In 2025, Solidity remains the dominant language for writing smart contracts on Ethereum and other EVM-compatible chains. But to write Solidity code that is as safe as Rust code, developers need to operate at a significantly higher level of expertise. This article outlines the challenges Solidity developers face, the safety guarantees Rust provides by default, and where Solidity sits on its maturity timeline.

Why Rust Is “Naturally Safer”

Rust enforces safety through powerful compile-time checks and strict language design principles:

• Ownership model: Prevents data races and use-after-free errors.
• No nulls or undefined behavior: Use of Option<T> and Result<T, E> types forces explicit handling of edge cases.
• Memory safety without garbage collection: Eliminates buffer overflows and dangling pointers.
• Explicitly marked unsafe code: Anything risky must be in an unsafe block, aiding auditability.

This creates an environment where security is not optional — it’s enforced.

Solidity’s Nature and Challenges

Solidity is flexible and expressive but lacks Rust’s built-in safety constraints:

• Resembles JavaScript or C more than Rust.
• Compiles to EVM bytecode that introduces attack vectors: reentrancy, overflows, gas griefing.
• Lacks ownership model, borrow checker, or strict type enforcement.
• Relies on developers to write secure code — the compiler won’t stop unsafe patterns.

Result: Solidity is powerful but dangerous in untrained hands.

What Solidity Developers Need to Match Rust’s Safety

To write Solidity code as secure as idiomatic Rust, a developer needs mastery in:

1. Advanced Language Features

• EVM internals: memory/storage management, calldata.
• Function visibility: public, internal, etc.
• Fallback patterns, inheritance, assembly.

2. Recognizing Vulnerability Patterns

• Reentrancy
• Delegatecall hijacking
• Access control flaws
• Front-running and MEV
• DoS via gas limits or storage writes

3. Defensive Patterns

• Checks-Effects-Interactions
• Pull-over-push payment models
• Use of OpenZeppelin libraries
• Proxy upgrade safety (UUPS, Transparent)

4. Security Tools

• Static analyzers: Slither, MythX
• Formal verification: Certora, Scribble, K Framework
• Testing: Foundry, Hardhat, Echidna

5. Threat Modeling

• Block reordering and transaction ordering
• Avoiding timestamp reliance
• Miner incentives and DoS modeling

Solidity vs. Rust: Practical Summary

Skill	Solidity	Rust
Memory safety	Manual	Compiler enforced
Type safety	Partial	Strong
Error handling	Optional	Required (Result<T,E>)
Resource ownership	Manual	Ownership model
Concurrency safety	Not applicable	Enforced
Baseline security	Weak	Strong

To match Rust’s guarantees, Solidity developers must operate as security engineers — proactively checking assumptions, verifying invariants, and reviewing every line for risk.

Solidity’s Longevity: Where Are We in 2025?

Despite its risks, Solidity is still young on its evolutionary timeline:

Phase	Years	Traits
Genesis	2015–2018	DAO hack, early bugs
Exploration	2018–2020	ICOs, DeFi boom, OpenZeppelin
Professionalization	2021–2024	Hardhat, Foundry, security focus
Infrastructure Era	2025–2030?	zkEVMs, formal verification, multi-chain

Solidity today is like JavaScript before TypeScript — flexible, widely used, but lacking guardrails.

Solidity’s Future Trajectory

1. EVM Ubiquity

Solidity remains entrenched because:

• Ethereum is dominant.
• L2s and rollups are EVM-compatible.
• Competing chains adopt EVM (e.g., Avalanche, Polygon).

2. Security as the Next Frontier

The coming years will standardize:

• Formal verification
• Safety-first frameworks
• Trusted DSLs for critical contracts

3. AI & LLM Integration

Expect IDEs that:

• Auto-audit smart contracts
• Flag risky logic before compile
• Enforce pre-deploy security constraints

Solidity in 2025 Feels Like:

• C before static analysis tools
• JavaScript before TypeScript
• Linux in 2002 — powerful, modular, not fully safe for mass adoption

️ The Road Ahead: 2025–2030

• EVM upgrades: zk-support, advanced opcodes
• From reactive audits to proactive security
• Safer compilers (Fe, Huff) and DSLs
• Solidity becoming a cross-chain base standard
• Possible Rust/Move-style successors a decade out

Final Thoughts

• Solidity isn’t going anywhere soon — but it’s not yet mature.
• Writing safe Solidity requires expert knowledge and constant vigilance.
• Rust forces safety. Solidity lets you choose it — which means many won’t.

For mission-critical infrastructure, investing in smart contract audits and defensive patterns is not optional — it’s survival.