Session 3.4 - DLT-based Smart Contracts

Designing contracts for different DLT platforms

Module 3 45 minutes

Learning Objectives

Design contracts for different DLT platforms
Compare smart contract capabilities across platforms
Understand platform-specific considerations
Evaluate platform selection criteria

Platform Comparison

Multi-Platform Landscape

Different DLT platforms offer varying smart contract capabilities, programming models, and performance characteristics.

Platform	Language	VM	Consensus	TPS
Ethereum	Solidity, Vyper	EVM	PoS	15
Hyperledger Fabric	Go, Java, Node.js	Docker	PBFT	3,500+
Cardano	Plutus (Haskell)	Plutus VM	Ouroboros PoS	250
Solana	Rust, C	BPF VM	PoH + PoS	65,000

Ethereum Smart Contracts

Strengths

Mature ecosystem and tooling
Large developer community
Extensive documentation
Rich DeFi ecosystem

Limitations

High gas costs
Limited throughput
Network congestion
Scalability challenges

Hyperledger Fabric Chaincode

Enterprise Focus

Hyperledger Fabric uses chaincode (smart contracts) designed for enterprise use cases with permissioned networks.

Privacy: Private data collections
Performance: High throughput capabilities
Governance: Organizational control
Integration: Enterprise system compatibility

High-Performance Platforms

Solana

Rust-based programs
Parallel execution
Low transaction costs
High throughput (65k TPS)

Cardano

Functional programming (Haskell)
Formal verification
Research-driven approach
UTXO model

Summary

Key Takeaways

Different DLT platforms offer unique smart contract capabilities
Platform choice depends on specific requirements and constraints
Ethereum leads in ecosystem maturity but faces scalability issues
Enterprise platforms prioritize performance and privacy
Newer platforms focus on solving scalability and cost problems

What's Next?

Next, we'll explore a Healthcare Use Case for smart contracts.

Next: Healthcare Use Case Previous: Usage Patterns Back to Course Home