Rust vs Move for Next-Generation Smart Contracts

Rust excels at building high-throughput, general-purpose blockchains due to its zero-cost abstractions and fine-grained control over memory and concurrency. For example, Solana's Sealevel runtime, built in Rust, enables its theoretical peak of 65,000 TPS by allowing parallel transaction execution. This ecosystem power extends to major L1s like Solana, NEAR, and Polkadot's Substrate, and critical infrastructure like the Cosmos IBC and Helius RPCs. Its mature tooling (cargo, rust-analyzer) and vast open-source library (crates.io) significantly accelerate development for teams familiar with systems programming.

Move takes a fundamentally different, blockchain-native approach by embedding resource-oriented semantics directly into the language. This results in a trade-off: less general-purpose flexibility but provably safer digital asset handling. Move's bytecode verifier enforces strict rules—assets cannot be duplicated or accidentally destroyed—making it the foundation for secure DeFi protocols. This is evidenced by Sui's parallel execution achieving over 297,000 TPS in controlled tests and Aptos' use in high-value environments like Aptos Names and Pontem Network's wallets. Its primary adoption is within the Move-based ecosystems (Sui, Aptos, 0L).

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing performance, leveraging a vast existing ecosystem, and building complex, general-purpose state machines, choose Rust. It's the proven choice for L1/L2 core development. If you prioritize mathematical correctness for asset-heavy applications, want built-in security guarantees against reentrancy and overflow, and are building within a Move-centric stack, choose Move. Your decision ultimately hinges on whether you need a versatile systems language adapted for blockchains or a specialized tool designed from the ground up for digital assets.

Rust excels at providing a mature, battle-tested ecosystem for building high-performance, secure blockchain clients and smart contracts because of its zero-cost abstractions, fearless concurrency, and the rigorous compiler that prevents entire classes of bugs. For example, Solana's Sealevel runtime, built with Rust, achieves over 2,000 TPS for basic transfers and supports complex DeFi protocols like Raydium and Jupiter, demonstrating its capacity for high-throughput, low-latency applications. Its widespread adoption in foundational infrastructure like Polkadot's Substrate and NEAR Protocol provides a vast library of crates and developer tools, accelerating development cycles.

Move takes a fundamentally different approach by being a domain-specific language designed from the ground up for digital assets, with first-class resource types that cannot be copied or implicitly discarded. This results in a trade-off: while it offers superior, provable safety for asset-oriented logic—as seen in Aptos and Sui's parallel execution engines achieving over 100,000 TPS in controlled benchmarks—it comes with a smaller, more specialized ecosystem. Its design inherently prevents reentrancy attacks and ensures strict resource conservation, but developers must operate within its more constrained, purpose-built paradigm, limiting access to general-purpose libraries.

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing developer velocity and leveraging a mature, general-purpose ecosystem for a broad range of dApp logic (DeFi, NFTs, Gaming) on high-performance chains, choose Rust. If you prioritize mathematical correctness and absolute safety for asset-centric operations (e.g., a decentralized exchange, stablecoin, or asset management protocol) and are building on a Move-native chain like Aptos or Sui, choose Move. The decision ultimately hinges on whether you value the flexibility and network effects of a mainstream language or the built-in, formal guarantees of a blockchain-native one.