Solidity vs Move for Batch Transaction Execution in Wallets

Solidity excels at interoperability and developer adoption because of its deep integration with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) ecosystem. For example, protocols like Safe (Gnosis Safe) leverage Solidity's mature tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) and standards (ERC-4337 for Account Abstraction) to batch user operations, securing over $40B in TVL. Its deterministic gas model allows for precise fee estimation crucial for multi-op transactions.

Move takes a different approach by enforcing strict resource semantics and linear types at the language level. This results in superior security guarantees against reentrancy and asset duplication by default, as demonstrated by Sui and Aptos wallets. The trade-off is a smaller, though growing, ecosystem and a steeper learning curve for developers accustomed to the EVM stack.

The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate ecosystem leverage, extensive tooling, and EVM compatibility, choose Solidity to build on networks like Polygon, Arbitrum, or Base. If you prioritize maximum security for asset-centric logic and are building on a Move-native chain (Sui, Aptos), choose Move. The decision often hinges on whether you are extending an existing EVM wallet stack or architecting a new, security-first system on a next-generation L1.

Solidity excels at ecosystem integration and developer velocity because of its massive, mature network effects. For example, the Ethereum and EVM-compatible L2 ecosystem (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) collectively holds over $40B in TVL, providing immediate access to established wallet SDKs (like WalletConnect), battle-tested auditing firms, and a vast pool of developers. Batch transaction patterns using multicall contracts are a standard, well-understood primitive, enabling efficient bundling of actions like token approvals and swaps within a single user signature.

Move takes a fundamentally different approach by enforcing strict resource semantics and bytecode verification at the virtual machine level. This results in a trade-off: superior security against reentrancy and overflow bugs by design, but a steeper initial learning curve and a smaller, though rapidly growing, ecosystem (Sui, Aptos). Move's object-centric model and explicit resource ownership make parallel execution of independent transactions within a batch inherently safer and more efficient, a key advantage for high-throughput wallet operations.

The key trade-off: If your priority is launching quickly within the dominant DeFi and wallet ecosystem with a large talent pool, choose Solidity on an EVM chain. If you prioritize architectural safety, parallel execution for scale, and are building a new application where you can define the asset standards, choose Move on Sui or Aptos. For wallet-specific batch execution, Move's native support for transaction composability (tx_context) offers a cleaner paradigm versus EVM's contract-based multicall workarounds.