This the multi-page printable view of this section. Click here to print.

Return to the regular view of this page.


Work in progress!

1 - Ethereum Comparison

An overview of Solana and how it compares and contrasts with Ethereum, Solidity, and the EVM

We’re in this together!

Alright Solidity devs, it’s about time we’ve had a heart to heart or shall we say “Sol to SOL” conversation about Solana development. First, this is not meant to convince anyone that one blockchain is better than another, this isn’t about maximalism. This is about learning from each other and getting into the finer technical details about how the two platforms are different. This guide aims to be a resource for experienced Solidity developers who decide to build an application on Solana.

Why is Solana so different?

By far the biggest reason the development experience between Solana and Ethereum is so different is due to their account model designs. Before we dig into those, it’s helpful to understand why Solana’s account model was designed so differently from Ethereum. Unlike Ethereum, which is designed to run on consumer grade hardware, Solana was designed to optimize transaction throughput on high-end multi-core machines. The Solana team noticed a trend that the number of cores in computers is growing exponentially. In order to take advantage of all these cores and attempt to future-proof the protocol, the Solana team designed transactions to be easily parallelized.

Account model design

So what is actually meant by the “account model” of a blockchain? Well, when an on-chain program is called on a blockchain like Solana or Ethereum, the smart contract needs a way to track certain state like token balances, who owns an NFT, or who the current highest bidder in auction is. All of this state is stored inside accounts on the blockchain and is replicated perfectly across all the nodes in a cluster.

On Ethereum, each smart contract is an account which has its own storage. The smart contract’s code specifies how to make sense of that storage. On Solana, an on-chain program is a completely immutable account and its storage is only used to store executable byte code. So where do Solana programs store state? In other non-executable accounts! In fact, each Solana account specifies a program owner which is the only program allowed to make modifications to the account.

Wait, so why does Solana force programs to store data inside other accounts, doesn’t this add extra complexity? Well, yes sure but it is also the key part that helps enable parallelization.

Transaction Parallelization

Each Solana transaction must list all of the accounts that will be either read from, written to, or invoked while being processed. With all this information listed up front, Solana validators know ahead of time which transactions can be processed at the same time without conflicting with each other. To fully take advantage of this parallelization, on-chain programs themselves can split their state across many accounts so that they can be parallelized too. For example, the Serum Dex program has separate storage accounts for each new market and so transactions on one market won’t slow down transactions on another market because they can all be run in parallel.

Design Constraints

Solana’s design and constraints force developers to carefully consider the design of their own on-chain programs. Learning how to write Solana programs has an arguably steeper learning curve than Solidity smart contracts. But don’t forget the upside! By doing a bit more work upfront, Solana transactions can be processed very efficiently. This results in both higher throughput and lower fees. But this isn’t to say Solana is always the solution. As developers, we make tradeoffs all the time when choosing our tools. The development experience with Solidity on the EVM is much more flexible than on Solana without all the overhead of figuring out which accounts will be accessed and which contracts will be called.

1.1 - Accounts

Major differences between Ethereum and Solana accounts

On Solana, programs have state, but that state must be stored inside separate accounts. In order to differentiate which account is used as storage for which program, each account has an owner field. The Solana VM restricts most account modifications to the owner of the account but it freely allows any program to read storage from an account that it doesn’t own. This contrasts with the EVM where a smart contract cannot read the storage of another contract, the contract must expose a public api for reading storage information that may be useful.

To be continued…

1.2 - Transactions

Major differences between Ethereum and Solana transactions

Ethereum supports a few different types of transactions which can be created using a common set of parameters. These include ETH transfers, smart contract calls, and new contract deploys. On Solana, all transactions are treated the same and so all call on-chain programs (Solana has special programs for deploying contracts and transferring SOL).

Let’s dig into the differences by looking at the structure of a transaction from each chain…

Ethereum Transaction Structure

Field Description
nonce Number equal to the count of sender’s processed transactions.
gasPrice The amount of Wei to be paid per unit of gas.
gasLimit Max gas that can be consumed while processing the transaction.
to The recipient of ether and smart contract to be called.
value The amount of ether to transfer to the to address.
v, r, s Represents the signature and used to recover the sender

Solana Transaction Structure

Field Description
signatures List of signatures.
accounts List of accounts (read-only / read-write)
recentBlockhash Blockhash of recently produced block used as nonce.
instructions List of instructions which each call an on-chain program.

Despite their structural differences, these transactions have a very similar goal: calling a smart contract. Let’s walk through the fields to understand each approach.

Mapping Ethereum transaction fields to Solana


On Ethereum, the sender is the address of the keypair which signed this transaction. Inside a smart contract, we know the msg.sender is an address that approved of the smart contract call because we trust Ethereum nodes to first verify the transaction signature. Note: in Ethereum, the sender is actually recovered from the signature itself.

Also, the sender of a transaction is the account which will pay gas fees for the smart contract. By signing a transaction, the sender authorizes payment of gas fees.

On Solana, the first account in the transaction accounts list is roughly the same thing as the sender in an Ethereum transaction. It is the account that will be used to pay transaction fees and Solana will verify that the first signature in the transaction signatures list was produced by that account.


On Ethereum, each transaction contains a single signature. This signature is roughly the same as the first signature in a Solana transaction’s list of signatures. So why does Solana allow multiple signatures? Well, imagine you are using a multisig wallet and need to create a transaction which shows that multiple keypairs have signed and approve the transaction. On Ethereum, you would need to pass signatures inside transaction data and verify them inside a smart contract. On Solana, signatures can be appended to the transaction signatures list and, since Solana nodes use a GPU to verify signatures, will be verified much more efficiently than they would inside a program.


On Ethereum, each transaction includes a nonce which is used to prevent a single transaction from being processed multiple times. Every time Ethereum processes a transaction, it requires that the transaction nonce value is equal to the sender’s total transaction count. So if you have sent 10 transactions, your next transaction will have a nonce equal to 10 and after Ethereum checks the nonce and processes the transaction, it will increment the your transaction count to 11 and wait for a transaction with that nonce.

Solana solves this problem in another way. Relatively old transactions cannot be processed again because each transaction must specify a “recent” blockhash to be processed. Re-processing recent transactions is avoided by requiring each node to keep a record of all the transactions for recent blocks. So transactions with an old recentBlockhash are easily ignored and other transactions are ignored if they are already included in the recently processed transaction list.


Ethereum transactions use to to specify an address to send ETH to or a smart contract to call.

Solana transactions can actually list multiple smart contracts to call and so they don’t have a single to field. Instead, they may list one or more “instructions” which each represent a smart contract call. Each instruction specifies its own smart contract address and the input parameters for the call.


Ethereum transactions are always explicit about how much ether may be sent from a user’s account when making a transfer or invoking a smart contract. This amount is specified in the value field of a transaction and does not include the gas cost of the transaction.

Solana transactions don’t have an equivalent property which specifies how much SOL can be transferred. Instead, each on-chain program has authority to withdraw lamports from any account it owns. By default, each account is owned by the system program which requires an account to sign the transaction to perform a withdraw. Other programs may define their own rules and typically support a withdraw or close account instruction which requires the account to sign.

gasPrice and gasLimit

Every operation in the EVM has an associated gas cost which must be paid by the transaction sender. Since transaction throughput is limited by the amount of gas allowed in each block, gas price provides a way for transaction senders to bid a higher price in order to be included in a block more quickly. Any transaction with a gas price that’s too low will get ignored by miners because they want to maximize their earnings in each block they mine. Gas limit is specified to prevent a buggy smart contract from using way more gas than you intended and causing lost funds.

The Solana VM doesn’t have the dynamic gas model for transactions. Instead, it has a fixed maximum compute cost which currently cannot be adjusted. This means that each transaction roughly has the fixed cost and it naturally puts pressure on developers to optimize on-chain code to fit within the system limits. Transactions do have fees on Solana, though. Currently transaction fee calculation is very simple, each signature in a transaction costs an additional 5000 lamports (there are 10^9 lamports in one SOL).


Ethereum transactions include a single data field for an unlimited size byte array. This data is passed directly to a smart contract which if written with Solidity, will be decoded into a function and its parameters.

Solana transactions may include many “sub-transactions” called instructions. Each instruction has a data field which is used in the same way as an Ethereum transaction’s data field. However, note that an Solana instruction’s data is limited in size. The entire encoded size of a Solana transaction cannot exceed 1232 bytes. This constraint allows Solana to optimize its networking layer for quickly passing transactions between nodes (smaller packets = less delay).

Understanding Solana transactions


Each Solana transaction allows for one or more signatures so that they can be efficiently verified by Solana validator GPU’s. This means multiple accounts can easily authorize operations in on-chain programs in the same transaction. This contracts with Ethereum where any additional signatures beyond the sender must be verified inside a smart contract.


Solana transactions must include the blockhash of a recently produced block. Blockhashes are considered recent if they were produced in about the past 60 seconds. This field is used a nonce to ensure that no transaction can be processed more than once by the blockchain.


Solana transactions must explicitly list each account that on-chain programs may read or write to. By specifying all of the accounts up front, Solana validators can process transactions in parallel without fear of two transactions modifying the same account. It is important that high-throughput applications split up state into multiple accounts because if each transaction modifies the same account, transactions will have to be processed serially.

Accounts may be annotated as read-write or read-only accounts. If an on-chain program modifies a read-only account, the transaction will be reverted. The first account will always be read-write since it is used to cover transaction fees.

Solana’s account access list is similar to the optional access list in EIP-2930.


Solana transactions can be thought of as a bundle of Ethereum transactions. Each Solana transaction can include one or more instructions which each specify an on-chain program address and inputs. There is no explicit limit on the size of an instruction but note that the total serialized size of a transaction cannot exceed 1232 bytes. The compute limit is fixed per instruction so each on-chain program should be optimized to use a small amount of compute units or be split across multiple instructions for expensive operations.

Each instruction specifies the address of the on-chain program, a list of account inputs, and a byte array. Since Solana on-chain programs don’t have their own mutable storage, they must read and store data in separate accounts which are loaded for the on-chain program when invoked.

2 - Account Model

A high-level overview of the account model in Solana’s runtime called Sealevel

In account based chains like Ethereum and Solana, arbitrary state can be stored on-chain to create complex and powerful decentralized applications. However, one of the major differences between the EVM and Sealevel is how that state is actually stored. On Ethereum, only smart contracts have storage and naturally they have full control over that storage. On Solana, any account can store state but the storage for smart contracts is only used to store the immutable byte code. On Solana, the state of a smart contract is actually completely stored in other accounts. To ensure that contracts can’t modify another contract’s state, each account assigns an owner contract which has exclusive control over state mutations.

To visualize this difference here’s what the storage a token contract would look like on either platform.

On Ethereum, token contracts typically have a mapping which defines the balance for each owner address:

mapping (address => uint256) private _balances;
Token Contract Storage Owner Address Tokens
0xa0b869… (USDC) mapping in 0xa0b869… 0x47ac0f… USDC
0xdac17f… (USDT) mapping in 0xdac17f… 0x47ac0f… USDT
0xdac17f… (USDT) mapping in 0xdac17f… 0xabd99e… USDT

On Solana, token balances are typically stored in unique accounts where the storage account address is derived from the address of the owner account.

Token Contract Storage Address Owner Address Balance
EPjFWdd5… (USDC) Bp9sFfdP… JBpj7yp4… ~ 1B USDC
EPjFWdd5… (USDC) 8t7vxGWe… 5coBYaaD… ~ 23M USDC
Es9vMFrz… (USDT) 4QbFwKK2… 5coBYaaD… ~ 17M USDT

In Ethereum’s EVM, there are two types of accounts. Basic accounts which simply store a balance of wei, and code accounts which form the basis for on-chain smart contracts. Each code account, in addition to storing EVM code, all have an associated storage map which can be used to read and write arbitrary data. The EVM provides instructions for each contract to read and write to its own storage but it’s impossible to read from other contract’s storage.

In Solana’s Sealevel, there are also two types of accounts: executable and non-executable accounts. Unlike the EVM, both of these accounts can store data. Executable accounts are immutable in Sealevel and can either store their own executable byte code or a proxy address of an account which stores mutable executable byte code. Since executable accounts are immutable, their application state must be stored in non-executable accounts. In the EVM, contracts can only read and write their own storage. In Sealevel, any account’s data can be read or written to by a contract. However, the runtime enforces that only an account’s “owner” is allowed to modify it. Changes by any other programs will be reverted and cause the transaction to fail.

Let’s take a closer look at what is actually stored in an account on each platform.

In the EVM, a “basic” account is very simple. It holds a nonce which is incremented each time this account sends a transaction as well as a balance field which tracks the remaining wei held by the account. The nonce field has a very important purpose. It is what prevents any transaction from being processed twice by the EVM. This is because each transaction specifies the nonce of the sender and this nonce must match the sender’s nonce in the account store to be executed. Since nonce’s are incremented after each transaction, it’s impossible to run the same transaction twice. If it weren’t for this nonce concept, transactions could be “replayed” by processing them more than once which is often a very undesirable outcome for users.

Field Description
nonce The number of transactions sent from this account.
balance The number of Wei owned by this account.

In the EVM, “code accounts” are where all the action is. Since code accounts cannot be used for sending transactions, the nonce field represents the number of contracts this account has created. Similar to basic accounts, code accounts can hold wei and use an EVM instruction to send that wei to other accounts. Code accounts also store an immutable hash of the associated EVM byte code as well as a hash which tracks changes to all data in storage. The actual EVM byte code and storage data is stored separately from the account store but often cached locally for quick access.

Field Description
nonce The number of contract-creations made by this account.
balance The amount of Wei owned by this account.
codeHash The hash of the immutable EVM code of this account.
storageRoot The 256-bit hash of the root node of a merkle tree that encodes the storage contents of this account.

In Sealevel, the main similarity to EVM is the lamports field which tracks the balance of each account. There is a notable lack of anything like EVM’s nonce field. This is because nonces are handled differently on Solana [TODO](Discuss elsewhere). The key field to take note of in Sealevel accounts is the owner field. This field stores the address of an on-chain program and represents which on-chain program is allowed to write to the account’s data and subtract from its lamport balance. The concept of program-owned accounts roughly maps to account-specific storage maps in the EVM. However, it comes with added flexibility of allowing any on-chain program to read the data from accounts it doesn’t own.

Field Description
lamports The number of lamports owned by this account.
owner The program owner of this account.
executable Whether this account can process instructions.
data The raw data byte array stored by this account.
rent_epoch The next epoch that this account will owe rent.

Account Storage

In the EVM, only “code accounts” have storage. This storage is implemented as a map with a 256 bit key space where each key maps to a 256 bit value. For non-code accounts, the storageRoot is set to a special “null” hash which indicates the account has no storage.

In the Solana Sealevel VM, all accounts can store data. However, executable account data is used exclusively for immutable byte code which is used to process transactions. So where can smart contract developers store their data? They can store the data in non-executable accounts which are owned by the executable account. Developers can create new accounts with an assigned owner equal to the address of their executable account to store data.

Account Signing Authority

Question: Who actually is allowed to create the accounts needed for storing program state?

  1. Solana accounts can only be assigned to a program if the account’s signing authority approves the change. Typically, the signing authority just means that the corresponding private key must sign the transaction.

Question: What happens when a program wishes to create an account?

  1. Since program execution state is entirely public and known to every validator, there’s no way for it to secretly sign a message to create an account. To allow account creation by programs, the Sealevel runtime provides a syscall which allows a program to derive an address from its own address which the program can freely claim to sign.

Question: How to create multiple accounts in the same transaction if each one requires a signature?

Answer: Solana transactions specify a list of signatures and contain as many signatures as can fit in a 1232 byte blob. Each of these signatures must pass verification or the transaction will be rejected. Each signature increases the fee as well.

Question: What are signatures used for?

Answer: System-owned account must sign most system instructions. This includes assigning the account to a new program, allocating storage, and transferring lamports.

Question: What’s the equivalent in the EVM?

Ethereum transactions have a field for exactly one signature which must be verified against the address which sent the message. Any additional signatures must be passed in transaction binary data and verified using the ecrecover crypto function which executes natively using EVM precompiles.

Question: Can the Solana VM verify secpk2561 instructions from Ethereum?

Answer: Yes, it was added to support the Wormhole Ethereum / Solana bridge

Account Owner

Every account in Sealevel has a specified owner. Since accounts can be created by simply receiving lamports, each account must be assigned a default owner when created. The default owner in Sealevel is called the “System Program”. The System Program is primarily responsible for account creation and lamport transfers.

Account types

Name Owner Description
Sysvar Sysvar An account used for loading blockchain state like the latest block and current rent fees
Native Program Native Loader An account used to indicate native programs like the System, Stake, and Vote programs which do not use BPF byte code
BPF Program BPF Loader An account used for processing BPF byte code

Sealevel Runtime Account Rules


  1. Executable accounts are fully immutable.

The above rule takes precedence over all following rules. Meaning that programs cannot add lamports to executable accounts and their data can never be modified or deleted.

Data Allocation

  1. Only the System Program is allowed to change the size of account data.
  2. Newly allocated account data is always zeroed out.
  3. Account data size cannot be decreased.

At the time of writing, programs cannot increase the data size of accounts they own. They must copy data from one account to a larger account if they need more data. For this reason, most programs do not store dynamically sized maps and arrays in account data. Instead, they store this data in many accounts. For example, each key-value pair of an EVM mapping can be stored in a new account.


  1. Only the owner of an account may modify its data.
  2. Accounts may only be assigned a new owner if their data is zeroed out.

The rules above guarantee that a program can always fully trust the data stored in an account that it owns. The data is either zeroed out or previously modified by the program. These guarantees work together to form the same trust guarantees as the EVM’s account storage mechanism.

In Sealevel, executable byte code is stored in account data unlike the EVM which stores code in a separate data store.


  1. Only the owner of an account may subtract its lamports
  2. Any program account may add lamports to an account

This means that once an account is owned by a program, the private key cannot be used to transfer lamports with the System Program since the System Program no longer has permission to send lamports from the account.


  1. Only the owner of an account may assign a new owner

Since all accounts are owned by the System Program by default, the System Program is most often used to assign accounts to other programs.


  1. Rent fees are charged every epoch (~2 days) and are determined by account size
  2. Accounts with sufficient balance to cover 2 years of rent are exempt from fees.

Because rent fees can slowly drain an account’s balance, programs must consider whether to enforce that accounts they use for storage should be required to be rent-exempt. If accounts are not required to be rent-exempt, they may eventually run out of lamports and be deleted by the runtime. Once deleted, accounts can be recreated. For this reason, accounts which rely on certain data storage to be present should enforce that accounts are exempt from rent before writing data.

Zero Balance

  1. Accounts with zero balance will be deleted at the end of transaction processing.
  2. Temporary accounts with zero balance may be created during a transaction.

Programs which close accounts should consider that account data is not deleted until a transaction has been fully processed. Simply subtracting lamports to a zero balance is not sufficient to delete an account. This means that if a program is called from another program, it may be called again with the same accounts which have not yet been deleted.

New Executable Accounts

  1. Only designated loader programs may change account executable status

In Sealevel, executable accounts are created just like normal accounts but their owner must be set to a loader program. The loader program processes transactions to write byte code into account data and only once the program passes the loader’s verification process, will it be marked as executable.

Since executable accounts are immutable, any lamports in the account will be frozen when the account is marked executable. The lamport balance should therefore be no more than the minimum balance required for rent-free storage.