real-time gameplay.
- Near-Zero Fees: Subsidized or minimal transaction costs enable true micro-economies.
- Optimized State Models: Can implement purpose-built data structures for game state (e.g., MUD Engine on a custom chain). Weaknesses:
- Bridging Friction: Asset transfers to/from Ethereum via bridges (Wormhole, LayerZero) add latency and security assumptions.
- Ecosystem Fragmentation: Cannot directly use popular EVM tooling; may require custom SDK development.
- Liquidity Silos: In-game assets are isolated until bridged, reducing initial market depth. Key Example: Axie Infinity migrated from Ethereum L1 to its own Ronin sidechain, reducing fees by >99% and enabling seamless gameplay.
FULL EVM VS. CUSTOM VM
Technical Deep Dive: Performance, Security, and Bridge Mechanics
Choosing between full EVM compatibility and a custom VM with bridges is a foundational decision for game developers. This comparison breaks down the technical trade-offs in performance, security, and interoperability to inform your architecture.
A purpose-built Custom VM typically offers superior performance for gaming. Chains like Solana (Sealevel) or Immutable zkEVM are optimized for high-frequency, low-cost micro-transactions, achieving thousands of TPS. A standard EVM chain like Arbitrum or Polygon, while fast, can face bottlenecks from its global state model during peak load. However, for turn-based or less latency-sensitive games, EVM's raw speed is often sufficient and comes with massive tooling advantages.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between full EVM compatibility and a custom VM with bridges is a foundational decision that dictates your game's development velocity, ecosystem access, and long-term interoperability strategy.
Full EVM Compatibility excels at developer onboarding and immediate liquidity access because it leverages the vast Ethereum ecosystem. For example, deploying on Arbitrum or Polygon allows a game to instantly tap into a $50B+ DeFi TVL, use battle-tested tooling like Hardhat and Foundry, and integrate with established wallets like MetaMask. This path minimizes technical debt and accelerates time-to-market, as seen with games like TreasureDAO on Arbitrum, which benefit from seamless asset composability with other protocols.
A Custom VM with Bridges takes a different approach by optimizing for performance and sovereignty. This results in a trade-off: you gain superior, dedicated throughput (e.g., Solana's 5,000+ TPS vs. Ethereum L2's ~100-200 TPS) and can design custom fee markets, but you must build or rely on cross-chain bridges like LayerZero or Wormhole for interoperability. This path, chosen by Star Atlas on Solana, offers more control over the user experience and cost structure but introduces bridge security risks and fragmentation of the player's asset portfolio across chains.
The key trade-off: If your priority is ecosystem leverage and developer speed, choose a Full EVM chain. You sacrifice some performance for a richer, ready-made environment. If you prioritize peak transaction throughput, low predictable costs, and architectural control, choose a Custom VM. You accept the complexity of managing cross-chain infrastructure. For most gaming studios, the EVM path offers a lower-risk launchpad, while custom VMs are a strategic bet for mass-scale, high-frequency gameplay where every millisecond and cent counts.
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