@Lorenzo Protocol Choosing to build an application chain with Cosmos SDK + Ethermint is considered a relatively niche combination in the entire crypto industry. Most projects either purely use Cosmos SDK or directly deploy on Ethereum or other EVM chains. Why did Lorenzo choose this hybrid solution? What considerations are behind it? What advantages and risks does this choice bring?
First, let's talk about what Ethermint is. It is a module that ports the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) to the Cosmos SDK, allowing application chains built on Cosmos to run Solidity smart contracts, compatible with Ethereum's toolchain and ecosystem. It sounds great, combining the flexibility of Cosmos while reusing the mature resources of Ethereum.
The first reason Lorenzo may choose this solution is development efficiency. If using only Cosmos SDK, all business logic needs to be developed in Go, requiring the team to have a deep understanding of the Cosmos architecture, which can make hiring more difficult. However, using Ethermint allows for direct writing of smart contracts in Solidity, enabling Ethereum developers to switch over seamlessly.
The second reason is ecological compatibility. Many of Lorenzo's users come from the Ethereum ecosystem; they are accustomed to using MetaMask and block explorers like Etherscan. If Lorenzo were a pure Cosmos chain, users would need to install a new wallet and learn new operational methods, which would create a high barrier to entry. With Ethermint, the Lorenzo chain can provide the same user experience as Ethereum.
The third reason is toolchain reuse. The Ethereum ecosystem has a very rich set of development tools, such as Hardhat, Truffle, and Remix, all of which are mature. Security audit firms are also very familiar with Solidity. If Lorenzo writes contracts in other languages, the audit costs could be significantly higher. Using Solidity allows for the direct use of existing tools and services.
However, Ethermint does come with costs. The first issue is performance loss. The EVM is not designed for high performance. While it is migrated to Cosmos, and although Cosmos's Tendermint consensus can provide higher throughput, bottlenecks at the EVM level still exist. The TPS of the Lorenzo chain may be far lower than that of a pure Cosmos chain.
The second issue is maintenance costs. Ethermint is not officially maintained but is developed under the leadership of the Evmos team. If the Evmos team stops updating or certain features needed by Lorenzo are not supported by Ethermint, Lorenzo would need to fork a version for maintenance, which would increase technical debt.
The third issue is security. Ethermint combines two complex systems: Cosmos SDK and EVM. Each system has its own security assumptions and potential vulnerabilities. When combined, the attack surface expands, and unexpected interaction issues may arise.
From practical operation, the transaction processing speed and gas costs on the Lorenzo chain should be between pure Cosmos chains and Ethereum. It is faster than Ethereum and cheaper in gas costs but may not match high-performance chains like Solana or Sui. This is sufficient for Lorenzo's product positioning, as BTC cross-chain and staking do not require ultra-high-frequency trading.
However, if in the future Lorenzo needs to support more complex DeFi applications, such as high-frequency trading or on-chain order books, the performance of Ethermint may become a bottleneck. At that time, Lorenzo may need to consider migrating to a higher-performance tech stack.
An interesting comparison is that the stBTC deployed on Sui uses the Move language, which is completely different from the Solidity used on the main chain. This means Lorenzo has to maintain two sets of code: one in Solidity on the main chain and another in Move on Sui. This increases the workload for development and auditing.
Why not unify with one language? Because the design philosophies of Move and Solidity are different. Move emphasizes resource ownership and linear types, which can provide higher security in certain scenarios, while Solidity is more flexible but also easier to make mistakes. Lorenzo may feel that using Move in the emerging ecosystem of Sui can provide better security guarantees.
In the long run, Lorenzo may face a technical roadmap decision: whether to continue deepening its work on Ethermint or gradually migrate to another tech stack. If the development of the Cosmos ecosystem does not meet expectations or if EVM performance becomes a bottleneck, Lorenzo may need to consider restructuring.
One possible direction is to adopt a modular architecture, separating core business logic from the underlying chain. This allows the underlying layer to be flexibly changed, for instance, migrating from Cosmos to other chains without having to rewrite all business code. However, the workload for such restructuring would be very large.
Another issue with Ethermint is community division. The cultural differences between the Cosmos and Ethereum communities are significant. Cosmos emphasizes sovereignty and interoperability, while Ethereum emphasizes composability and network effects. Lorenzo, as a project spanning two ecosystems, needs to establish a presence in both communities, which poses high requirements for the market and community teams.
From a governance perspective, the Lorenzo chain, as an independent application chain, has complete sovereignty and can decide on its validator set, upgrade strategies, parameter adjustments, etc. This is an advantage of the Cosmos architecture, but it also means Lorenzo needs to establish and maintain its own validator network, which is a considerable expense.
Lorenzo may still be using Interchain Security to share validators of Cosmos Hub, but in the long run, it may need to establish its own validator network. This requires attracting enough validator nodes and establishing a staking economic model. These are challenges beyond technology.
Tokens in Lorenzo's technical architecture may play multiple roles, serving both as governance tokens and potentially becoming the native gas tokens of the Lorenzo chain. If so, the economic model design for BANK will become very complex, requiring a balance between governance incentives and gas consumption.
#LorenzoProtocol The Ethermint technology choice demonstrates the art of trade-offs in a project's technical roadmap. There is no perfect tech stack, only the best choice for the current stage. The key is that the team must maintain technical sensitivity and be willing to adjust direction when necessary.