EVM Permission Errors operate on a principle of explicit, transaction-level validation. Smart contracts must explicitly check conditions (e.g., require(msg.sender == owner)) and revert if they fail. This model, used by giants like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon, offers immense flexibility and is battle-tested, securing over $50B in DeFi TVL. Its strength is a vast, composable ecosystem of tools like OpenZeppelin's libraries and security patterns familiar to millions of developers.
LABS
Comparisons
EVM Permission Errors vs Move Access Control
A technical analysis comparing the reactive, error-based permission model of the EVM with the proactive, resource-centric access control of Move. Evaluates security, developer experience, and suitability for high-value applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Two Philosophies of On-Chain Security
Ethereum's EVM and Move-based chains like Aptos and Sui represent fundamentally different approaches to securing on-chain assets and logic.
Move Access Control embeds security into the asset model itself through a resource-oriented paradigm. Assets are non-copiable, non-droppable types with ownership and permissions defined by the language, not just contract logic. This native safety, pioneered by Aptos and Sui, aims to eliminate entire classes of vulnerabilities like reentrancy and accidental loss. The trade-off is a steeper learning curve and a less mature tooling ecosystem compared to the EVM's decade-long head start.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, ecosystem size, and proven composability for DeFi or NFTs, the EVM's permission error model is the pragmatic choice. If you prioritize mathematically-guaranteed asset safety and are building novel, high-value financial primitives where security is non-negotiable, Move's native access control offers a fundamentally stronger foundation.
tldr-summary
EVM Permission Errors vs Move Access Control
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocol architects choosing a security model.
01
EVM: Flexible & Battle-Tested
Explicit, function-level checks: Permissions are enforced via require() or custom modifiers (e.g., OpenZeppelin's Ownable). This offers granular control and is understood by millions of Solidity developers. Massive ecosystem: Tools like Slither, MythX, and Tenderly are built specifically to audit and debug these patterns. This matters for rapid prototyping and integrating with established DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap V3.
02
EVM: The Gas-Cost Trade-off
Runtime overhead: Every require() statement consumes gas, making complex permission logic expensive. Visibility pitfalls: Relying on public/private keywords is a compiler hint, not a runtime guarantee. Audit-intensive: Security hinges on manual review of custom logic, leading to high-profile exploits (e.g., access control bugs constitute ~20% of major hacks). This matters for cost-sensitive applications where every gas unit counts.
03
Move: Resource-Oriented Security
Object-capability model: Access is tied to ownership of a resource (a non-copyable struct). If you don't hold the key, you cannot call the function. Built-in linear types: Prevents double-spending and unauthorized duplication by default. This matters for financial primitives and NFTs where asset integrity is paramount, as seen in Sui's objects and Aptos' Token standard.
04
Move: Learning Curve & Ecosystem
Paradigm shift: Developers must think in terms of resource movement and global storage, which is less intuitive than contract-state models. Younger tooling: While Move Prover offers formal verification, ecosystem tools (debuggers, block explorers) are less mature than EVM's. This matters for teams with deep Solidity experience or those requiring immediate integration with EVM-centric oracles and bridges.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: EVM vs Move Access Control
Direct comparison of access control mechanisms, security models, and developer experience.
| Metric | EVM (Solidity) | Move (Aptos/Sui) |
|---|---|---|
Access Control Primitive | Function Modifiers & Ownable | Native Module & Object Capabilities |
Default Visibility | Public | Private |
Resource-Oriented Model | ||
Linear Type System | ||
Native Asset Standard | ERC-20, ERC-721 | Coin, Object |
Formal Verification Support | Limited (e.g., Certora) | Native (Move Prover) |
Typical Access Bug | Reentrancy, Unchecked Call | Invalid Capability Use |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL COMPARISON
EVM Permission Errors vs Move Access Control
A data-driven breakdown of two dominant smart contract security models. EVM uses runtime revert errors, while Move enforces compile-time linear types and capabilities.
01
EVM: Developer Familiarity & Ecosystem
Massive developer adoption: Over 4M+ EVM developers globally using Solidity/Vyper. This leads to extensive tooling (Hardhat, Foundry), libraries (OpenZeppelin), and auditing expertise. Critical for teams prioritizing speed-to-market and leveraging existing talent.
4M+
Devs
100+
Live Chains
03
Move: Asset Safety & Compile-Time Guarantees
Linear type system: Resources cannot be copied or implicitly discarded, preventing double-spends and loss. Access is controlled via key abilities and store capabilities, enforced at compile time. This eliminates entire classes of exploits (e.g., reentrancy) common in EVM, as seen in Sui and Aptos.
0
Reentrancy Bugs
05
EVM Con: Runtime Overhead & Silent Failures
Gas waste on revert: Failed permission checks consume all gas up to the revert point. Errors like Ownable: caller is not the owner are opaque and only detectable through testing/fuzzing. This leads to expensive post-mortems and requires heavy reliance on external auditing firms.
06
Move Con: Steeper Learning Curve & Smaller Ecosystem
Paradigm shift required: Developers must learn linear types, capabilities, and the module system. The tooling (Move CLI, Sui Client) is less mature than EVM's, and cross-chain bridges (e.g., Wormhole) have less liquidity. A significant barrier for teams with tight deadlines.
<50K
Move Devs
pros-cons-b
EVM Permission Errors vs. Move's Resource Model
Move Access Control: Pros and Cons
A technical comparison of access control paradigms for CTOs and architects evaluating security and developer experience.
01
EVM: Flexibility & Ecosystem
Explicit, contract-level control: Permissions are managed via custom logic (e.g., OpenZeppelin's Ownable, AccessControl). This allows for granular, application-specific rules. Massive tooling support: Frameworks like Hardhat and Foundry, and libraries like Solmate, provide battle-tested patterns. This matters for teams needing to implement complex, novel governance models or integrate with existing DeFi standards like ERC-20/721.
02
EVM: The Permission Error Risk
Runtime reverts are the only guard: Access violations (e.g., unauthorized onlyOwner call) are caught at execution time, causing a transaction revert and gas waste. Silent bugs are common: Missing modifiers or flawed logic can lead to catastrophic exploits, as seen in hacks involving privileged functions. This matters for protocols where a single admin key compromise or logic flaw can drain millions, requiring extreme audit diligence.
03
Move: Built-in Resource Safety
Linear type system enforces ownership: Assets are non-copyable, non-droppable resources stored directly in account storage. Unauthorized transfer or duplication is impossible at the VM level. Compile-time guarantees: Invalid operations (like double-spending a coin) are rejected during compilation, not at runtime. This matters for financial primitives and NFTs where asset integrity is non-negotiable, as seen in Sui's Coin and Aptos' Token standards.
04
Move: Learning Curve & Interop Limits
Paradigm shift for EVM devs: Requires thinking in terms of resource moves and explicit capabilities rather than storage variables and modifiers. Ecosystem immaturity: Tooling (IDEs, debuggers, testing frameworks) is less mature than EVM's, and cross-chain interoperability standards are still emerging. This matters for teams on tight timelines or those requiring deep integration with the established EVM DeFi stack (e.g., Chainlink, Uniswap).
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose EVM vs Move Access Control
EVM for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for composability and liquidity.
Strengths: Unmatched ecosystem of battle-tested, audited contracts (e.g., Uniswap V3, Aave, Compound). High TVL and deep liquidity pools. Standardized tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) and security patterns (OpenZeppelin) reduce development time. ERC-20/721 standards ensure seamless integration with existing wallets and oracles like Chainlink.
Weaknesses: Access control is procedural, relying on require() statements and modifiers, which can lead to complex, error-prone permission logic and reentrancy risks if not meticulously audited.
Move for DeFi
Verdict: Superior for novel, secure financial primitives. Strengths: Resource-oriented model treats assets as non-copyable, non-droppable objects, eliminating accidental loss or duplication. Formal verification is native due to Move's linear type system and bytecode verifier. Projects like Aptos and Sui demonstrate high TPS (>10k) and sub-second finality, ideal for high-frequency DeFi. Custom resource types enable safer, more expressive financial instruments. Weaknesses: Smaller ecosystem, less liquidity, and fewer integrated oracles. Requires learning a new paradigm beyond Solidity.
EVM VS MOVE
Technical Deep Dive: Implementation and Attack Vectors
A technical comparison of how EVM's permission errors and Move's access control models fundamentally differ in implementation, security guarantees, and associated attack surfaces.
Move's resource model inherently prevents classic reentrancy attacks by design. Resources (like Coin) are linear types that cannot be duplicated or implicitly discarded; they must be explicitly moved. This eliminates the "call-withdrawal" pattern where a contract's state is read mid-execution. On the EVM, reentrancy is a major risk (e.g., The DAO hack) requiring manual guards like Checks-Effects-Interactions. Move's type system enforces that a resource is not accessible during a cross-module call, making the attack vector structurally impossible without complex, novel exploits.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Choosing Your Security Foundation
A data-driven breakdown of EVM's permission error model versus Move's access control to guide your core security architecture.
EVM Permission Errors excel at providing a familiar, battle-tested security model for established ecosystems. This approach leverages require(), revert(), and custom error codes to enforce conditions, offering developers granular control and clear audit trails. Its strength is the massive tooling and developer mindshare, with over $60B in TVL secured by this pattern across protocols like Aave and Uniswap. However, this flexibility can lead to fragmented security practices and vulnerabilities from improper checks.
Move Access Control takes a fundamentally different approach by baking security into the language itself. Through its linear type system and key/store abilities, Move enforces resource scarcity and explicit ownership at the bytecode level. This results in a trade-off: superior protection against reentrancy and asset duplication by design, as seen in Sui and Aptos, but a steeper learning curve and less flexibility for unconventional asset models compared to the EVM's generality.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, interoperability, and leveraging the vast Ethereum ecosystem's tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) and liquidity, choose the EVM permission model. If you prioritize mathematically provable security for digital assets, need formal verification, and are building a new financial primitive where asset integrity is non-negotiable, choose Move's native access control. For CTOs, the decision hinges on whether you value the network effects of the EVM or the architectural guarantees of Move for your core value layer.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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