VM-based blockchains vs Verus.
Compare the architectural approaches of traditional VM blockchains with Verus Protocol's built-in functionality.
Core Protocol Design
Uses a virtual machine (like EVM) that executes smart contracts
Only the native currency (e.g., ETH) is enforced by blockchain protocol
All other functions (tokens, identities, DeFi) are implemented through smart contracts written in languages like Solidity
Uses "smart transactions" where core functionalities are built directly into the protocol layer (L1)
Currencies, identities, and DeFi operations are verified and accounted for by miners/stakers at the consensus level
Scalability
Typically focuses on scaling up single chain performance
Uses Layer 2 solutions or sharding to handle increased load
Additional complexity and security considerations with each scaling layer
Scales out through multiple interoperable PBaaS chains
Similar to how the internet scales through multiple servers rather than upgrading a single server
Each chain maintains full security and feature set
Security Model
Smart contracts can introduce vulnerabilities through coding errors or unexpected behaviors
Each contract reinvents currency accounting with no systemic control
Core features are protocol primitives with standardized rules enforced by consensus
Eliminates entire classes of smart contract risks since there's no need to reimplement basic functions
Development Approach
Requires specialized developers (e.g., Solidity) to write and audit smart contracts
Each application needs its own contract implementation
No specialized programming language needed
Uses simple API commands to access protocol features
Applications can be built in any framework and interact with the protocol through QR codes or deep links
DeFi Implementation
DeFi protocols run on smart contracts
Often vulnerable to MEV (Maximal Extractable Value), front-running, and sandwich attacks due to sequential transaction processing
DeFi operates at protocol level with simultaneous transaction processing, making it MEV-resistant
All conversions in a block get the same price with no spread
Wallet Interaction
Uses wallet approval mechanisms that can be prone to phishing
Often require users to approve unclear transaction permissions
Users know exactly what their wallets will execute
Clear transaction boundaries and permissions
Currency Management
Tokens (like ERC-20s) are managed by individual smart contracts with varying implementations
All currencies are protocol primitives
Tracked and validated by consensus rules
Ensures consistent behavior and security
Cost Structure
Often has high gas fees due to smart contract execution costs
Fees vary based on network congestion
Fixed low fees (0.0001 VRSC for transactions)
0.025-0.05% for conversions
Fees go directly to miners/stakers
Conclusion
The fundamental architectural differences between VM-based blockchains and the Verus Protocol result in Verus offering more secure, predictable, and standardized operations. It remains accessible to developers without requiring specialized blockchain programming knowledge, while providing built-in solutions for common blockchain challenges like MEV resistance and scalability.