How to Plan Delivery Timelines on Non-EVM Blockchains

Planning a development timeline for a non-EVM blockchain requires a fundamentally different approach than for Ethereum or its Layer 2s. While EVM development benefits from mature tooling, extensive documentation, and a vast pool of experienced developers, non-EVM ecosystems like Solana (Rust), Cosmos SDK (Go), and Starknet (Cairo) present unique challenges. Key differences include unfamiliar programming paradigms, less battle-tested frameworks, and a steeper learning curve for the underlying virtual machine architecture. Accurate timeline estimation must account for these ecosystem-specific hurdles from day one.

The first phase, Discovery and Tooling Assessment, typically adds 2-4 weeks to a project's start. This involves evaluating the target chain's primary language (e.g., Rust for Solana, Move for Aptos/Sui), its dominant smart contract framework (e.g., Anchor for Solana), and the availability of essential infrastructure like oracles, indexers, and wallets. For instance, developing on Cosmos requires understanding the ABCI and the specific app chain's custom modules. This phase is critical; underestimating it leads to significant mid-project delays as teams discover missing tooling or undocumented behaviors.

Core development timelines diverge significantly based on the chain's maturity. Building a simple token or NFT contract on a mature chain like Solana might take 3-5 weeks for an experienced Rust developer. However, implementing complex DeFi logic on a newer ecosystem like a Cosmos app-chain or a zk-rollup could span 2-4 months. Factors impacting this include: the need to write custom pallets or modules, implementing cryptographic primitives not available in standard libraries, and the scarcity of reference implementations for advanced patterns like cross-chain validation or privacy features.

Testing and security auditing are often the most unpredictable timeline components. While EVM has established security patterns and auditing firms, non-EVM audits can be 30-50% more time-consuming and costly due to fewer experts. Plan for a minimum of 4-6 weeks for a professional audit post-development, plus 2-3 weeks for remediation. Extensive local testing and testnet deployment are non-negotiable; for chains like Starknet, you must factor in time for the sequencer to process your transactions, which can slow iteration cycles compared to forking a local Ethereum node.

A realistic timeline should include substantial buffers. A common framework is to take your initial estimate for each phase (Discovery, Development, Testing/Audit, Mainnet Launch) and add a 30-40% contingency. For a medium-complexity DApp on a non-EVM chain, a 6-month timeline from kickoff to mainnet is a prudent starting point. Use project management tools like Gantt charts or Agile sprints to track progress against these milestones, clearly documenting assumptions and newly discovered dependencies as you navigate the less-charted territory of non-EVM development.

Planning a project timeline for a non-EVM chain like Solana, Cosmos, or Polkadot differs significantly from Ethereum-based development. The primary variables are the learning curve for a new programming model (e.g., Rust for Solana, Go for Cosmos SDK), the maturity of core development tools (CLIs, localnets, testing frameworks), and the availability of audited code libraries. Underestimating the time needed to master a new virtual machine architecture and its security paradigms is the most common cause of schedule slippage.

Begin by conducting a technology spike. Allocate 1-2 weeks for the team to build a simple proof-of-concept, such as a basic token transfer or a single smart contract call. This hands-on phase reveals practical hurdles with the chain's transaction lifecycle, fee estimation, block finality, and state querying. Document the gaps in tooling you encounter, as these will directly impact your velocity. For instance, if the chain lacks a robust mainnet fork for testing, you must budget time to build more comprehensive mock environments.

Your team composition dictates timeline risk. A team experienced in Rust but new to Solana's programming model will progress faster than a team learning both simultaneously. Assess if you need to hire for specific chain expertise or if upskilling existing developers is feasible. Factor in time for engineers to study chain-specific documentation, such as Solana's Sealevel parallel runtime or Cosmos' IBC protocol. Cross-functional knowledge in systems programming or distributed systems is highly valuable for non-EVM work.

Break down the project using the chain's natural primitives, not Ethereum analogs. For a Cosmos SDK chain, timeline phases might be: 1) Setting up the custom app.go and genesis, 2) Implementing and testing Keepers and MsgServer logic, 3) Integrating IBC channels and relayers, 4) Building custom queries and CLI commands. Each phase depends on the stability of the chain's core modules and the quality of its protobuf definitions and code generation tools. Always add a buffer for upstream dependency updates that may introduce breaking changes.

Finally, integrate continuous testing and deployment pipelines early. Non-EVM chains often have unique requirements for building, optimizing (e.g., Solana's BPF bytecode), and deploying programs. Automating build checks for a Rust-based contract and setting up a CI job to run tests against a local validator node are critical path items. The timeline must account for creating these foundational DevOps workflows, as they are less likely to be available as pre-made solutions compared to the EVM ecosystem.

The primary factor affecting timelines is the target chain's consensus mechanism. Proof-of-Stake (PoS) networks like Solana, Cosmos, or Algorand have different finality times and block production models than Ethereum's L1 or L2s. A project built for a fast, single-slot finality chain like Solana will have different deployment and testing cycles compared to one targeting a Cosmos app-chain with its own customizable consensus. Understanding the block time, finality guarantees, and validator set dynamics is the first step in accurate scheduling.

Development tooling maturity directly impacts velocity. While Ethereum has a mature suite of tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and extensive OpenZeppelin libraries, non-EVM ecosystems vary widely. Building on Solana requires proficiency with the Rust-based Anchor framework and the Solana CLI. Developing on Cosmos means working with Cosmos SDK, Ignite CLI, and CometBFT. For Polkadot, you'll use Substrate and the Polkadot.js API. Each toolchain has its own learning curve, debugging processes, and local testing environment setup, which must be accounted for in the planning phase.

Smart contract architecture paradigms differ significantly. Non-EVM chains often don't use the Ethereum model of bundled contract code and state. On Solana, programs are executable-only, with data accounts stored separately, influencing how you design and test state interactions. Cosmos SDK modules are built in Go as part of the chain's binary. These architectural differences affect how you modularize development tasks, estimate code complexity, and plan for security audits, which may require auditors with chain-specific expertise.

Ecosystem dependencies and infrastructure readiness are critical timeline drivers. Assess the availability of essential services: oracles (like Pyth or Switchboard), cross-chain bridges (Wormhole, IBC), indexers (The Graph, SubQuery), and RPC node providers. A lack of robust, reliable infrastructure for your chosen chain can lead to unexpected delays as you may need to build or contribute to these components yourself. Always validate the existence and stability of these dependencies during the project scoping phase.

Finally, factor in the governance and upgrade processes specific to the chain. Updating a CosmWasm contract on a Cosmos chain may involve a governance proposal and validator voting, adding weeks to a timeline. Some chains, like Polkadot, have sophisticated runtime upgrade mechanisms without hard forks. Understanding the path from code completion to mainnet deployment—including any mandatory testing on testnets, incentivized testnets, or canary networks—is essential for setting realistic client expectations and project milestones.

Planning a delivery timeline for a non-EVM chain like Solana, Cosmos, or Polkadot differs significantly from Ethereum-based development. The primary risk factor is ecosystem maturity. While EVM tooling (Hardhat, Foundry, OpenZeppelin) is standardized, non-EVM ecosystems often have less battle-tested frameworks, fewer code examples, and smaller developer communities. This directly impacts the research and scoping phase, which can take 2-4x longer than for an equivalent EVM project. You must budget time for learning new programming models (e.g., Solana's Rust-based programs, Cosmos SDK's Go modules) and understanding chain-specific concepts like Solana's account model or Cosmos' IBC.

Technical complexity introduces major timeline risks. Architectural differences force fundamental redesigns. For instance, on Solana, you cannot store arbitrary data on-chain; data must fit into fixed-size accounts, requiring careful upfront design. On Cosmos, you must decide whether to build a standalone application-specific blockchain (appchain) or a smart contract within an existing zone, each with vastly different development and deployment timelines. Tooling and infrastructure gaps are common; you may need to build custom indexers, oracles, or wallet integrations that are readily available on Ethereum. Always prototype core logic first to validate assumptions before committing to a full timeline.

Mitigation starts with phased delivery and extensive prototyping. Break the project into clear milestones: 1) Proof-of-Concept (2-4 weeks): Build a minimal on-chain program to test the core transaction flow and identify show-stoppers. 2) Core Development: Allocate buffer time (20-30%) for debugging chain-specific issues like Solana's compute unit limits or Cosmos' gas mechanics. 3) Testing and Audit: Factor in longer cycles, as audit firms may have less experience with your target chain. Use ecosystem-specific resources like Solana Cookbook, Cosmos Academy, and official Discord channels for accelerated troubleshooting. Finally, maintain a flexible timeline by identifying features that can be moved to a post-MVP phase if development hits unforeseen obstacles.

Estimating software delivery on Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) chains benefits from mature tools, extensive documentation, and a large pool of developer experience. When planning for non-EVM ecosystems like Solana, Cosmos, Polkadot, or Aptos, you must account for a different set of variables. Key factors include the availability of audited libraries, the maturity of local development environments, the complexity of the chain's execution model (e.g., parallel execution vs. sequential), and the learning curve for new programming languages like Rust or Move. A realistic framework starts by identifying these ecosystem-specific constraints.

The first step is a technical discovery phase. Break down your project's requirements and map them to the target chain's capabilities. For a Solana program, this involves understanding Account models, Cross-Program Invocations (CPI), and the lack of persistent on-chain storage. On Cosmos, you must plan for Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) integration and custom CometBFT consensus parameters. Create a checklist: - Availability of a reliable testnet and faucet - State of the primary SDK (e.g., @solana/web3.js, cosmjs) - Existence of critical infrastructure like indexers or oracles - Known bugs or limitations in the core protocol documented by other teams.

Next, incorporate learning and experimentation buffers. Even for experienced developers, building on a new architecture requires ramp-up time. Allocate 20-30% of your initial timeline for proof-of-concept development and environment setup. For instance, debugging a Move module on Aptos requires understanding the resource-oriented model, which differs fundamentally from Solidity's ownership system. Use this phase to validate assumptions about transaction costs, finality times, and gas mechanics, which can be unpredictable on newer networks. Documenting these findings is crucial for refining future estimates.

Finally, adopt an iterative estimation model. Instead of a single monolithic timeline, break the project into phases (Discovery, Core Development, Testing/QA, Audit, Mainnet Deployment) and estimate each separately, adding contingency based on phase risk. For the core development phase, use story point estimation relative to a known EVM task. If implementing an ERC-20 equivalent takes 5 story points on Ethereum, the same feature on a non-EVM chain might be 8-12 points due to unfamiliarity and tooling gaps. Regularly revisit estimates after each sprint as the team's proficiency increases. This agile approach manages stakeholder expectations and accommodates the inherent uncertainties of pioneering development.

Planning delivery timelines for non-EVM projects is fundamentally different from Ethereum-based work. The primary factors that extend timelines are ecosystem maturity and developer tooling. You must allocate significant time for tasks that are trivial on Ethereum, such as finding a reliable RPC provider, setting up a local testnet, or debugging with a block explorer. Always start by auditing the available tools for your chosen chain—check the documentation for the official SDK, testnet faucet status, and block explorer APIs. A lack of mature tooling can easily add 20-30% to your initial development buffer.

Your technical planning should be broken into distinct, verifiable phases. A recommended structure includes: Phase 1: Environment Setup & Tooling Validation (configuring custom Chain objects in your SDK, testing RPC endpoints), Phase 2: Core Protocol Development & Local Testing (writing and unit-testing smart contracts or state transitions), Phase 3: Testnet Deployment & Integration Testing (deploying to a public testnet and testing cross-contract calls), and Phase 4: Security Audits & Mainnet Launch. Each phase should have clear deliverables and a buffer for resolving chain-specific issues, like gas estimation errors or non-standard transaction formats.

To mitigate risks, implement a continuous learning and adaptation loop. Engage early with the chain's developer community on Discord or GitHub. Monitor the chain's status page and governance forums for upcoming upgrades that could affect your ABI encoding or consensus logic. For long-term projects, consider building abstracted adapters for key functions (like transaction signing or event listening) to insulate your codebase from future changes. Document every workaround and non-standard pattern you encounter; this internal knowledge base is critical for onboarding new team members and maintaining the project.

Your next steps should be concrete. First, finalize your tooling stack by selecting a primary SDK (e.g., CosmJS for Cosmos, Aptos TS SDK, Sui Move CLI) and a backup. Second, create a minimal viable prototype—a simple token transfer or query—to validate the entire workflow from development to testnet. Third, establish your monitoring and observability pipeline using chain-specific indexers or subgraphs. Finally, factor in at least one full security audit cycle from a firm experienced with your chain's VM (e.g., Move bytecode for Aptos/Sui, CosmWasm for Cosmos). This structured approach turns the challenges of non-EVM development into a manageable, predictable process.