How to Review Non-EVM Architecture Proposals

Reviewing proposals for non-EVM architectures requires a fundamental shift in perspective from the Ethereum-centric model. Instead of focusing on Solidity and the EVM's global state model, you must assess designs against the native execution environment of the target chain. Key architectural differences include the account model (e.g., Solana's program-derived addresses vs. Cosmos SDK's keeper pattern), consensus mechanisms (Proof of History, Tendermint BFT), and state storage (Solana's accounts, Cosmos IAVL trees). The first step is to map the proposal's logic onto these core primitives.

A critical review focuses on state management and access patterns. In high-throughput chains like Solana, improperly designed account validation or cross-program invocation can lead to security vulnerabilities or crippling rent costs. For appchains using frameworks like the Cosmos SDK, you must verify the proposal correctly utilizes the module system, message routing, and IBC integration. Ask: Does the design minimize on-chain state? Are data structures optimized for the chain's query and iteration patterns? Are there potential race conditions in parallel execution environments?

Security review must be adapted to the chain's tooling and common pitfalls. For Rust-based chains (Solana, NEAR, Polkadot), focus on ownership, lifetime errors, and correct use of the PDAs and cross-contract calls. For Cairo on StarkNet, verify the logic's provability and potential interactions with storage variables and L1 messaging. Always reference the official security resources for the ecosystem, such as the Solana Security Best Practices or Cosmos SDK Security.

Performance and economic viability are non-negotiable evaluation criteria. Calculate the expected compute unit (CU) consumption on Solana or gas costs on StarkNet. Proposals should justify their resource footprint. For Cosmos chains, assess the proposal's impact on block size and validation time. A well-architected proposal will include a fee model that ensures sustainable network participation and spam resistance. It should also define upgrade pathways, often through on-chain governance modules or specific program/contract migration strategies native to the platform.

Finally, evaluate the proposal's integration with the broader ecosystem. Does it follow established interface standards (e.g., SPL tokens on Solana, CW20 on Cosmos)? Does it properly handle native assets versus bridged assets? For cross-chain proposals, scrutinize the security assumptions of the chosen bridge or IBC channel. The review should conclude with actionable feedback, highlighting architectural strengths, critical risks, and specific recommendations for aligning the proposal with the target chain's best practices and long-term roadmap.

Reviewing proposals for non-EVM architectures requires a fundamental shift in perspective from the Ethereum-centric model. While EVM chains share a common execution environment defined by the Ethereum Yellow Paper, non-EVM ecosystems operate on distinct virtual machines, consensus mechanisms, and state models. Key families to understand include Rust-based smart contract platforms like Solana and NEAR, Cosmos SDK-based appchains with Tendermint consensus, and Move-based chains like Aptos and Sui. A reviewer must first identify the proposal's target ecosystem to apply the correct architectural and security paradigms.

A deep understanding of the target chain's execution environment is non-negotiable. For Solana, this means grasping the Sealevel parallel runtime, its account model (which differs fundamentally from EVM accounts), and the importance of compute unit budgets. For Cosmos chains, you must understand the ABCI interface, the role of the application-specific blockchain, and how inter-blockchain communication (IBC) affects proposal scope. For Move-based chains, proficiency in the Move language's resource-oriented programming and its strict bytecode verifier is essential to assess safety.

Beyond the VM, consensus and state storage are critical review areas. Proposals for Tendermint-based chains (Cosmos, Celestia) require evaluating light client verification and validator set changes. Solana proposals must consider how changes impact Proof of History (PoH) sequencing and leader scheduling. Nakamoto consensus chains (Bitcoin, Stacks) have entirely different upgrade considerations around miner activation. Reviewers should analyze how a proposal interacts with the chain's data availability layer and whether it introduces new state bloat or access patterns.

Security assessment for non-EVM proposals demands ecosystem-specific knowledge. On Solana, common pitfalls include improper Cross-Program Invocation (CPI) security, missing rent exemption checks, and reentrancy via program_id confusion. In Cosmos, reviewers check for IBC packet handling vulnerabilities, slashing condition logic in custom modules, and governance attack vectors. For Move, the type system prevents many classic bugs, but reviewers must still audit for potential resource double-spending or logic errors in public entry functions. Always reference the ecosystem's official security guidelines and past audits.

Effective review requires practical tooling. Set up a local testnet or devnet for the target chain (e.g., solana-test-validator, localcosmos). Use the native CLI tools and explorers to verify proposal mechanics. For code-heavy proposals, analyze them using the canonical toolchain: cargo build-sbf for Solana, ignite for Cosmos, and the Move Prover for Aptos/Sui. Engage with the ecosystem's core documentation, such as the Solana Cookbook, Cosmos SDK Docs, and Move Book, to ground your analysis in established patterns.

Finally, contextualize the proposal within the chain's governance process and roadmap. Understand if the change is a hard fork, a soft fork, or a parameter change. Check alignment with the network's upgrade modules (e.g., Cosmos' x/upgrade, Solana's feature gates). Evaluate the testing plan: was it tested on a long-running testnet? Are the economic and security implications for validators clearly documented? A thorough review synthesizes technical correctness, ecosystem fit, and operational readiness to provide a actionable, informed assessment for the governance community.

Reviewing a non-EVM architecture proposal requires a structured methodology. Unlike EVM chains, which share a common foundation, non-EVM systems—such as those built on Cosmos SDK, Substrate, or Move-based chains like Aptos and Sui—introduce unique consensus models, virtual machines, and state management paradigms. The goal of this framework is to move beyond surface-level feature checks and assess the proposal's technical coherence, security assumptions, and long-term viability. Start by requesting the full technical specification, whitepaper, and any existing audit reports.

Step 1: Evaluate Consensus and Finality

First, scrutinize the consensus mechanism. Is it a variant of Proof-of-Stake (PoS), Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS), or a novel Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) algorithm? Determine the finality time and fault tolerance threshold (e.g., 1/3 or 1/2 of validators). For example, a Cosmos SDK chain using Tendermint Core offers instant finality, while a Substrate-based chain might use Grandpa for finality and BABE for block production. Assess the validator economics: staking requirements, slashing conditions for misbehavior, and the decentralization of the validator set.

Step 2: Analyze the Execution Environment

Examine the smart contract or execution layer. For a Move-based chain, review how resources are modeled and how the borrow_checker prevents double-spending. For a Cosmos chain with CosmWasm, evaluate the WebAssembly (Wasm) runtime's gas metering and isolation. Key questions include: How are state changes processed? What is the fee model? How does the VM handle upgradability? Compare the instruction set and determinism to the EVM. Code examples, like a simple token transfer in the native language, can reveal complexity and potential pitfalls.

Step 3: Assess Cross-Chain and Interoperability Design

Non-EVM chains often prioritize interoperability. Analyze the proposed bridges or communication protocols. Is it using IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) for Cosmos, XCM for Polkadot parachains, or a custom bridge? Map the trust assumptions: is it trust-minimized (light clients, cryptographic proofs) or trust-based (multisig federations)? Review the security of the bridge's verification mechanism and its historical attack surface. A proposal should clearly define message formats, relay incentives, and fallback procedures for failed transactions.

Step 4: Review Tokenomics and Governance

Tokenomics are critical for network security and sustainability. Model the inflation schedule, staking rewards, and transaction fee burn mechanisms. Determine how the native token is used for gas, staking, and governance. Evaluate the on-chain governance proposal system: voting periods, quorum requirements, and the process for implementing protocol upgrades without hard forks. Scrutinize the initial distribution, vesting schedules for team/backers, and the treasury management plan for funding future development.

Step 5: Stress-Test the Architecture with Scenarios

Finally, conduct scenario analysis. Pose questions like: What happens during a 33% validator attack? How does the network handle a surge in transaction volume or a malicious smart contract? Review the disaster recovery plan, including the process for pausing the chain or executing emergency upgrades. Check for existing audits from firms like Trail of Bits or Quantstamp, and verify if the code is open-source. The final deliverable should be a risk matrix summarizing technical debt, centralization vectors, and economic vulnerabilities.

The core of a robust review lies in a structured, multi-layered approach. Start with the consensus mechanism—is it Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake, or a novel variant like Avalanche's Snow consensus? Assess its security model, finality guarantees, and resource requirements. Next, scrutinize the virtual machine and execution environment. For non-EVM chains like Solana (Sealevel), Cosmos (CosmWasm), or Algorand (AVM), you must understand their unique instruction sets, state models, and fee mechanisms. Finally, evaluate the network architecture, including data availability solutions, cross-shard communication (if applicable), and the client implementation diversity.

To move from theory to practice, apply this framework to active proposals. For example, analyze an upgrade proposal for the Cosmos SDK or a new Substrate pallet for a Polkadot parachain. Read the official Request for Comments (RFC) or Chain Upgrade Proposal (CUP) documentation. Use the checklist from earlier sections to methodically score the proposal on security, scalability, and decentralization. Engage with the project's community forum or governance portal to ask clarifying questions and understand the trade-offs being made by the core developers.

Deepen your expertise by studying the underlying cryptography and peer-reviewed research. For chains using zk-rollups or validity proofs, understand the core proof system (e.g., PLONK, STARKs). For directed acyclic graph (DAG)-based protocols, analyze their conflict resolution rules. Follow the academic publications and engineering blogs from teams like Ethereum Foundation, Solana Labs, and the Interchain Foundation. Tools like formal verification reports (e.g., for Teal or Move smart contracts) and audit summaries are critical for assessing security claims.

Your review should culminate in a clear, evidence-based recommendation. Structure your final analysis to answer key stakeholder questions: Does this proposal introduce unacceptable security risks? Does it achieve its stated performance goals without compromising decentralization? Is the implementation path clear and well-tested? Provide a summary that weighs the technical merits against the potential network effects and ecosystem impact. Share your analysis publicly to contribute to the collective knowledge base and improve governance outcomes across the Web3 ecosystem.