Smart contracts are event-driven, not stateful. They execute only on-chain, creating a fundamental mismatch with devices that must operate continuously in the physical world. This architecture forces a reliance on centralized oracles like Chainlink to trigger any meaningful action.
blockchain-and-iot-the-machine-economy
Blog
Why Autonomous Devices Demand a New Smart Contract Paradigm
The EVM is a poor fit for the machine economy. We argue that IoT's future lies in purpose-built, event-driven VMs like Solana's SVM or Fuel VM, not in retrofitting heavyweight general-purpose systems.
introduction
THE AUTONOMY GAP
Introduction
Current smart contract models fail to support the continuous, off-chain logic required by autonomous devices.
Autonomy requires persistent off-chain agency. An autonomous vehicle or drone must process sensor data and make decisions in milliseconds, a latency impossible for L1s like Ethereum or L2s like Arbitrum. The contract becomes a passive ledger, not an active controller.
The solution is a new computational primitive. We need a smart contract agent that merges on-chain settlement with persistent off-chain execution, similar to how Gelato automates transactions but with embedded, deterministic logic for real-world interaction.
key-trends
WHY AUTONOMOUS DEVICES DEMAND A NEW PARADIGM
The EVM's IoT Mismatch: Three Core Failures
The EVM's synchronous, gas-auction model is fundamentally incompatible with the deterministic, low-cost, and continuous operation required by autonomous IoT networks.
01
The Gas Auction is a Deal-Breaker
EVM's fee market prioritizes the highest bidder, creating unpredictable and prohibitive costs for low-value, high-frequency IoT transactions. A sensor cannot bid for its own survival.
- Unpredictable Costs: A $0.01 data attestation can cost $5+ during network congestion.
- Non-Deterministic Execution: Critical device logic fails if it cannot afford the next block.
1000x
Cost Volatility
$0
Predictable Fee Target
02
Synchronous Execution Kills Autonomy
EVM transactions are one-shot, all-or-nothing calls. Autonomous devices require persistent, stateful processes that react to real-world events over time.
- No Persistent Logic: An EVM smart contract cannot 'listen' for an off-chain sensor trigger.
- Orchestration Overhead: Requires complex, expensive relayers (like Gelato) to simulate continuity, adding centralization and cost.
0
Native Async Ops
~500ms
Oracle Latency Floor
03
The State Bloat & Cost Inversion
Storing device data on-chain is economically insane. The EVM charges per byte for permanent storage, inverting the value model where the most frequent data (IoT telemetry) is the least valuable per unit.
- Permanent Tax: Paying for eternal storage for ephemeral temperature readings.
- Solution Path: Requires a separate data availability layer (like Celestia, EigenDA) and verifiable compute, fracturing the stack.
~$1M/year
Cost for 1M Devices
>99%
Data is Ephemeral
WHY AUTONOMOUS DEVICES DEMAND A NEW PARADIGM
VM Architecture Showdown: EVM vs. IoT Requirements
A first-principles comparison of the Ethereum Virtual Machine's design against the non-negotiable requirements for a decentralized physical infrastructure (DePIN) and IoT execution layer.
| Critical Feature / Metric | Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) | IoT-Optimized VM (e.g., Solana SVM, FuelVM, CosmWasm) | Ideal IoT Execution Layer |
|---|---|---|---|
Deterministic Execution Time | Variable (10ms - 30s+ due to gas auction dynamics) | Bounded (< 1 sec per instruction, predictable block times) | Hard Real-Time Guarantee (< 100ms deterministic finality) |
State Growth & Storage Cost |
| ~5,000 rent per byte-year (Solana), or Merkleized state (Fuel) | Sub-cent per device-year, with local state pruning |
Hardware Integration (Oracles) | External dependency (Chainlink, Pyth) adds latency & cost | Native support for on-chain randomness & price feeds reduces overhead | First-class citizen: Direct sensor/actuator calls with sub-second latency |
Light Client Feasibility | Resource-heavy (~1 GB sync); impractical for microcontrollers | Optimized for light clients (e.g., Solana's Light Protocol) | Ultra-light (< 1 MB state) for ARM Cortex-M class devices |
Transaction Finality for Actuation | Probabilistic (12-20 blocks ~ 2.5-5 mins) | Optimistic (400ms - 2.4 secs) or deterministic (Solana ~400ms) | Instant (Sub-second) for critical device commands |
Throughput per Device | ~15-45 TPS globally shared | ~50,000+ TPS (Solana) or parallel execution (FuelVM) |
|
Energy Consumption per TX | ~150-200 kWh (PoW legacy), ~0.03 kWh (PoS post-merge) | < 0.001 kWh (optimized PoS or PoH) | < 0.0001 kWh (designed for solar-powered edge devices) |
Fee Market Predictability | Volatile auction model; spikes during congestion | Prioritization fees; generally stable base fee | Pre-paid, fixed-cost session for device lifecycle operations |
deep-dive
THE AUTONOMOUS MACHINE
Blueprint for an IoT-Optimized VM
Smart contracts for IoT require a fundamental architectural shift from human-centric transactions to machine-native execution.
The current VM model fails IoT. Ethereum's EVM and its derivatives are designed for discrete, human-initiated transactions, not continuous, autonomous machine-to-machine interactions.
IoT demands a stateful, event-driven core. A new VM must natively support persistent, low-latency state machines that react to external oracles like Chainlink and Pyth without transaction overhead.
Gas economics must be inverted. Machines cannot sign and pay for every micro-action. The VM must enable pre-funded execution sessions or delegated gas abstractions, similar to account abstraction (ERC-4337) but for autonomous agents.
Evidence: A connected vehicle generating 25GB of data per hour cannot feasibly pay for on-chain storage per data point. The solution is a VM with native streaming data commitments and verifiable compute off-chain, akin to Celestia's data availability model for rollups.
protocol-spotlight
WHY AUTONOMOUS DEVICES DEMAND A NEW SMART CONTRACT PARADIGM
Protocols Building the Machine Economy Stack
Legacy smart contracts are too slow, expensive, and isolated for machines that must act on real-world data and events.
01
The Problem: Off-Chain Oracles Are a Bottleneck
Devices need to react to sensor data in ~100-500ms. A standard Chainlink request takes ~2-15 seconds and costs $0.50+, making continuous micro-transactions impossible.
- High Latency: Multi-block confirmation delays break real-time logic.
- Prohibitive Cost: Paying for each data point kills unit economics for IoT.
- Centralized Points of Failure: Reliance on a few oracle nodes contradicts decentralization.
2-15s
Oracle Latency
$0.50+
Per-Request Cost
02
The Solution: Autonomous Smart Agents (e.g., Fetch.ai, Golem)
Embedded agents with their own wallets and logic can act without per-transaction user signatures, enabling true machine-to-machine commerce.
- Continuous Operation: Agents can monitor oracles and execute based on pre-defined rules 24/7.
- Intent-Based Execution: Devices post intent ("sell 1kW at $0.10") and off-chain solvers like CowSwap or UniswapX find optimal fulfillment.
- Local First, Settle On-Chain: Perform millions of micro-negotiations off-chain, settling net balances periodically.
24/7
Uptime
~100ms
Agent Response
03
The Problem: EVM Can't Handle Streaming Data
The Ethereum Virtual Machine processes discrete blocks, not continuous data streams. A smart contract cannot natively "listen" for a temperature threshold or a GPS coordinate.
- State-Centric Model: EVM updates state only on transaction, not on event.
- No Native Triggers: Requires constant, expensive polling by an external keeper network.
- Storage Bloat: Logging high-frequency sensor data on-chain is economically insane.
1
Update per TX
$5+
1MB On-Chain Storage
04
The Solution: Event-Driven Smart Contracts (e.g., Chainlink Functions, Pyth)
New paradigms shift computation to the edge, using the blockchain as a final settlement and arbitration layer, not the primary execution engine.
- Decentralized Serverless Functions: Services like Chainlink Functions allow contracts to call custom API logic in a trust-minimized way.
- Low-Latency Data Feeds: Pyth Network provides sub-second price updates via pull-oracle model, letting devices query data on-demand.
- ZK Proofs of Computation: Devices generate ZK proofs of correct off-chain execution (e.g., a valid sensor reading) for cheap on-chain verification.
<1s
Data Latency
-90%
Compute Cost
05
The Problem: Machines Have No Sovereign Identity
A device is just an address. It lacks a persistent, verifiable identity for reputation, credit, and compliance across chains and applications.
- Sybil Vulnerable: Any device can spin up infinite wallets, breaking trust models.
- No Reputation History: A drone's delivery record or a solar panel's output history isn't portable.
- Fragmented Liquidity: Device capital is stuck on single chains, unable to seek best rates across Ethereum, Solana, or Avalanche.
∞
Sybil Wallets
0
Portable Rep
06
The Solution: Cross-Chain Machine Identities (e.g., Hyperlane, Wormhole)
Universal verifiable credentials and messaging layers allow devices to own their identity and state, moving seamlessly across ecosystems.
- Interoperability Layers: Hyperlane and LayerZero enable smart contracts to call functions on any chain, letting devices tap into optimal liquidity pools.
- Soulbound Token (SBT) IDs: Non-transferable NFTs encode device specs, maintenance history, and performance data.
- Cross-Chain Intent Routing: A device can post an intent fulfilled by a solver on the cheapest chain, settled via a bridge like Across.
10+
Chains Accessed
1
Sovereign ID
counter-argument
THE INFRASTRUCTURE ARGUMENT
Counterpoint: The L2 & Rollup Defense
The existing L2 and rollup ecosystem is already the optimal substrate for autonomous devices, negating the need for a new paradigm.
Rollups are the abstraction layer. The core innovation of L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism is decoupling execution from consensus. This creates a programmable execution environment where autonomous logic runs at scale, while Ethereum L1 provides the ultimate settlement and security guarantee.
The modular stack is the solution. The problem isn't the smart contract model, but monolithic architectures. Projects like Celestia for data availability and EigenLayer for decentralized sequencing provide the specialized infrastructure components needed for low-cost, high-throughput device operations.
Existing standards are sufficient. ERC-4337 Account Abstraction and ERC-6551 Token Bound Accounts enable non-custodial smart accounts and composable asset ownership. These standards, deployed on L2s, provide the user experience and programmability required for autonomous agents.
Evidence: Arbitrum processes over 1 million transactions daily at a fraction of L1 cost, demonstrating that the scalability bottleneck is solved. The ecosystem's focus is now on interoperability via bridges like Across and LayerZero, not reinventing the execution layer.
takeaways
WHY AUTONOMOUS DEVICES DEMAND A NEW PARADIGM
TL;DR: The IoT Smart Contract Mandate
Traditional smart contracts are too slow, expensive, and isolated for a world of billions of real-time, autonomous devices.
01
The Latency Wall: 12-Second Blocks vs. 50ms Decisions
Ethereum's ~12-second block time is a geological epoch for a drone avoiding an obstacle. IoT requires sub-second finality for real-world safety and efficiency.\n- Key Benefit 1: Enables real-time machine-to-machine (M2M) payments and coordination.\n- Key Benefit 2: Unlocks use cases like autonomous supply chains and responsive energy grids.
>12s
Ethereum Block
<500ms
IoT Requirement
02
The Oracle Problem is Now a Critical Failure Point
Every sensor reading requires a trusted oracle, creating single points of failure and cost at scale. A fleet of 10,000 devices can't afford per-data-point on-chain fees.\n- Key Benefit 1: Native, verifiable data ingestion via lightweight ZK proofs or trusted execution environments (TEEs).\n- Key Benefit 2: Drastically reduces operational cost and attack surface versus Chainlink-dependent models.
$0.10+
Per Data Point
1M+/day
Device Throughput
03
Off-Chain Autonomy with On-Chain Sovereignty
Devices need to operate offline but settle disputes or high-value transactions on-chain. This requires a hybrid state model, not a purely on-chain one.\n- Key Benefit 1: Devices execute complex logic locally (e.g., adjust thermostat) with only critical outcomes (e.g., payment for energy) finalized on-chain.\n- Key Benefit 2: Mirrors the optimistic rollup paradigm (Arbitrum, Optimism) but for physical devices, using fraud proofs for slashing.
99%
Off-Chain Ops
100%
On-Chain Guarantee
04
The Gas Fee Death Spiral for Microtransactions
A $0.0001 sensor data sale is impossible with a $2 gas fee. IoT economies require near-zero marginal cost per transaction to be viable.\n- Key Benefit 1: Demand for ultra-efficient L2s or dedicated app-chains with fixed-cost execution models.\n- Key Benefit 2: Enables true machine-payable web where devices autonomously trade data and services.
$0.0001
Tx Value
$2.00
L1 Gas Cost
05
Physical World Security: Slashing is Not Enough
Traditional crypto-economic slashing for a malicious sensor is meaningless. The penalty must be tied to real-world asset control (e.g., revoking device access, seizing collateral).\n- Key Benefit 1: Smart contracts must manage physical access rights and insurance pools for failure.\n- Key Benefit 2: Integrates concepts from cosmos SDK and polkadot governance but applied to hardware reputation.
Digital
Slashing
Physical
Enforcement
06
The Interoperability Mandate: No Single Chain Wins
Devices from different manufacturers will exist on different chains. They need lightweight, intent-based cross-chain communication without constant bridging.\n- Key Benefit 1: Protocols like LayerZero and Axelar become critical infrastructure, but must be optimized for low-power devices.\n- Key Benefit 2: Drives adoption of universal state proofs (e.g., zkIBC) for verifiable cross-chain state reads.
100+
Potential Chains
1
Unified Network
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