Code Monkey
Published on

ERC-20 vs Solana Token Program

Table of Contents

ERC-20 vs Solana Token Program

Ethereum and Solana both allow you to create your own fungible tokens, however, they are implemented in different ways. Ethereum fungible tokens follow the typically follow the ERC-20 standard whereas Solana tokens interact with the Solana Token Program. So, what's the difference?



ERC-20 is a standard1. This means it's an agreed upon set of APIs that smart contracts should implement in order to quality as a "token". There's a set of methods and events that need to be implemented and a specification on what needs to be done. However, it is completely up to the developer to implement this specification.

Developer Perspective

In order to create a token, you need to deploy a smart contract following the standard. In order to prevent errors doing this manually, the recommended approach is using a library such as OpenZeppelin that implements most of the boilerplate logic for you.

OpenZeppelin is the most popular choice but different implementations can be used with different trade-offs between gas efficiency and security. Alternatively, you can hand write the implementation if you need to do something special.

Decentralized Application (DAPP) Perspective

From a decentralized application perspective the application can interact with smart contracts that implement the ERC-20 standard. For example, uniswap is a decentralized exchange which allows you to trade one token from another. It accepts all tokens that support the ERC-20 standard. It understands the APIs such as transfer so can work entirely using the interface.



Solana Token Program is a specific deployed smart contract. The code is open source and maintained by Solana Labs. In Solana, only accounts have data. Therefore, the token program is simply code to be executed.

Developer Perspective

In order to create a token, a developer simply needs to interact with the Solana Token Program contract. The developer first creates a Mint account owned by the smart contract. This account's address is the unique identifier for the token. In order to mint tokens the developer provides the account and calls into the Token Program to execute the minting. Doing things like transferring is simply providing the unique token addresses, the corresponding accounts and calling the contract code.

Decentralized Application (DAPP) Perspective

Since using the Solana Token Program is the way to create tokens. Decentralised applications simply communicate with the contract. For example, a decentralised exchange would take an address representing the Mint account owned by the Solana Token Program. It would then call into the solana token program to transfer on behalf of the caller.


The primary difference between the approaches are using a standard versus a concrete contract and implementation.


The Solana Token Program has one single source of truth. This means auditors only need to read through a single contract. Any errors in this smart contract will affect every token.

Ethereum uses a standards approach. Therefore, each smart contract deployed may be separate and has to be audited manually. However, a majority of contract use pre-audited libraries such as OpenZepplin to ensure their validity. However, as a user you don't easily know if a piece of code has used OpenZepplin or manually written the implementation. It can be checked if the code has been uploaded and verified but this is tricky for an everyday consumer.

In terms of security of a critical component, the Solana approach wins. Users can trust it's validity without being worried about a developer not implementing the contract correctly resulting in vulnerabilities.


The Solana Token Program cannot be easily modified by an individual developer. If I thought of a more gas efficient mechanism to do a transfer, or I wanted to do some unique logic I would not be able to do so. In theory, nothing stops a developer from writing their own version of the Solana Token Program. However, this will prohibit them from leveraging the wider ecosystem such as decentralized exchanges. These DEX's assume the Solana Token Program is the source of truth.

Ethereum on the other had is simply a standard. In programming terms, it's an interface whereas Solana Token Program is a concrete implementation. It allows you to play with the implementation (say to increase security, or improve gas efficiency) but still being able to participate in the ecosystem. Furthermore, since it's simply an interface a smart contract can extend the interface. The OpenZepplin implementation has a varity of extensions such as capping the supply.

In terms of flexibility for the developer, the Ethereum approach wins. It allows developers to tweak the contract in ways that suits them best but still participate in the ecosystem.

Deployment and Iteration Speed

For the Solana Token Program, developers can quickly address critical vulnerabilities or add new APIs. In Ethereum, OpenZepplin can patch a critical vulnerability but it is up to contract owners to ensure they deploy a new contract (assuming they used the proxy upgrade pattern to allow upgrades of their contract). Furthermore, ERC-20 is a standard and it requires a majority of individuals to agree on a direction and all uniformly upgrade their contracts. This is usually near impossible so instead new proposals are born such as ERC-1155 and DAPPs are the ones that choose which proposals they support (potentially being both).

A downside to Solana Token Program is since they are the source of truth they must maintain backwards compatibility at all times. Unlike in Ethereum where a single smart contract can experiment with its implementation the Solana Token Program cannot. It is an all or nothing approach.

Why do they differ?

Solana could have simply deployed the Solana Token Program as a library and provided a set of interfaces. Ethereum could, although very unnatural, have deployed a Token Program contract that was purely code execution and took other smart contracts to provide data.

I could rationalize this by saying Solana and Ethereum took different approach due to their separation of data and execution models. I could also say they differ due to their philosophy as Ethereum's approach is more decentralized.

However, I think the simplest explanation is Ethereum came first and individuals wrote the smart contract in a natural way (storing state in the contract, and exposing a set of APIs). There was a desire to standardize and thus ERC-20 was born. With Solana, it would have been known from the get-go that a token program was needed so the Solana Token Program popped up right form the start. Providing it as a standard and a library would provide unnecessary complexity in a space where moving fast was critical.

There are subtle differences in the two approaches that are practically invisible to an end user. However, to a developer deciding something more complex than a simple token on Ethereum or Solana, the differences are important to note.


  1. The original [standardized contract proposal also contained standards for exchanges, registries and data feeds. Only the token standard has seemed to catch on.