Polkadot (WASM / Rust) vs Ethereum (EVM / Solidity)

Smart contracts continue to automate agreements across nearly every blockchain, but 2025 forces developers to choose between two distinct approaches: the liquidity network of Ethereum’s EVM or the governance-driven, WASM-powered path SORA is adopting with Hyperledger Iroha 3 (“Nexus”).

This choice matters because SORA’s roadmap now bridges both worlds—maintaining legacy Substrate runtimes while advancing Iroha 3 on the Fujiwara testnet. Together they connect to CBDC pilots and DeFi products like Polkaswap, Kensetsu, SORA Card, and TONSWAP’s burn mechanics.

TL;DR

Hyperledger Iroha 3 anchors SORA v3 around WASM/Rust for safety and modular governance. The EVM/Solidity stack still dominates global DeFi for liquidity and tooling. Fujiwara testnet progress shows SORA’s Hubchain logic already functioning pre-mainnet, while Polkaswap and Kensetsu confirm the ecosystem’s multi-runtime economy.

In short: choose EVM when you need immediate market reach, and WASM when you need deterministic upgrades, governance control, or CBDC interoperability.

Key Takeaways

• SORA is migrating contract logic to Hyperledger Iroha 3, while retaining Substrate modules for legacy compatibility.
• EVM/Solidity remains the global standard for composability and liquidity, but SORA bridges these ecosystems through wrapped assets and verifiable cross-chain flows.
• Products like Polkaswap, Kensetsu, SORA Card, and TONSWAP already rely on WASM-based governance.
• Historical Substrate/ink! experience is still relevant, but new features align with Iroha 3’s modular domains and Special Instructions (ISI).
• Definitions for governance, bonding curves, and liquidity live in the Soranauts Glossary, with related datasets viewable in SORA Explorer.

Understanding the Building Blocks

Smart contracts are deterministic programs that define on-chain state transitions, but their execution environments differ dramatically.

• The EVM prioritizes global composability and compatibility across Ethereum, Base, Polygon, and similar networks.
• WASM runtimes, such as those in Hyperledger Iroha 3, focus on verifiable execution, modular governance, and safe upgrade paths.

EVM / Solidity

The Ethereum Virtual Machine standardizes how bytecode executes across chains, enabling Solidity contracts to behave consistently. Solidity’s syntax feels familiar to web developers, while its ecosystem offers formal verification, proxy upgrades, and extensive dev tooling. The Ethereum Virtual Machine documentation provides comprehensive technical details on execution, opcodes, and gas mechanics.

The tradeoff: the EVM’s opcode limits and shared gas model can restrict innovation. Developers benefit from massive network effects but must operate within Ethereum’s long-standing constraints. For a deeper comparison of Polkadot and Ethereum architectures, see our Polkadot vs Ethereum analysis.

WASM / Rust (Hyperledger Iroha 3)

WASM brings near-native performance and language flexibility. In Hyperledger Iroha 3, domain-specific logic compiles into WASM modules, enabling deterministic execution and runtime hot-swaps when approved by SORA’s Parliament. The WebAssembly standard enables portable, sandboxed execution across different platforms.

Rust enforces memory safety through strict typing and ownership rules. Together, they form a secure foundation for SORA’s governance-driven model, allowing validated updates without disrupting the entire network. For developers new to Rust in blockchain contexts, see our guide on Rust programming for cryptocurrencies.

Context: Earlier SORA versions (v1–v2) used Substrate pallets and ink! contracts. Those chains remain online, while new modules transition to Hyperledger Iroha 3 through Fujiwara testnet validation.

Comparing EVM/Solidity and WASM/Rust

Similarities

• Both are Turing-complete, deterministic, and meter execution (via gas or weight).
• Both provide testing frameworks and automation pipelines.
• Bridges and wrapped assets allow liquidity and logic to flow between them.

Key Differences

Tradeoffs

• EVM/Solidity: mature, composable, but constrained and security-intensive.
• WASM/Rust: flexible, deterministic, but newer and requires deeper technical skill.

Case Study: The SORA Stack

SORA’s evolution illustrates how a network can move from Substrate to Hyperledger Iroha without breaking its DeFi economy.

Fujiwara Testnet

Fujiwara serves as SORA’s public sandbox for Iroha 3 modules—mirroring validator orchestration, governance testing, and telemetry. It extends Hubchain’s verifier model and allows developers to validate upgrades before mainnet activation.

SORA v3, codenamed Nexus, prioritizes auditability and bridge security over speed. Internal research notes show ongoing refinement before full release.

Polkaswap & Kensetsu

Polkaswap continues as the liquidity core for XOR, VAL, PSWAP, and cross-chain assets. Kensetsu complements it by issuing KUSD and TBCD, funding builders through the bonding-curve treasury.

Together they form SORA’s economic engine—balancing DeFi liquidity with modular, WASM-based governance validated by Fujiwara.

SORA Card & TONSWAP

SORA Card demonstrates how Iroha 3 governance can coexist with compliance frameworks, while TONSWAP closes the loop between Telegram-based liquidity and SORA’s burn mechanics. Both show how WASM logic powers cross-ecosystem integration without sacrificing decentralization.

Conclusion

EVM/Solidity and WASM/Rust are not rivals—they’re two halves of a broader DeFi evolution.

Ethereum’s stack provides instant composability and global liquidity. SORA’s Iroha 3 stack brings governance, modularity, and sovereign programmability. The most resilient builders will use both: Solidity where market access matters, Rust/WASM where safety and policy integration dominate.

For deeper context on how these systems connect, see the SORA Ecosystem Guide.

FAQs