How to Scope Projects for Non-EVM Runtimes

Scoping a project for a non-EVM runtime—such as Solana, Cosmos, Polkadot, or Fuel—requires a fundamental shift from the Ethereum-centric development model. The process begins with a rigorous assessment of the runtime's core architecture: its virtual machine (e.g., SVM, CosmWasm), consensus mechanism, state model, and native programming languages (like Rust, Go, or Move). Unlike the EVM's account-based model, you might encounter UTXO-based systems (Cardano) or parallel execution engines (Aptos, Sui). Understanding these constraints and capabilities is the first step in determining if a project's requirements—such as transaction throughput, finality time, or complex state logic—are a good fit for the target chain.

The next phase involves mapping application logic to runtime primitives. For a DeFi application, you must evaluate if the chain has native support for the required financial constructs. A Cosmos appchain can leverage the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol natively, while a Solana program must be designed around its synchronous composability and low-fee, high-throughput model. Key questions include: How does the runtime handle cross-contract calls? What is the fee model for storage and computation? Are there native oracles or randomness sources? This technical due diligence prevents costly architectural pivots later in development.

Finally, successful scoping requires a holistic ecosystem evaluation. Beyond pure technology, assess the maturity of developer tooling (SDKs, indexers, localnets), the availability of auditing firms familiar with the runtime, and the robustness of the governance and upgrade mechanisms. For instance, deploying a complex application on a nascent Move-based chain may offer performance advantages but could involve pioneering solutions for tooling gaps. A clear scoping document should outline these technical dependencies, risk factors, and a phased development plan that aligns with the unique strengths of the chosen non-EVM environment.

The first prerequisite is understanding the target runtime's core architecture. Unlike the EVM's single-threaded, gas-metered execution, alternatives like Solana's Sealevel, Cosmos SDK's CometBFT, or Aptos' MoveVM have distinct models. You must research their consensus mechanisms, state management, and transaction lifecycle. For instance, Solana uses a parallel execution model requiring explicit state dependencies, while Cosmos app-chains have full sovereignty over their consensus. Ignoring these fundamentals leads to architectural missteps and performance bottlenecks.

Next, you must master the native programming language and tooling. This goes beyond syntax to include the idiosyncrasies of the development environment. For a Move-based chain (Sui, Aptos), you'll need the Move CLI, understand resource-oriented programming, and learn the move prove tool for formal verification. For CosmWasm on Cosmos, proficiency in Rust and the wasmd module is essential. Expect to invest significant time in learning chain-specific debuggers, localnet orchestration (like solana-test-validator), and block explorers before writing your first line of business logic.

Finally, accurately scope the integration layer and infrastructure. Non-EVM chains often lack the ubiquitous RPC provider ecosystem of Ethereum. You may need to run your own node or validator, manage custom indexers for complex queries, or build relayers for cross-chain communication. For example, interfacing with a Solana program requires using the @solana/web3.js library and understanding PDAs (Program Derived Addresses), which have no EVM equivalent. Factor in the time and cost for this bespoke infrastructure, as it directly impacts development velocity and long-term maintenance.

Scoping for a non-EVM chain like Solana, Cosmos, or Aptos requires a fundamentally different approach than for Ethereum. Your first task is to map your application's core logic to the runtime's inherent capabilities and constraints. Key technical questions include: - What is the required transaction throughput (TPS) and finality time? - Does the logic require complex state interactions or parallel execution? - Are there specific cryptographic primitives (e.g., zk-proofs, threshold signatures) the chain must natively support? - What are the data availability and storage requirements? The answers will determine if you need a high-throughput monolithic chain like Solana, an app-specific blockchain via the Cosmos SDK, or a Move-based chain like Sui for asset-centric logic.

Economic requirements are equally critical and directly influence technical choices. You must model the gas fee structure and its impact on user experience. For instance, Solana uses a priority fee model with micro-penny costs, while Cosmos chains have configurable fee tokens and models. Define your tokenomics early: will you need a native gas token, or can you use a stablecoin? How will validators or sequencers be incentivized? Projects on Celestia for data availability or Polkadot for shared security must budget for ongoing parachain lease costs or rollup settlement fees. These economic decisions are hard to change post-launch.

Finally, audit your dependencies and the maturity of the developer ecosystem. A non-EVM stack means forgoing the vast library of audited Solidity smart contracts and battle-tested tools. You must evaluate: - The stability and audit history of the core runtime (e.g., Solana's Sealevel, Cosmos' CometBFT). - The availability of oracles (e.g., Pyth on Solana), indexers, and wallets specific to your chain. - The quality of the SDK and debugging tools. Building on a nascent runtime may offer first-mover advantage but increases development risk. Document these technical and economic requirements in a specification document to align your team and stakeholders before development begins.

Begin by mapping your application's non-negotiable requirements against the runtime's native capabilities. For a high-throughput NFT marketplace, you would assess a runtime like Solana for its sub-second finality and low fees, or Aptos for its parallel execution via the MoveVM. Conversely, if your project relies heavily on existing Ethereum tooling (like MetaMask or Hardhat) or specific Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) precompiles, the friction of a non-EVM chain may outweigh the benefits. This initial fit-check prevents costly mid-development pivots.

Next, conduct a technology stack audit. Identify the programming languages, smart contract frameworks, and developer tools your team is proficient in. Building on CosmWasm requires Rust expertise, while developing on the Internet Computer (ICP) involves the Motoko language. Evaluate the maturity of the ecosystem's Software Development Kits (SDKs), local testing environments, and debugging tools. A lack of robust tooling can significantly increase development time and introduce security risks.

Finally, analyze the runtime's architectural paradigms and their implications. Key differentiators include:

• Execution Model: Is it single-threaded (like most EVMs) or parallelized (like Solana, Sui, Aptos)?
• State Management: How is global state accessed and updated? This affects transaction design and cost.
• Consensus & Finality: What are the latency and throughput characteristics?
• Upgradability: Are smart contracts immutable by default, or does the runtime have built-in governance for upgrades? Understanding these core mechanics is essential for scoping complexity and estimating gas/transaction cost models accurately.

The quality of a blockchain's development ecosystem is a primary indicator of its long-term viability and security. For non-EVM runtimes like Solana (Sealevel), Cosmos (CosmWasm), Aptos (Move), or Polkadot (Substrate/Ink!), this audit goes beyond checking for a compiler. You must assess the availability of a local development environment (e.g., Solana's solana-test-validator, Cosmos' localnet scripts), a command-line interface (CLI) for key operations, and robust software development kits (SDKs) in multiple languages (JavaScript, Python, Go). The absence of these tools significantly raises the barrier to entry and increases the risk of developer error.

Next, scrutinize the testing and debugging toolchain. Look for mature frameworks for unit and integration testing smart contracts. For example, the Move language used by Aptos and Sui has a built-in testing framework with the #[test] attribute, while CosmWasm leverages Rust's cargo test. Check for the existence of a mainnet fork capability for local testing, a block explorer with devnet support, and dedicated debugging tools. The ability to step through transaction execution or inspect state changes is crucial for building secure applications. A fragmented or immature testing story is a major red flag.

Finally, evaluate the deployment and monitoring infrastructure. A mature ecosystem provides clear patterns for contract deployment, upgradeability, and dependency management. Investigate if there are verified contract registries (like Solana's SPL or CosmWasm's crates.io), CI/CD templates for automated testing and deployment, and monitoring services that offer alerts for failed transactions or contract events. The presence of these production-grade tools signals that the runtime is supported for serious development, reducing operational risk and making the project easier to scope, build, and maintain over time.

Deployment and operational costs on non-EVM chains are fundamentally different from Ethereum. Instead of a single, predictable gas unit, you must account for a diverse set of resource models. For example, Solana uses Compute Units (CUs) and prioritization fees, while Cosmos SDK chains use gas priced in the native token, and Starknet uses a combination of L1 data availability fees and L2 execution fees. Your first task is to map your application's core transactions—like minting an NFT, swapping tokens, or updating a state—to the specific resource consumption on your target chain. This requires testing on a testnet or devnet using the chain's native tooling, such as solana-test-validator or a local Cosmos node.

A critical, often overlooked cost is state storage. On chains like Solana and NEAR, you pay rent for the account data your program stores on-chain, which is a recurring operational expense. For a Solana program, you must calculate the cost of the program's executable data account and all the data accounts it will create for users. On NEAR, storage is paid via storage_stake. You must estimate the initial allocation and factor in mechanisms for users to cover their own storage costs or design your contract to manage it. Failing to budget for state growth is a common cause of unexpected treasury drains.

Beyond simple transaction costs, analyze the requirements for network participation and security. Will you need to run your own RPC node or validator for reliable data access and low-latency transactions? On chains like Cosmos, running a validator node (or paying for a staking service) is necessary if your application requires censorship resistance or specific mempool access. Estimate the hardware specs, staking token amounts, and operational overhead. Furthermore, consider the cost of oracles and data feeds, as non-EVM chains may have fewer integrated oracle solutions, potentially requiring custom relayers or higher fees for cross-chain data.

Finally, translate these technical requirements into a financial model. Create a spreadsheet that projects costs for: initial deployment (one-time), recurring state storage, average cost per user transaction, and infrastructure (nodes, indexers). Use the target chain's token price and inflation schedule to model fiat-denominated runway. For example, a Solana program with 10,000 data accounts requires an upfront rent deposit of several SOL, which is a locked capital cost. This concrete analysis prevents surprises and is essential for securing grants or investor funding, as it demonstrates a mature understanding of the chain's economic landscape.

The core principles of scoping—defining requirements, evaluating infrastructure, and planning for security—remain universal. However, their application changes dramatically. On Solana, you must account for the single global state and compute unit budgets. On Cosmos, you design for IBC-enabled interchain communication from day one. On Aptos or Sui, you structure data ownership around their object-centric models. Treating these runtimes as "EVM clones" is the most common and costly mistake.

Your next step is to engage directly with the ecosystem. Join the official Discord channels and developer forums for your chosen runtime. Review the canonical examples: build and deploy the Solana "Hello World" program, create a simple Move module on Aptos, or spin up a local Cosmos SDK chain. This hands-on experience is irreplaceable for understanding gas economics, transaction lifecycle, and debugging workflows, which are often the source of major project delays.

Finally, integrate continuous learning into your development cycle. Monitor the official GitHub repositories for breaking changes in the core protocol (e.g., Solana's solana-web3.js, Cosmos SDK releases). Subscribe to ecosystem newsletters like the Solana Cookbook or Move Bit's blog. The non-EVM landscape evolves rapidly; a feature or best practice from six months ago may already be deprecated. Your ability to scope accurately depends on staying current with the chain's development trajectory.