Standard vs. Custom Network Implementations: Which Way to Roll?

Just like every action has a reaction, so does every code change have a trade-off. This makes “standardized implementation or a custom rollup solution?” more than just an engineering question for blockchain teams. It’s a strategic decision that holds important implications for the long-term success of a new chain finding its way in the increasingly multichain ecosystem.

Let’s dive into the key factors and real-world examples that might help you when making this decision for your chain.

Standard “vanilla” implementations

Standardized rollup implementations allow you to build on top of the well-established, battle-tested codebases. Currently, industry-standard tech stacks include the OP Stack, Arbitrum Nitro, Polygon CDK, zkSync, Avalanche Subnets, and Geth.

If you decide to build your chain with a standard stack, you get the following advantages:

• Fast, simplified network deployment: Standard stacks prioritize simplicity, scalability, and security, enabling you to build on top of an already proven codebase and get to production faster. They’re typically modular by design, giving you some flexibility when building your own chain.
• Greater interoperability of your chain with other networks built using the same stack: Optimism’s Superchain illustrates how networks built on the OP Stack can seamlessly interact with each other while maintaining their unique business values. Unichain, for example, provides a new way to unify liquidity across chains, yet relies on the widely used OP Stack.
• Easier integration with essential infrastructure and tooling providers: If your chain is built using the standard stacks, there are usually no limitations when it comes to getting support for your chain. For instance, Tenderly can integrate chains built on the standardized stacks in up to two weeks with our full product suite enabled.
• Saved financial and engineering resources. Standardized stacks have a community of engineers handling their development and maintenance. So, you need to invest less in network development and ongoing maintenance when compared to a custom-built chain.

However, standardized stacks put some limitations on the extent of chain customization. While they offer some flexibility to introduce new features, you cannot implement changes at the protocol level, which custom implementations make possible.

Custom implementations

Custom network implementations usually entail taking EVM source code and changing it significantly to introduce new functionalities at the protocol level. Chains that go with this type of implementation may fall into the following categories:

1. Chains from a different ecosystem that want to introduce an EVM implementation and enable interoperability with EVM-compatible chains. For example, a Cosmos chain could take the EVM source code and adjust it to introduce the EVM alongside its VM.
2. Chains from the Ethereum ecosystem that take a standard tech stack and change it significantly to introduce unique functionalities. One such example is Blast, a custom implementation of optimistic rollup technology that introduces native yield and credit options.
3. Non-EVM chains, such as Solana, that go with a completely different type of implementation.

So, going with a custom EVM implementation opens new opportunities for innovation. You can introduce unique blockchain functionalities to suit the unique business use case for your chain. This may also allow for greater differentiation from other chains in the ecosystem, enabling new applications on your network.

For instance, Story is another example of a custom implementation for a unique use case. Story is an EVM-equivalent L1 network built specifically for intellectual property. Combining the EVM and Cosmos SDK, the chain’s custom implementation allows users to register and earn from their IPs.

What are some possible trade-offs?

While custom implementations do enable a greater level of innovation when compared to standardized stacks, they also bring several important considerations you should keep in mind:

• Network performance: Introducing significant changes and adding new functionalities to the EVM source code can lower the throughput of your chain. Plus, if you don’t keep up with the latest Ethereum protocol updates that can affect the Solidity or Vyper contracts on your chain, there’s a risk of affecting its performance and user experience.
• Security: Changing the EVM source code, especially to a large extent, brings a greater chance of potential vulnerabilities that malicious actors could exploit. Even though you can have a bug bounty program, the complexity of a custom implementation can make thorough audits more difficult.
• Tooling compatibility: Deviating from the EVM source code may make your chain less compatible with the existing tooling and infrastructure providers. For instance, if you change the gas calculation logic, local frameworks won’t recognize this update. Also, depending on the level of technical complexity, some limitations may be present when integrating with Tenderly.
• Spent resources: Overall, custom chains require investing more financial and engineering resources into chain development and maintenance compared to building on a standardized stack. Plus, integrating with tooling and infrastructure providers may also require more resources in terms of time and effort.
• Lack of interoperability: Depending on the type of custom implementation, your chain may also be less interoperable with other networks from the EVM ecosystem. This could limit your ability to benefit from shared liquidity and user base.

So, to change or not to change?

Choosing between a standard or custom rollup implementation brings up a lot of questions. Yet, it comes down to a single reason behind it: differentiation.

When deciding whether to change the EVM source code and to what extent, you need to carefully consider whether that change would bring you the unique value differentiators you’re hoping for and at what cost.

So, here are some important questions to ask yourself and your team when deciding on the type of implementation for your chain.

Business value

1. Would a custom implementation open differentiation opportunities that would otherwise be impossible to achieve?
2. Do you have a strong business case for such differentiation?

Technical capabilities

3. Does your engineering team have the deep technical expertise to build and maintain a custom blockchain codebase?
4. Are there any constraints in terms of engineering budget, timeline, and bandwidth?

Ecosystem integration

5. Would a custom implementation limit your choice of infrastructure and tooling providers?
6. Would the absence of certain tools and services affect your ecosystem growth?

Long-term roadmap

7. Which implementation approach better supports your vision for the network?
8. Do you have a long-term strategy to ensure the adoption of the unique functionalities on your chain?

Launch a network with full-stack support and guidance

As you can see, “standardized implementation or a custom rollup solution?” is less of an engineering question and more of a strategic decision. Considering different factors such as development costs, ecosystem integrations, and long-term vision for your chain will help you find the best solution. Ultimately, whichever choice enables you to build a thriving ecosystem and achieve your business goals is the right one for your chain.

At Tenderly, we can support both standard and custom chain implementations at different stages of your network journey. However, the availability of custom implementations depends on the level of technical complexity of your chain. To discuss your infrastructure needs, schedule a call with our network team!