Building on Injective EVM: A Builder's Honest Take

I spent the last three months building and deploying a DeFi aggregator on Injective EVM. This isn't a tutorial or a pitch—it's what actually happened when I ported an existing Ethereum dApp to Injective's newly launched EVM environment.

If you're considering building on Injective EVM, here's what you should know.

Why I Chose Injective EVM

Let me start with context. I've shipped dApps on Ethereum mainnet, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Base. When Injective announced full EVM compatibility in late 2024, I was skeptical. Another "Ethereum killer"? Another chain claiming compatibility that breaks in production?

But three things made me take it seriously:

1. They're not trying to replace Ethereum—they're extending it.

Injective already had a working Cosmos-based chain with real users and real volume. The EVM wasn't a pivot; it was an expansion. That meant infrastructure, liquidity, and a community already existed.

2. The economics made sense for the project I wanted to build.

My aggregator processes hundreds of transactions per user session. On Ethereum mainnet, that's $50-200 in gas per user. On Injective, it's pennies. This wasn't theoretical—I could actually offer a product people would use.

3. They solved the wallet problem.

More on this later, but Injective's approach to wallet integration—supporting both Cosmos wallets (Keplr, Leap) and EVM wallets (MetaMask, WalletConnect)—removed a major adoption barrier.

So I decided to try it.

Setting Up: First Impressions

Getting started was... surprisingly smooth.

I cloned my existing Hardhat project, changed the RPC URL in hardhat.config.js, and ran npx hardhat run scripts/deploy.js --network injective.

It deployed. First try.

Here's the actual config I used:

module.exports = {
  solidity: "0.8.20",
  networks: {
    injective: {
      url: "https://evm.injective.network",
      chainId: 2525,
      accounts: [process.env.PRIVATE_KEY]
    }
  }
};

No custom plugins. No modified dependencies. Standard Hardhat, standard OpenZeppelin contracts, standard ethers.js.

First lesson: If you can build on Ethereum, you can build on Injective EVM.

The contracts compiled identically. No weird ABI differences. No unexpected opcodes. It just worked.

The RPC Experience

This is where most "EVM-compatible" chains fall apart. The RPC either has weird quirks, missing methods, or just breaks under load.

Injective's RPC (https://evm.injective.network) behaved like a standard Ethereum RPC. I tested:

• eth_blockNumber ✅
• eth_getBalance ✅
• eth_call ✅
• eth_estimateGas ✅
• eth_sendRawTransaction ✅
• eth_getLogs with complex filters ✅

Everything returned expected responses. No "method not supported" errors.

But here's the catch: The public RPC has rate limits. During testing, I hit limits pretty quickly when running automated tests.

Solution: Injective provides dedicated RPC endpoints for projects building in production. I reached out to their dev team on Discord, explained what I was building, and got access to a dedicated endpoint within 24 hours. No cost, just "please don't abuse it."

For local development, I also spun up a local Injective node using their Docker setup. It's overkill for most projects, but if you're doing heavy testing, it's worth it.

Wallet Integration: The Pleasant Surprise

This is where Injective EVM shines.

Most EVM chains force users to add a custom network to MetaMask. It's a terrible UX. Users get scared. They make mistakes. Support tickets explode.

Injective handles this differently.

Option 1: Use Cosmos wallets (Keplr, Leap)

If your users are already in the Injective ecosystem, they're probably using Keplr or Leap. These wallets natively support Injective EVM transactions through a unified interface.

I implemented Keplr integration using their standard API:

const connectKeplr = async () => {
  await window.keplr.enable("injective-1");
  const offlineSigner = window.keplr.getOfflineSigner("injective-1");
  const accounts = await offlineSigner.getAccounts();

  // Keplr handles EVM transaction signing automatically
  const provider = new ethers.providers.Web3Provider(window.keplr);
  const signer = provider.getSigner();
  return signer;
};

The wild part: Keplr users don't need to know they're interacting with an EVM contract. The wallet abstracts the complexity.

Option 2: Use standard EVM wallets (MetaMask, WalletConnect)

For users coming from Ethereum, I added MetaMask support. This required adding Injective EVM as a custom network:

const addInjectiveNetwork = async () => {
  await window.ethereum.request({
    method: 'wallet_addEthereumChain',
    params: [{
      chainId: '0x9DD', // 2525 in hex
      chainName: 'Injective EVM',
      nativeCurrency: {
        name: 'Injective',
        symbol: 'INJ',
        decimals: 18
      },
      rpcUrls: ['https://evm.injective.network'],
      blockExplorerUrls: ['https://explorer.injective.network/']
    }]
  });
};

Once added, it works like any other EVM chain.

The result: My dApp supports both Cosmos-native users and Ethereum-native users with minimal additional code. That's a real competitive advantage.

Gas Fees: The Actual Numbers

Let me share real data from my deployed contract.

Contract deployment:

• Ethereum mainnet estimate: ~$200-500 (depending on gas prices)
• Injective EVM actual cost: $0.12

Typical user transaction (swap + approval):

• Ethereum mainnet: $20-80
• Polygon: $0.10-0.50
• Injective EVM: $0.002-0.005

Yes, that's half a cent.

For my aggregator, which does 5-10 transactions per user session, this means:

• Ethereum: $100-800 per user session (unusable)
• Polygon: $0.50-$5 per user session (acceptable)
• Injective EVM: $0.01-$0.05 per user session (negligible)

This changes what you can build.

On Ethereum, you design around gas costs. You batch transactions. You minimize state changes. You tell users "approve once, then we'll do the rest off-chain."

On Injective, you can just... do things. Real-time updates? Sure. Multiple oracle calls? Fine. Complex contract interactions? Go ahead.

The constraints are gone.

Finality: Faster Than You'd Expect

Block time on Injective is ~1 second. Finality is ~2-3 seconds.

For context:

• Ethereum: ~12 seconds per block, ~12-15 minutes for finality
• Polygon: ~2 seconds per block, ~30 seconds for finality
• Injective: ~1 second per block, ~2-3 seconds for finality

What this means in practice:

When a user submits a transaction, they see confirmation in 2-3 seconds. Not "pending" for 30 seconds while they wonder if it worked. Just done.

This is huge for UX. Users are conditioned to expect delays. When your dApp responds instantly, it feels better than web2. That's rare in crypto.

The Block Explorer Situation

This is where things get messy.

Injective has an explorer at https://explorer.injective.network/, but it's primarily designed for Cosmos transactions. EVM transactions show up, but the interface isn't optimized for them.

What works:

• You can see your contract deployment
• You can see transaction hashes and status
• You can verify contracts (more on this below)

What's missing:

• Etherscan-style contract interaction UI
• Clean ABI rendering for reading contract state
• Decoded transaction inputs

My workaround: I built a simple Next.js dashboard that queries the RPC directly and displays contract state. It's not ideal, but it's functional.

Update (as of my last check): The Injective team is actively improving the EVM explorer experience. By the time you read this, it might be better.

Contract Verification

Contract verification works, but the process is different from Etherscan.

Instead of using a web interface, you verify through a CLI tool provided by Injective:

injective-evm verify-contract \
  --address 0xYourContractAddress \
  --source YourContract.sol \
  --compiler-version 0.8.20

It takes a few minutes, then your contract is verified and visible in the explorer.

Gotcha: Flattened contracts work better than projects with complex imports. I used hardhat-flatten to create a single-file version for verification:

npx hardhat flatten contracts/MyContract.sol > flattened.sol

Then verified the flattened version. Worked fine.

What I Struggled With

Let's be honest about what didn't go smoothly.

1. Limited Tooling Documentation

Injective's docs are good for getting started, but once you hit edge cases, you're often on your own. The Discord community is helpful, but it's not the same as comprehensive docs.

Example: I wanted to implement gasless transactions (meta-transactions). The documentation mentioned it was possible, but didn't explain how. I ended up reading the Injective SDK source code to figure it out.

2. Smaller Developer Community

When you get stuck building on Ethereum, there are 10,000 Stack Overflow threads and GitHub issues to reference. On Injective, there are maybe 10. You'll be figuring things out yourself more often.

3. Debugging is Harder

Hardhat's stack traces work, but they're less detailed than on Ethereum mainnet. When a transaction reverts, you might get a generic "execution reverted" without a clear reason.

I solved this by:

• Adding extensive require() statements with descriptive errors
• Using console.log() liberally during testing (yes, Hardhat's console.sol works)
• Running a local node for detailed debugging

4. No Tenderly or Defender

If you're used to tools like Tenderly for transaction simulation or OpenZeppelin Defender for automation, they don't support Injective EVM yet.

I built custom monitoring scripts using ethers.js and cron jobs. It's not elegant, but it works.

What Injective EVM Does Especially Well

After three months of building, here's what genuinely impressed me:

1. Cross-Chain Interoperability

Injective's Cosmos roots mean IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) is native. My EVM contracts can interact with assets from other Cosmos chains without bridges.

I used this to pull price data from Osmosis DEX directly into my Injective EVM contract. No oracles. No bridge trust assumptions. Just native IBC queries.

This is unique. No other EVM chain offers this.

2. Built-In MEV Protection

Injective uses a Frequent Batch Auction (FBA) mechanism that mitigates front-running. Transactions in the same block are ordered fairly, not by gas price.

For a DeFi aggregator, this is critical. Users aren't getting sandwiched. Their transactions execute at expected prices.

I didn't have to build any MEV protection myself. The chain handles it.

3. Instant Bridge to Cosmos Ecosystem

My EVM contracts can hold and trade any Cosmos asset. Want to accept ATOM, OSMO, or TIA as payment? Just enable the corresponding IBC channel.

This expands your addressable market instantly.

4. The Economic Model Makes Sense

Transaction fees are paid in INJ (Injective's native token), but here's the key: 60% of fees are burned.

This means as usage grows, supply decreases. As supply decreases (assuming demand holds), price increases. As price increases, token holders benefit.

For builders, this creates a virtuous cycle: More dApps → More usage → More fees burned → Higher INJ price → More builder incentive → More dApps.

I'm not saying "number go up." I'm saying the incentives align for long-term ecosystem growth.

Performance Under Load

I stress-tested my deployed contracts by simulating 1,000 concurrent users hitting the RPC.

Results:

• 95th percentile response time: 200ms
• 99th percentile response time: 450ms
• Zero failed transactions due to network issues

For comparison, I ran the same test against Polygon's public RPC and saw:

• 95th percentile: 800ms
• 99th percentile: 2,500ms
• ~3% of transactions failed due to rate limits

Injective's infrastructure held up better than I expected.

Again, this was using a dedicated RPC endpoint. Your mileage may vary with the public endpoint under heavy load.

What This Unlocks for Mass Adoption

Here's why Injective EVM matters beyond "just another chain":

You can build products that are actually usable.

On Ethereum, you design around constraints. High gas fees mean you can't do real-time anything. Slow finality means you can't offer instant experiences. Wallet friction means users bounce.

On Injective, these constraints are gone:

• Gas costs are negligible → Build frequent-interaction apps (gaming, social, real-time trading)
• Finality is 2-3 seconds → Offer instant confirmation UX
• Dual wallet support → Onboard users from Cosmos or Ethereum seamlessly

Example use cases that make sense:

1. On-chain order books for prediction markets
   
   High-frequency updates are feasible. Users can place/cancel orders rapidly without worrying about gas.

2. DeFi aggregators with real-time routing
   
   My aggregator queries 10+ liquidity sources per transaction. On Ethereum, this would cost $50+. On Injective, it's $0.005.

3. GameFi with frequent state updates
   
   Players making dozens of moves per session? No problem. Gas won't kill your game economy.

4. On-chain social apps
   
   Every like, comment, or follow could be a transaction. Injective makes this economically viable.

Who Should Build on Injective EVM Today

If you're considering Injective, here's my honest assessment:

You should build on Injective if:

• Your dApp requires frequent user transactions (gaming, social, high-frequency DeFi)
• You want access to Cosmos ecosystem liquidity and assets
• You value instant finality and low gas costs over maximum decentralization
• You're comfortable with a smaller (but growing) developer ecosystem
• You want built-in MEV protection without extra engineering

You should probably wait if:

• Your project requires extensive third-party integrations (oracles, indexers, etc.) that don't support Injective yet
• You need mature tooling (Tenderly, Defender, Subgraph)
• Your success depends on massive existing user bases (Ethereum has more users)
• You're building something experimental and need extensive debugging tools

You definitely shouldn't build on Injective if:

• You need maximum decentralization at any cost (Cosmos-based chains make different trade-offs than Ethereum)
• You're just chain-hopping for incentives (please don't)

Final Thoughts

Building on Injective EVM was more pleasant than I expected. The core experience—writing Solidity, deploying contracts, interacting with the chain—worked smoothly. The economics (low gas, fast finality) genuinely unlock new possibilities.

But it's not perfect. Tooling is still maturing. The developer community is smaller. You'll hit edges that aren't documented yet.

My recommendation: If your project naturally benefits from Injective's advantages (low costs, fast finality, Cosmos interop), it's worth the trade-offs. If you're just building "another DeFi protocol," Ethereum or an established L2 might be safer bets.

For me, the decision was clear: My aggregator needed low gas costs to be usable. Injective delivered that, plus some unexpected benefits (IBC integration, MEV protection).

Three months in, my dApp is live, users are actually using it, and I'm not regretting the choice.

If you're building something that needs to be used, not just deployed, Injective EVM is worth a serious look.

---

Want to try it yourself?

• Docs: https://docs.injective.network/
• Testnet faucet: https://testnet.faucet.injective.network/
• Discord: https://discord.gg/injective

Questions? I'm happy to answer in the comments. This was my experience—yours might differ, and I'd love to hear it.