Here is a quick overview of possible platforms with which we could integrate our custom Python contracting engine in the future. Not saying we will or should move aways from CometBFT but technically we could use other platforms and we should evaluate them for future use.
1. Tendermint / CometBFT (Cosmos SDK) – Proven & Flexible Choice
Pros:
- Highly modular, allowing you to plug in your own smart contract runtime.
- BFT consensus with fast finality, making it ideal for financial applications.
- Strong developer ecosystem and tooling.
- Existing projects (e.g., Binance Chain) demonstrate its reliability.
- Can easily integrate Python via an ABCI (Application Blockchain Interface) app.
Cons:
- Tendermint itself doesn’t support sharding or parallelism natively.
- Need to implement all business logic outside the consensus layer.
Best Use Case: If you want flexibility and proven reliability, Tendermint is an obvious and practical choice.
2. Substrate (Polkadot Framework) – Modular & Flexible
Pros:
- Highly customizable blockchain framework with WASM-based execution (can support Python via bindings).
- On-chain governance and parachain capabilities (if used within Polkadot/Kusama).
- Pre-built modules (pallets) speed up development.
- P2P networking and consensus are built-in (e.g., GRANDPA, BABE).
Cons:
- Steeper learning curve with Rust.
- More complex to integrate a fully native Python environment without a WASM bridge.
Best Use Case: If you want interoperability and flexibility with a focus on modular blockchain development.
3. Avalanche – High Throughput and Subnets
Pros:
- Supports custom virtual machines (AVM), allowing integration of your Python smart contract module.
- Extremely fast finality with Avalanche consensus.
- Can create a custom subnet to run your own blockchain logic.
Cons:
- Customization of VM requires deep understanding of Avalanche’s ecosystem.
- May require more overhead to optimize Python performance.
Best Use Case: If you need high throughput and a scalable environment for running isolated smart contracts.
4. Hyperledger Fabric – Enterprise-Grade & Permissioned
Pros:
- Modular architecture allowing smart contracts (“chaincode”) in Python.
- Private/permissioned networks with strong security features.
- Strong enterprise adoption in supply chain and finance.
Cons:
- Primarily suited for private networks rather than public decentralized projects.
- Consensus is pluggable, but PBFT might not suit high scalability needs.
Best Use Case: If your focus is on enterprise or consortium blockchain with privacy requirements.
5. Radix DLT – Custom Smart Contract Engine Potential
Pros:
- Radix provides an asset-oriented model (Scrypto), which could be extended to Python-based execution.
- High scalability potential with Cerberus consensus.
- Composability features could benefit DeFi-oriented use cases.
Cons:
- Limited flexibility in terms of custom execution environments right now.
- Focus is more on pre-defined financial primitives rather than general-purpose computation.
Best Use Case: If you want DeFi-specific capabilities with composability and scalability.
6. NEAR Protocol – WASM-Based Smart Contracts
Pros:
- Supports smart contracts in multiple languages, including Python via WASM.
- Sharded design allows for scalability.
- Developer-friendly environment with rapid deployment.
Cons:
- WASM execution means Python contracts might have performance limitations compared to Rust/AssemblyScript.
- Less customizable compared to Cosmos SDK or Substrate.
Best Use Case: If you want a sharded blockchain with Python support via WASM for general-purpose DApps.
7. Aptos / Sui – Move-based Ecosystem
Pros:
- Focus on scalability and parallel execution.
- Could integrate Python smart contract logic within the Move framework.
- Strong security model designed for enterprise-grade applications.
Cons:
- Move language as a native environment might not suit Python natively.
- Relatively new, with evolving ecosystem.
Best Use Case: If you’re exploring novel execution models and scalable architectures.
Final Thoughts – Best Choice for Your Needs
If you’re looking for the most practical and widely-supported solution for running native Python smart contracts, here are my recommendations:
- For flexibility and ecosystem strength:
→ Tendermint / CometBFT (Cosmos SDK) – Best for long-term viability and custom execution layers. - For modularity and future-proofing:
→ Substrate (Polkadot framework) – If you want to leverage cross-chain interoperability. - For high-speed, scalable environments:
→ Avalanche (Custom VM) – If your focus is performance and dynamic scaling.