In today’s crypto world, choosing the right platform to deploy your application is just as important as the product itself. This leads to a billion-dollar question many developers are pondering: What is the best platform to deploy my application?
In this article, I will introduce what I believe are the top three options currently available and analyze the pros and cons of each. I will also discuss how upcoming technological advancements will make this choice even easier than it is today.
For developers, the top three options currently are: deploying on a general-purpose Layer 2 (L2) network, within the Solana ecosystem, or building a dedicated app-specific chain. These decisions will have a significant impact on performance, security, user experience, and long-term viability.
This article will delve into the technical differences between these options, analyzing their respective pros and cons, and argue for the growing importance of app-specific chains in the Ethereum vs. Solana competition.
1. General-Purpose Layer 2 Networks / L2 Rollups
Pros:
Security Inheritance
General-purpose L2s or Rollups (like Optimism or Arbitrum) inherit Ethereum’s security. This means that applications built on these platforms benefit from Ethereum’s robust security without needing to maintain their own validator set.
This is particularly important for application launches, as bootstrapping economic security through a validator set (typically as an L1) is challenging.
Composability
General-purpose L2s offer high composability, allowing seamless interaction between applications and protocols on the same L2.
The term “money Lego,” coined during the DeFi summer of 2020, still applies today. One of the greatest advantages of building on-chain is this composability.
Developer-Friendly
Building on a general-purpose L2 (usually) means leveraging the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), which most crypto-native developers are already familiar with.
This reduces the learning curve and accelerates development. For Rollups with alternative virtual machines (altVM), there are programming languages familiar to non-crypto-native developers, such as Rust (used for Soon SVM stacks), C, C++ (Arbitrum Stylus), Move (Movement Labs and Lumio), Linux (Cartesi), Web Assembly (Fluent), and even Sway from Fuel Network.
Cons:
Congestion and Scalability Issues
As more applications deploy on the same L2, congestion may become an issue, leading to increased fees and slower transaction speeds. This can degrade user experience, especially for applications requiring low latency.
Customization and Profitability Limitations
General-purpose L2s are designed to meet the needs of a wide range of applications, which means they often lack the flexibility to optimize for the specific requirements of a single application. This may limit performance tuning and user experience optimization.
2. App-Specific Chains
Pros:
Full Customization
App-specific chains allow developers to optimize every aspect of the blockchain environment for their application’s needs. This can result in higher performance, lower fees, and a better user experience.
Scalability
Since the chain is dedicated to a single application or a group of related applications, there’s no risk of congestion caused by other projects. You have your own block space, eliminating the “noisy neighbor” problem.
Cons:
Complexity and Overhead
Despite RaaS providers like Gelato Network, Conduit, and Caldera simplifying the launch process, building and maintaining an app-specific chain requires more preparation and resources compared to deploying on a general-purpose L2 (deploying a smart contract vs. deploying an entire chain).
Interoperability Challenges
Although frameworks like Cosmos provide built-in interoperability solutions, interacting with the broader Ethereum L2 ecosystem is more complex than using a general-purpose L2. As an app chain, you face the challenge of how to attract users from day one and which interoperability providers will support you.
3. Solana
Pros:
High Performance
Solana is designed for high-performance applications, capable of processing thousands of transactions per second with very low latency (though transactions sometimes fail). Its speed makes Solana ideal for applications that rely on low latency and high performance.
Unified Experience
From a composability standpoint, Solana’s single state machine is highly attractive. This makes building “money Legos” easier than on an app chain, offering an experience similar to that on a general-purpose L2.
Growing Ecosystem
Solana’s ecosystem and developer community are steadily growing. The ecosystem offers strong support for DeFi, NFTs, and broader Web3 applications, including memecoins.
Cons:
Centralization Risks
Despite its technical advantages, Solana has faced criticism for centralization issues. Compared to Ethereum, it has a smaller validator network with higher setup costs. While Solana has a slight advantage over L2s with centralized sequencers, the chain’s centralization is a factor to consider.
Network Outages
Solana has experienced multiple network outages and stability issues, raising concerns about its reliability. Although it has recovered each time, this remains a risk for developers who need continuous uptime.
4. Conclusion
While general-purpose L2s and Solana each offer compelling advantages, app-specific chains provide builders with an opportunity to profit, specialize, and compete with the scale and composability of general-purpose L2s, Solana, and other L1s.
As the modular ecosystem expands, app-specific chains will play a crucial role in the growth of popular applications. However, this vision heavily depends on quickly establishing a standard for interoperability solutions.
I believe this goal will be achieved, and we will see a thriving ecosystem of interconnected app-specific Rollups in the coming years.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
