The EVM Copycat Game: Why Everyone's Trying to Be Ethereum

I've spent years watching blockchain networks pop up like mushrooms after rain, each claiming to be the "next big thing," and frankly, I'm getting tired of the same old story. Let's cut through the hype and talk about what's really happening with these so-called EVM-compatible chains.

When Vitalik proposed the Ethereum Virtual Machine back in 2014, I doubt he realized he was creating a template that every lazy blockchain developer would simply copy-paste for the next decade. Yet here we are.

What's this EVM compatibility nonsense anyway?

In simple terms, EVM compatibility means a blockchain can run Ethereum smart contracts without changes. Great for developers who don't want to learn new tricks, I suppose. Write once in Solidity, deploy everywhere. Convenient? Yes. Innovative? Hardly.

These chains essentially took Ethereum's homework, changed the name on the paper, and turned it in as their own. Sure, they tweaked some parameters to make transactions faster and cheaper, but the foundation remains Ethereum's brainchild.

The EVM Clone Army

Let's look at some of the main copycats:

BSC (you know which one) - With over $5 billion TVL, it's certainly popular. But having only 21 validators? Come on. I might as well run my smart contracts on my laptop if decentralization matters that little.

Avalanche - Claims 4500 TPS and lets you create custom blockchains. Impressive speed, different consensus, same old EVM architecture underneath.

Polygon - Ethereum's favorite sidekick. They've got ZK-rollups and fancy scaling, but they're still fundamentally building on Ethereum's coattails.

Fantom - Their Lachesis consensus and DAG structure are genuinely interesting, but again, EVM compatibility is the selling point. "We're different but also exactly the same!"

Solana - Not originally EVM compatible, which made them stand out. But even they caved to market pressure and got Neon Labs to bring EVM to their ecosystem. Selling out? Maybe.

Why this matters to you

The explosion of EVM chains creates an illusion of choice while delivering essentially the same product in different packaging. It's like choosing between 20 different brands of cola - they're all sugary carbonated drinks with slight flavor variations.

This homogenization stifles true innovation. Instead of developing novel approaches to smart contracts, most teams just focus on marginally improving Ethereum's weaknesses - usually throughput and fees.

And let's be real - interoperability sounds great until you consider the security implications. Each bridge between chains becomes another potential point of failure, as we've seen with numerous multi-million dollar hacks.

The hard truth

These chains aren't competing with Ethereum - they're extending it. They offer temporary relief from Ethereum's congestion and high fees, but they don't fundamentally solve the underlying problems of blockchain scalability.

For developers, EVM compatibility means less work. For users, it means more options but similar risks. For the industry, it means more of the same dressed up as innovation.

What we really need are genuine alternatives that challenge the fundamental assumptions of the EVM model, not just faster, cheaper versions of the same thing.

Until then, we're just watching slightly different versions of the same movie, all promising a different ending but delivering the same predictable plot.