General-purpose languages are systemic liabilities. Solidity and Vyper force developers to manually implement core logic for security, gas optimization, and state management, introducing preventable bugs and audit complexity.
history-of-money-and-the-crypto-thesis
Blog
Why Smart Contracts Need Purpose-Built Domain-Specific Languages
General-purpose languages like Solidity are a foundational risk. This analysis argues that domain-specific languages (DSLs) like Cairo and Move, designed for blockchain's unique constraints, are essential for secure, scalable, and expressive programmable money.
introduction
THE LANGUAGE GAP
Introduction
General-purpose languages like Solidity create systemic risk and inefficiency, demanding a shift to purpose-built, domain-specific languages (DSLs).
DSLs enforce correctness by construction. A domain-specific language for DeFi would bake in invariants like constant-product curves or liquidation logic, eliminating entire classes of exploits seen in protocols like Compound or Aave.
The compiler becomes the first auditor. Instead of reviewing handwritten Solidity, security shifts to verifying the DSL compiler's formal guarantees, a model proven in finance by tools like DAML and in crypto by Move's resource-oriented design.
Evidence: The Move language, used by Aptos and Sui, demonstrates this principle with its built-in resource model that prevents double-spending by type system design, a flaw that required manual checks in Ethereum's ERC-20 standard.
thesis-statement
THE BOTTLENECK
The Core Argument: DSLs as a Prerequisite for Scale
General-purpose languages like Solidity create systemic inefficiency, making domain-specific languages the only viable path to scaling blockchain state.
General-purpose languages are inefficient. Solidity and Move force developers to build core infrastructure from scratch for every application, wasting compute cycles on redundant logic for token transfers or access control.
DSLs encode domain logic natively. A purpose-built language for DeFi, like a Uniswap V4 hook DSL, compiles directly to optimized bytecode, eliminating the overhead of interpreting generic smart contract instructions.
The comparison is stark. An intent-based swap routed via UniswapX requires multiple contract calls; a DSL-native AMM executes the same logic in a single, verifiable state transition, reducing gas costs by orders of magnitude.
Evidence: Arbitrum Stylus demonstrates this. It allows WebAssembly modules written in Rust to run alongside EVM contracts, achieving a 10-100x gas efficiency improvement for compute-heavy operations by bypassing EVM opcode interpretation.
key-trends
WHY SMART CONTRACTS NEED PURPOSE-BUILT LANGUAGES
The DSL Landscape: Three Converging Trends
General-purpose languages like Solidity are hitting fundamental limits in security, performance, and developer experience, forcing a shift to specialized tools.
01
The Problem: The Billion-Dollar Typo
Solidity's permissive, Turing-complete design makes trivial bugs catastrophic. A single misplaced character can lead to irreversible fund loss or protocol insolvency.\n- $2B+ lost to reentrancy and overflow bugs since 2016\n- Audit costs range from $50k to $500k+ per major protocol\n- Formal verification is prohibitively complex on EVM bytecode
$2B+
Lost to Bugs
$500k+
Audit Cost
02
The Solution: Move and Cairo - Assets as First-Class Citizens
DSLs like Move (Aptos, Sui) and Cairo (Starknet) bake security into the language semantics. Resources are non-copyable and non-droppable by default, eliminating entire bug classes.\n- Zero reentrancy attacks in production on Move-based chains\n- ~99% reduction in critical vulnerability surface area\n- Enables native formal verification at the source level
0
Reentrancy Bugs
-99%
Vulnerability Surface
03
The Trend: Performance-Optimized Execution
General-purpose VMs waste cycles on irrelevant opcodes. DSLs like Fuel's Sway and Solana's SeaLevel are compiled to minimal, parallelizable bytecode for maximal hardware utilization.\n- Sway enables predictable gas costs via a pure functional design\n- SeaLevel architecture allows ~50k TPS via parallel transaction processing\n- EVM interpreters incur ~10x overhead versus native execution
~50k
TPS Potential
-90%
Overhead
04
The Trend: Intent-Centric Abstraction
Writing low-level contract logic for common intents (swaps, bridges, limit orders) is inefficient. DSLs like UniswapX's Dutch Order language and Across's UMA optimism oracle let developers declare what they want, not how to do it.\n- UniswapX reduces MEV extraction via fill-or-kill intent settlement\n- Across secures $2B+ bridges with a specialized oracle DSL\n- LayerZero's DVN network uses a DSL for configurable security guarantees
$2B+
Bridge TVL
-60%
MEV Extracted
05
The Trend: ZK-Proof Specialization
Writing zero-knowledge circuits in general-purpose languages is like writing assembly. DSLs like Noir (Aztec) and Circom are optimized for constraint system generation and proof efficiency.\n- Noir's ACIR abstracts away backend proof systems (Groth16, PLONK)\n- ~1000x faster circuit development versus hand-rolled R1CS\n- Enables private DeFi with < $0.01 privacy overhead per transaction
1000x
Dev Speed
< $0.01
Privacy Cost
06
The Verdict: The End of the One-VM-Fits-All Era
The future is multi-VM and multi-DSL. Applications will choose their execution environment based on need: Move for asset safety, Cairo/Noir for ZK-provable logic, Sway for high-throughput DeFi. The monolithic EVM will fragment into a modular language stack.\n- Ethereum L2s are already adopting WASM, Move, and Cairo\n- Interoperability shifts from bytecode to message passing between specialized domains\n- Developer onboarding improves as DSLs capture intent, not implementation
Multi-VM
Future Stack
Intent-Based
Dev Experience
DSL SHOWDOWN
Language Comparison: Solidity vs. The Next Generation
A feature and capability matrix comparing the incumbent general-purpose language against emerging domain-specific languages designed for blockchain development.
| Feature / Metric | Solidity (General-Purpose) | Move (Resource-Oriented DSL) | Sway (Predicate Logic DSL) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Design Paradigm | Object-Oriented, Turing-Complete | Resource-Oriented with Linear Types | Predicate Logic, Declarative |
Native Asset Primitive | |||
Formal Verification Feasibility | High Effort, Post-Hoc | Built-in via Move Prover | Core Language Feature |
Reentrancy Guard Required | |||
Average Audit Cost for DEX | $50k - $150k | $20k - $50k (est.) | TBD (Early Stage) |
Inherent Integer Overflow Protection | |||
Dominant Ecosystem | Ethereum, EVM L2s (Arbitrum, OP) | Aptos, Sui, 0L Network | Fuel Network |
Key Innovation | First-Mover, EVM Standardization | Secure Digital Asset Abstraction | Parallelizable Execution & UTXO Model |
deep-dive
THE LANGUAGE LAYER
Deep Dive: How Cairo and Move Redefine On-Chain Logic
General-purpose languages like Solidity are a security liability; purpose-built DSLs like Cairo and Move enforce correctness at the compiler level.
General-purpose languages are flawed. Solidity's EVM-centric design exposes developers to reentrancy and overflow bugs that domain-specific languages (DSLs) eliminate by construction.
Cairo enforces provability. StarkWare's language treats every program as a computational statement, enabling zero-knowledge proofs for StarkEx and Starknet scalability without trusting operators.
Move models digital assets. Aptos and Sui use Move's resource-oriented programming, where assets are unique types that cannot be duplicated or lost, preventing the DAO hack-class vulnerabilities.
Evidence: The $3.6B Ronin Bridge hack exploited a centralized validator set, a failure Move's on-chain governance or Cairo's verifiable logic would have structurally prevented.
counter-argument
THE INCUMBENT ADVANTAGE
Counter-Argument: Network Effects and the EVM Monolith
The EVM's dominance creates a gravitational pull that makes purpose-built languages a hard sell.
EVM's network effects are the primary barrier. Developers, tooling, and capital concentrate on Solidity, creating a self-reinforcing ecosystem that new languages must overcome.
Security is a commodity. Auditors, formal verification tools like Certora, and battle-tested patterns like OpenZeppelin's libraries are EVM-native. Rebuilding this for a new DSL is a multi-year, high-cost endeavor.
Interoperability demands compromise. Cross-chain applications using LayerZero or Axelar must serialize logic for the lowest common denominator, often the EVM, negating a DSL's specialized advantages.
Evidence: Over 95% of Total Value Locked resides in EVM-compatible chains. Non-EVM chains like Solana and Cosmos maintain separate, fragmented developer ecosystems.
protocol-spotlight
BEYOND SOLIDITY
Protocol Spotlight: DSLs in Production
General-purpose languages like Solidity force developers to reinvent the wheel for common primitives, introducing security risks and inefficiency. Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs) bake in the constraints and optimizations for a single job.
01
The Problem: Reentrancy is a Universal Bug
Every new DeFi protocol must manually implement checks-effects-interactions, a pattern Solidity doesn't enforce. This leads to recurring exploits like the $60M+ Wormhole bridge hack.
- DSL Solution: A financial contract language can make reentrancy impossible by design.
- Real-World Analogy: Rust's ownership model vs. C's manual memory management.
> $3B
Lost to Reentrancy
0
Vulnerable in DSL
02
The Solution: Move for Asset-Centric Logic
Sui and Aptos use the Move language, where assets are native types with linear logic. You cannot double-spend or lose an asset; the compiler guarantees it.
- Key Benefit: Formal verification is tractable because the state model is constrained.
- Ecosystem Impact: Enables safe, complex DeFi like liquid staking and orderbook DEXs by default.
100%
Asset Safety
~10x
Audit Speed
03
The Solution: Cairo for Provable Computation
Starknet's Cairo is a DSL for writing provable programs (STARKs). It forces you to write in a way that a zero-knowledge proof can be generated.
- Key Benefit: Enables validity rollups and privacy applications like zkSNARKs-based DEXs.
- Trade-off: Developer experience is steeper, but the security model is mathematically enforced.
ZK-Proven
Execution
$1B+
TVL Secured
04
The Problem: Gas Optimization is Black Magic
Solidity developers waste months on manual gas golfing and inline assembly. This is a protocol-level inefficiency that leaks value to miners/validators.
- DSL Solution: A language with a cost model baked into its semantics (e.g., Fuel's Sway) lets the compiler optimize.
- Result: Predictable costs and ~50% lower fees for end-users without developer heroics.
-50%
Avg. Cost
10x
Dev Speed
05
The Entity: Sway & The Fuel Parallel VM
Fuel uses Sway, a DSL for the FuelVM. Its type system and compiler are built for parallel transaction execution, a paradigm Solidity cannot express.
- Key Benefit: Deterministic parallelism enables 10,000+ TPS without complex sharding.
- Architecture: Inspired by Rust, designed for maximal state access clarity to avoid conflicts.
10k+
Theoretical TPS
Parallel
By Design
06
The Future: DSLs for Intents & Cross-Chain
The next frontier is DSLs for declarative intents (like UniswapX and CowSwap) and secure cross-chain messaging (needed by LayerZero, Axelar).
- Key Benefit: A language for intents moves complexity off-chain to solvers, improving UX.
- Security Impact: A cross-chain DSL could formally verify bridge logic, preventing omnichain exploits.
Intent-Based
Next UX Leap
Formal Verify
Bridge Security
risk-analysis
WHY GENERAL-PURPOSE LANGUAGES FAIL
The Bear Case: Risks and Adoption Friction
EVM-centric development creates systemic risk and stifles innovation by forcing all logic into a one-size-fits-all model.
01
The EVM Monoculture is a Systemic Risk
Over $100B+ in TVL relies on a single, Turing-complete execution environment. This creates a massive attack surface where a vulnerability in Solidity or the EVM can cascade across the entire ecosystem.\n- Single Point of Failure: Exploits like reentrancy affect thousands of contracts.\n- Innovation Bottleneck: Complex logic (e.g., order books, high-frequency trading) is forced into an inefficient model.
100B+
TVL at Risk
1000s
Contracts Exposed
02
Gas Optimization is a Developer Tax
Up to 70% of developer effort is spent on gas golfing and manual optimization, not core business logic. This distorts contract architecture and introduces subtle bugs.\n- Resource Misallocation: Teams hire for Solidity quirks, not domain expertise.\n- Performance Ceiling: Inefficient opcode usage caps throughput and inflates costs for end-users.
70%
Dev Time Wasted
10-100x
Cost Inefficiency
03
Formal Verification is Impractical at Scale
Proving correctness for arbitrary Solidity is computationally infeasible. DSLs like Cairo (StarkNet) and Move (Aptos, Sui) bake invariants into the language itself.\n- Provable Security: Prevents entire classes of bugs (e.g., overflow, asset duplication) by design.\n- Audit Acceleration: Reduces review cycles from months to weeks for critical DeFi primitives.
90%
Bug Classes Eliminated
4x
Faster Audits
04
Adoption Friction: The Tooling Desert
New DSLs face a 2-3 year tooling gap versus Ethereum. Missing: mature debuggers, testing frameworks, oracle integrations, and wallet support.\n- Network Effects Trap: Developers choose familiarity over superior tech.\n- Integration Cost: Protocols like Aave or Uniswap require full-stack rewrites to port.
2-3 yrs
Tooling Lag
$10M+
Rewrite Cost
05
The Composability Illusion
EVM's greatest strength is also its weakness. Unrestricted composability between untrusted contracts creates unpredictable emergent behavior and $1B+ flash loan attack vectors.\n- State Contagion: A bug in one DeFi leg can drain interconnected protocols.\n- DSL Silos: Purpose-built chains (e.g., dYdX v4) sacrifice composability for performance and safety.
$1B+
Flash Loan Exploits
50+
Protocols Affected
06
Market Reality: Liquidity Follows Developers
Despite technical merits, 95%+ of DeFi liquidity remains on EVM chains. DSL-based ecosystems (StarkNet, Fuel, Move) struggle to bootstrap beyond $1B TVL.\n- Cold Start Problem: No liquidity -> no users -> no developers.\n- Risk Aversion: Institutional capital prefers the 'battle-tested' EVM, despite its flaws.
95%+
EVM Liquidity Share
<$1B
DSL TVL Ceiling
future-outlook
THE DSL IMPERATIVE
Future Outlook: The Multi-VM Stack
Smart contract platforms must adopt purpose-built, domain-specific languages to unlock the next generation of scalable, secure, and efficient applications.
General-purpose VMs are inefficient. The EVM's one-size-fits-all architecture forces all applications to pay for a bloated instruction set, creating unnecessary overhead for specialized tasks like DeFi math or NFT minting.
Domain-specific languages (DSLs) optimize execution. A DSL for DeFi, like FuelVM's native UTXO model, executes swaps and pools with fewer opcodes than Solidity. A DSL for gaming, inspired by Dojo's Cairo-based engine, handles state updates more efficiently.
The future stack is multi-VM. Applications will deploy logic across specialized execution layers—a DeFi module on a zk-rollup with a custom prover, an NFT ledger on a Move-based chain—orchestrated by a shared settlement layer like Celestia or EigenDA.
Evidence: Solana's Sealevel runtime demonstrates this principle internally; its parallel transaction processing is a form of DSL-like optimization that enables 50k+ TPS, a benchmark monolithic EVM L1s cannot approach.
takeaways
DSLS ARE NOT A LUXURY
Key Takeaways for Builders and Investors
General-purpose languages like Solidity are a liability for complex, high-value applications. Domain-specific languages (DSLs) are becoming a competitive necessity.
01
The Abstraction Tax of Solidity
Solidity's EVM-centric design forces developers to think in low-level opcodes, creating a cognitive and security gap. This abstraction tax results in predictable, expensive bugs.
- Vulnerability Surface: Reentrancy, integer overflows, and delegatecall exploits are endemic.
- Gas Inefficiency: Manual optimization is required for basic operations, wasting ~15-30% in gas costs versus a purpose-built DSL.
- Audit Burden: Every generic contract requires a full, expensive security review from scratch.
$2.8B+
Exploits (2023)
-30%
Gas Potential
02
Move: The Asset-Oriented Blueprint
Sui and Aptos use Move, a DSL built around first-class digital assets. Its type system and linear logic make double-spends and unauthorized creation impossible by construction.
- Built-in Safety: The borrow checker prevents dangling references; resources cannot be copied or lost.
- Formal Verification: Native support for mathematical proofs, enabling >90% reduction in critical bug surface.
- Parallel Execution: The type system enables static analysis for conflict-free transaction parallelization.
0
Major Exploits
10k+
TPS (Sui)
03
Noir: Zero-Knowledge as a Language
Aztec's Noir is a ZK DSL that abstracts away cryptographic complexity. Developers write private logic in a Rust-like syntax, and the compiler handles circuit generation and proof systems.
- Developer Onboarding: Reduces time to build a private app from months to weeks.
- Proof System Agnostic: Circuits compile to multiple backends (e.g., Barretenberg, PLONK).
- Auditability: Clean, readable code versus opaque, hand-rolled circuits in Circom.
100x
Faster Dev
~10ms
Proof Time
04
Fuel's Sway: Predicate-Centric Design
Fuel's Sway language treats predicates (conditions for spending) as a fundamental primitive. This aligns with UTXO-model efficiency and enables unparalleled parallel execution and state minimization.
- Deterministic Fees: Transaction costs are predictable and minimal due to static analysis.
- Tooling Superiority: The Fuel Toolchain (Forc) provides a unified experience rivaling modern software stacks.
- Modular Future-Proofing: The language is designed for a modular execution layer, avoiding monolithic chain bloat.
~0.001s
Block Time
10k+
TPS Target
05
The Investment Thesis: DSLs as Moats
A protocol's language is its deepest technical moat. It dictates developer mindshare, security posture, and long-term scalability. Investing in a general-purpose chain is a bet on legacy tech.
- Ecosystem Lock-in: Developers trained in a DSL (e.g., Move) build exclusively for its ecosystem.
- Reduced Dilution: High-quality, secure apps attract sustainable TVL, not mercenary capital.
- Innovation Pace: Teams can ship protocol-level upgrades (e.g., new primitives) without breaking changes.
$100M+
Dev Grants
5-10y
Architecture Lead
06
The Builder's Mandate: Choose Your Constraint
Stop fighting your toolchain. Select a DSL that bakes your core requirement into its type system: Move for assets, Noir for privacy, Sway for parallel execution, Cairo (StarkNet) for provability.
- Eliminate Whole Bug Classes: Let the compiler enforce security invariants you'd manually check.
- Recruit Better Talent: Specialized languages attract engineers who care about correctness.
- Win on UX: Cheaper, faster, safer applications are a product feature, not an afterthought.
-90%
Audit Scope
10x
Dev Velocity
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