How to Migrate Products to Non-EVM Runtimes

Migrating a product from an Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) chain to a non-EVM runtime is a fundamental architectural shift, not a simple port. While EVM chains like Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum share a common execution environment and tooling (Solidity, Vyper, Hardhat), non-EVM ecosystems operate on different core principles. These include distinct virtual machines (e.g., Solana's Sealevel, Cosmos CosmWasm), consensus mechanisms, state models, and fee structures. Understanding these foundational differences is the critical first step before writing a single line of new code.

The primary technical challenge lies in translating smart contract logic and application state. A Solidity contract storing a mapping of user balances cannot be directly copied to a Rust-based CosmWasm contract. You must redesign the data structures and business logic to fit the new runtime's execution model. For instance, Solana's programming model is heavily oriented around account-based state passed explicitly to programs, requiring a different mental model for data access and validation compared to the EVM's globally accessible contract storage.

Your migration strategy must also encompass the entire application stack. This includes front-end integration with new RPC providers and wallets (like Phantom for Solana or Keplr for Cosmos), indexers, oracles, and bridging infrastructure for asset transfer. A phased approach is often best: start by deploying a minimum viable product (MVP) version on the new chain, establish secure cross-chain messaging for user onboarding, and gradually migrate liquidity and users while maintaining the original deployment during a transition period. Tools like the Wormhole generic messaging protocol or Axelar can facilitate this cross-chain communication.

Choosing the right non-EVM chain depends on your product's needs. Solana offers high throughput and low fees for transaction-heavy applications like DeFi and gaming. The Cosmos ecosystem, with its Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol, is ideal for app-specific blockchains requiring sovereignty. Fuel Network focuses on parallel transaction execution for ultra-high scalability. Evaluate each chain's developer tooling, library maturity, security audit landscape, and community support before committing.

Finally, rigorous testing and security auditing are paramount. You are not just auditing your new contract code but the novel interaction patterns of a different runtime. Utilize chain-specific testing frameworks (like solana-test-validator or cosmwasm-vm), conduct extensive integration tests, and engage auditors familiar with the target environment. A successful migration unlocks new performance frontiers and user bases but demands a deliberate, well-researched engineering process from the ground up.

The first prerequisite is a deep understanding of the target runtime's architecture. Non-EVM runtimes like Solana, CosmWasm, or Aptos Move have fundamentally different execution models. Solana uses a parallelizable, stateless execution model with explicit account state management. CosmWasm compiles to WebAssembly and runs within the Cosmos SDK's ABCI. Move employs a resource-oriented programming model with strict linear types. You must move beyond the EVM's global state trie and sequential execution mindset.

Next, you need to set up the correct toolchain. This involves installing the specific language compilers (e.g., rustc for Solana/Rust, cargo for CosmWasm, the Move CLI for Aptos/Sui) and the chain's CLI or SDK. You should also configure a local development network or testnet faucet. For example, Solana development requires the solana-test-validator, while CosmWasm uses wasmd or the cosmjs library for testing. Familiarize yourself with the new build, test, and deployment scripts.

A critical technical shift is rethinking state and storage. In the EVM, contract storage is a simple key-value store accessed via sload/sstore. Non-EVM runtimes often have more complex or constrained models. On Solana, data is stored in externally owned Account structures with size limits, requiring careful serialization with Borsh or bincode. In Move, resources are stored directly in a user's account and cannot be copied or implicitly discarded. You must design your data structures and access patterns from scratch.

You must also adapt to the new transaction and fee model. EVM uses a gas metering system for computation and storage. Solana uses a prioritization fee and requires compute unit budgets. Cosmos chains have gas prices denominated in the native token. Furthermore, transaction construction differs significantly; Solana transactions include multiple instructions and required account signatures, while Cosmos uses Protobuf-encoded messages. Understanding these mechanics is essential for estimating costs and ensuring user transactions succeed.

Finally, audit your existing product's logic for non-EVM compatibility. Identify dependencies on EVM-specific precompiles (e.g., ecrecover), opcodes, or hardcoded addresses. Smart contract upgrade patterns, proxy architectures, and oracle integrations will need reimplementation. Plan for new security considerations: for instance, Solana's parallel execution introduces new race condition risks, while Move's bytecode verifier prevents entire classes of vulnerabilities. A thorough audit ensures the migration addresses functionality and security in the new context.

The most fundamental difference is the execution environment. The EVM is a single-threaded, stateful machine where smart contract execution is sequential and paid for via gas. Non-EVM runtimes like Solana's Sealevel runtime are parallelized, requiring developers to explicitly declare which state accounts a transaction will modify to avoid conflicts. This shift from an implicit, gas-based concurrency model to an explicit, parallel one demands a complete re-architecture of transaction logic and state management.

Account and state models also diverge sharply. The EVM uses a unified world state trie where contracts own their storage. In contrast, Solana uses an external account model where data accounts are separate from program (contract) accounts, and the program is stateless. On Cosmos SDK chains, state is managed through modules and a multistore. Migrating requires mapping your application's data structures to these new paradigms, often involving significant data schema redesign and off-chain indexing strategies.

Development tooling and languages represent a major practical hurdle. While Ethereum relies on Solidity/Vyper and toolchains like Hardhat/Foundry, you must adopt new ecosystems. For Solana, you write programs in Rust or C using the Anchor framework. Cosmos chains are typically built with Go and Ignite CLI. Starknet uses Cairo. This necessitates learning new languages, debugging workflows, testing frameworks, and deployment pipelines, impacting your entire development lifecycle.

Consensus and finality mechanisms affect product design. Ethereum's Nakamoto consensus (moving to Gasper) has probabilistic finality. Many alternative L1s and L2s use Tendermint BFT (deterministic finality in ~1-2 seconds) or other optimized consensus algorithms. Faster finality allows for different user experience designs, but you must also handle potential chain reorganizations appropriately if your product is on a probabilistic chain, which differs from the EVM-centric assumptions.

Finally, the economic and security model changes. Gas fees are replaced by different fee markets (e.g., Solana's priority fees, Cosmos' minimum gas prices) or even no fees for users (as in some appchain models). Security assumptions shift from Ethereum's massive validator set to the security of a new proof-of-stake validator set, a shared sequencer, or a validity proof system. Your product's economic incentives and security parameters must be recalibrated for this new environment.

Migrating a product from an EVM-compatible chain to a non-EVM runtime is a fundamental architectural shift, not a simple port. The core challenge is the state migration—transferring the persistent data that defines your application's current condition, such as user balances, NFT ownership, or governance votes. Unlike forking an EVM chain where bytecode is compatible, moving to runtimes like Solana (Sealevel), Cosmos (CosmWasm), or Fuel (FuelVM) requires a bespoke strategy because their data models, account structures, and execution environments are fundamentally different. A successful migration preserves user assets and application logic while leveraging the new chain's performance benefits.

The first step is a comprehensive state audit and mapping. You must catalog every piece of on-chain state from your EVM contracts: storage variables, mappings, and event logs. This data must then be mapped to equivalent structures in the target runtime. For example, Solana uses Program Derived Addresses (PDAs) and external accounts holding data in distinct accounts, contrasting sharply with Ethereum's unified contract storage. A mapping from an EVM mapping(address => uint256) balances to Solana would involve creating or identifying a dedicated account per user to hold their balance data. Tools for this phase include block explorers, custom scripts using web3.py or ethers.js, and the target chain's SDKs to prototype new data layouts.

Execution of the migration typically follows a multi-phase process. First, a snapshot of the EVM state is taken at a specific block height, often coordinated with a protocol pause. Next, a one-way bridge or minting contract is deployed on the new chain. This contract, authorized by the project's multi-sig, validates proofs of ownership from the old chain and mints corresponding assets or initializes state on the new one. For complex state like AMM pool reserves, this involves calculating and writing the final snapshot values directly into the new runtime's storage. It's critical that the old contracts are permanently frozen or have minting/burning disabled to prevent double-spends or state divergence after the snapshot.

Technical implementation requires building verification and data availability mechanisms. The migration validator on the new chain must cryptographically verify that the claimed old-chain state is correct. This can be done via light client verification (e.g., using IBC for Cosmos), oracle networks reporting the final block hash, or by trusting a signed attestation from the project's known keys. The raw state snapshot data should be made permanently available, often stored on decentralized storage like Arweave or IPFS, with its content identifier (CID) recorded on-chain. This provides transparency and allows users to independently verify the migration's integrity.

Post-migration, you must manage user onboarding and legacy support. Front-ends and indexers need to switch endpoints to the new RPC. You'll likely run a wrapping service for a period where legacy EVM assets can be custodially held and wrapped versions are issued on the new chain. Communication is key: provide clear tools for users to claim new assets, document the final EVM block for the snapshot, and maintain open-source the migration scripts for auditability. The goal is a seamless transition where users retain access and value, and the application gains the scalability or feature set of its new non-EVM home.

Migrating your product to a non-EVM runtime like Solana, CosmWasm, or Fuel is not a simple port. It's a fundamental architectural shift. The core takeaways are: - Architecture First: Design for the new environment's strengths (e.g., parallel execution, native account model). - Toolchain Investment: Embrace new SDKs, testing frameworks, and local development environments. - Security Re-audit: Treat the new codebase as a fresh deployment requiring a full security audit from experts familiar with the target runtime. The initial development cost is higher, but the long-term benefits in performance, user experience, and access to new ecosystems can be substantial.

Your immediate next step should be to build a minimal viable product (MVP) on the target chain. Don't migrate your entire monolithic dApp at once. Identify a core, self-contained feature—like a token swap, a simple NFT mint, or a single governance action—and implement it end-to-end. This MVP will validate your tooling choices, reveal unforeseen development hurdles, and provide a concrete artifact for security review. Use this process to create your team's internal playbook for development, testing, and deployment on the new stack.

Finally, engage with the new ecosystem early and often. Participate in developer forums, attend virtual hackathons, and contribute to open-source tooling. Building on a non-EVM chain often means closer collaboration with the core protocol developers. Resources like the Solana Cookbook, CosmWasm Documentation, and Fuel Network Book are essential. By integrating into the community, you gain insights into best practices and future protocol upgrades, ensuring your migrated product remains competitive and secure in its new home.