Solidity Developer Survey 2025
Key findings
- 70% of respondents are smart contract developers, with India, Nigeria, and the US as the top countries
- Foundry is the dominant framework at 57%, up from 51% in 2024. Truffle is down to a single user.
- Stack-too-deep remains the #1 pain point (47%), with experts reporting it more than beginners (65% vs 25%)
- 88% use AI tools at least monthly, but adoption outpaces trust: 45% express distrust in AI output
- Only 30% of respondents are familiar with Core Solidity. Among those who are, better error handling and delegatecall replacement are the most wanted features. Learn more about Core Solidity.
- DevEx is improving: 73% report improvement (up from 67% in 2024)
Survey Overview
The Solidity Developer Survey 2025 covers the 2025 development year and was conducted in February-March 2026. It received 640 fully completed responses and 1,095 usable responses after removing empty submissions. Respondents came from 87 countries.
Charts use per-question N: every response that answered a given question is included regardless of overall survey completion. All charts are interactive: hover for details.
This report presents the data as collected, without editorial interpretation. For our takeaways and planned actions, see the accompanying blog post.
Download the raw data (CSV) | Previous surveys: 2024, 2023
Respondents per section
n = 1,095 usable responses
Respondent counts decrease through the survey as some participants drop off before completing all pages.
Demographics
Where do you live?
n = 999
India, Nigeria, and the United States are the top three countries. Respondents also came from Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.
Top 20 countries
n = 1029
| Country | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 205 | 19.9% |
| Nigeria | 148 | 14.4% |
| United States of America | 83 | 8.1% |
| China | 36 | 3.5% |
| Brazil | 30 | 2.9% |
| France | 27 | 2.6% |
| Spain | 25 | 2.4% |
| Germany | 25 | 2.4% |
| United Kingdom | 25 | 2.4% |
| Canada | 18 | 1.7% |
| Argentina | 17 | 1.7% |
| Other | 17 | 1.7% |
| Vietnam | 17 | 1.7% |
| Russia | 17 | 1.7% |
| Poland | 15 | 1.5% |
| Kenya | 14 | 1.4% |
| Italy | 14 | 1.4% |
| Digital nomad | 13 | 1.3% |
| Turkey | 11 | 1.1% |
| Ukraine | 11 | 1.1% |
| Portugal | 10 | 1% |
| Bulgaria | 10 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 10 | 1% |
| Pakistan | 10 | 1% |
| Greece | 9 | 0.9% |
| Netherlands | 9 | 0.9% |
| Venezuela | 8 | 0.8% |
| Georgia | 8 | 0.8% |
| Armenia | 8 | 0.8% |
| Serbia | 7 | 0.7% |
| Ghana | 7 | 0.7% |
| Mexico | 7 | 0.7% |
| Hong Kong | 7 | 0.7% |
| Switzerland | 6 | 0.6% |
| Colombia | 6 | 0.6% |
| Bangladesh | 6 | 0.6% |
| Philippines | 6 | 0.6% |
| Sweden | 6 | 0.6% |
| United Arab Emirates | 6 | 0.6% |
| Thailand | 6 | 0.6% |
| Australia | 5 | 0.5% |
| Slovenia | 5 | 0.5% |
| Czechia | 5 | 0.5% |
| Japan | 5 | 0.5% |
| Taiwan | 5 | 0.5% |
| South Africa | 5 | 0.5% |
| Egypt | 5 | 0.5% |
| Morocco | 4 | 0.4% |
| Denmark | 3 | 0.3% |
| Uganda | 3 | 0.3% |
| Uruguay | 3 | 0.3% |
| Iran | 3 | 0.3% |
| South Korea | 3 | 0.3% |
| Cyprus | 3 | 0.3% |
| Lithuania | 3 | 0.3% |
| Hungary | 3 | 0.3% |
| Austria | 3 | 0.3% |
| Singapore | 3 | 0.3% |
| Romania | 3 | 0.3% |
| Ireland | 2 | 0.2% |
| Peru | 2 | 0.2% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 0.2% |
| Bolivia | 2 | 0.2% |
| Zambia | 2 | 0.2% |
| Israel | 2 | 0.2% |
| Sri Lanka | 2 | 0.2% |
| Honduras | 1 | 0.1% |
| Syria | 1 | 0.1% |
| Azerbaijan | 1 | 0.1% |
| Ivory Coast | 1 | 0.1% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | 0.1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 0.1% |
| Chile | 1 | 0.1% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 0.1% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 0.1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 0.1% |
| Belarus | 1 | 0.1% |
| Slovakia | 1 | 0.1% |
| Somalia | 1 | 0.1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 0.1% |
| Uzbekistan | 1 | 0.1% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 0.1% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 0.1% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 0.1% |
| Croatia | 1 | 0.1% |
| Togo | 1 | 0.1% |
| Latvia | 1 | 0.1% |
| Algeria | 1 | 0.1% |
| Tanzania | 1 | 0.1% |
What is your native language?
n = 1030
English is the most common native language (34%), followed by Hindi, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian.
| Native Language | Count | % |
|---|---|---|
| English | 346 | 33.6% |
| Hindi | 106 | 10.3% |
| Spanish | 74 | 7.2% |
| Portuguese | 40 | 3.9% |
| Russian | 38 | 3.7% |
| French | 37 | 3.6% |
| German | 30 | 2.9% |
| Mandarin | 27 | 2.6% |
| Italian | 17 | 1.7% |
| Vietnamese | 17 | 1.7% |
| Yoruba | 16 | 1.6% |
| Turkish | 15 | 1.5% |
| Ukrainian | 15 | 1.5% |
| Chinese | 14 | 1.4% |
| Telugu | 13 | 1.3% |
| Urdu | 13 | 1.3% |
| Igbo | 11 | 1.1% |
| Tamil | 11 | 1.1% |
| Bengali | 10 | 1% |
| Arabic | 10 | 1% |
| Bulgarian | 9 | 0.9% |
| Swahili | 9 | 0.9% |
| Greek | 9 | 0.9% |
| Polish | 8 | 0.8% |
| Other | 8 | 0.8% |
| Indonesian | 8 | 0.8% |
| Armenian | 6 | 0.6% |
| Dutch | 6 | 0.6% |
| Serbian | 6 | 0.6% |
| Thai | 6 | 0.6% |
| Cantonese | 6 | 0.6% |
| Romanian | 5 | 0.5% |
| Malayalam | 5 | 0.5% |
| Hausa | 5 | 0.5% |
| Japanese | 5 | 0.5% |
| Swedish | 5 | 0.5% |
| Hungarian | 5 | 0.5% |
| Persian | 4 | 0.4% |
| Korean | 4 | 0.4% |
| Marathi | 4 | 0.4% |
| Georgian | 4 | 0.4% |
| Slovenian | 3 | 0.3% |
| Lithuanian | 3 | 0.3% |
| Filipino | 3 | 0.3% |
| Nepali | 3 | 0.3% |
| Danish | 2 | 0.2% |
| Punjabi | 2 | 0.2% |
| Kannada | 2 | 0.2% |
| Gujarati | 2 | 0.2% |
| Odia | 2 | 0.2% |
| Czech | 2 | 0.2% |
| Luganda | 1 | 0.1% |
| Amharic | 1 | 0.1% |
| Zulu | 1 | 0.1% |
| Sindhi | 1 | 0.1% |
| Kamba | 1 | 0.1% |
| Javanese | 1 | 0.1% |
| Konkani | 1 | 0.1% |
| Assamese | 1 | 0.1% |
| Tagalog | 1 | 0.1% |
| Cebuano | 1 | 0.1% |
| Slovak | 1 | 0.1% |
| Somali | 1 | 0.1% |
| Uzbek | 1 | 0.1% |
| Gikuyu | 1 | 0.1% |
| Hebrew | 1 | 0.1% |
| Shona | 1 | 0.1% |
| Setswana | 1 | 0.1% |
| Latvian | 1 | 0.1% |
| Berber | 1 | 0.1% |
How old are you?
n = 1028
74% of respondents are between 18-34. The 25-34 bracket is the largest (38%), closely followed by 18-24 (36%). 9% of respondents are over 45.
How would you rate your coding ability?
n = 1033
57% read/write code professionally. 22% can read/write code but not professionally. 19% are still learning.
Which best describes your developer profile?
n = 786
The majority are smart contract developers (70%). Auditors/security experts are the second largest group (12%). Researchers, fullstack/backend developers, and tooling/library developers are also represented.
Which industry do you work in?
n = 990
Crypto is the most common industry (49%), followed by students (18%) and technology (16%).
How many years of professional coding experience?
n = 1006
Professional coding experience varies, with 3-5 years being the most common (23%). 25% have less than a year or no professional coding experience.
What is your primary programming language?
n = 978
Solidity is the most-used language (39%), followed by TypeScript (16%) and JavaScript (13%).
What is your favorite programming language?
n = 946
Solidity is the top favorite (32%), followed by Python (16%), JavaScript (11%), and Rust (10%).
What operating system do you use?
n = 976
Windows (38%), MacOS (31%), and Linux (29%) are the three main operating systems used.
Solidity Usage
How often do you use Solidity?
n = 865
49% of respondents use Solidity daily, 32% weekly. 10% use it rarely or never.
How long have you been using Solidity?
n = 865
50% of respondents have 0-2 years of Solidity experience. 22% have 2-4 years. 4.5% have used Solidity for more than 8 years.
How would you rate your Solidity expertise?
n = 865
Self-rated expertise concentrates in the upper range: 7 and 8 are the most common ratings (34% combined). 14% rated themselves as beginners (1), forming a secondary peak.
Which Solidity versions do you use?
n = 871 | multiple choice
v0.8.x is the most widely used version (86%). Older versions account for 5-8% each (v0.4.x through v0.7.x).
Tooling & Infrastructure
How do you get the Solidity compiler?
n = 871 | multiple choice
79% get Solidity through a framework. npm (24%) and GitHub releases (16%) are the next most common.
What editor do you use?
n = 834
VSCode-based editors (VS Code, Cursor, Windsurf) account for ~80% of usage. Note: the survey grouped these under a single option, so we cannot distinguish between them. Other editors include Vim/Neovim, IntelliJ, and Zed.
What is your primary development framework?
n = 828
Foundry is the most used primary framework (57%). Hardhat v3 and v2 account for 33% combined.
Which additional frameworks do you use?
n = 871 | multiple choice
Remix is the most used secondary framework (41% of respondents use it alongside their primary framework). 10% did not report using a secondary framework.
Which SDKs / libraries do you use?
n = 871 | multiple choice
ethers.js is the most used SDK (70%). viem follows (39%) and wagmi (33%). web3.py (16%) is also used. web3.js has 9 mentions. The library has been deprecated. alloy (6%) is also used, primarily in Rust-based tooling.
Compilation & Verification
Do you rely on older EVM version support?
n = 566
34% of respondents rely on compiler support older than the current EVM version (Osaka).
Oldest EVM version targeted
n = 162 | shown to those relying on older EVM support
Among those who rely on older EVM support, Paris, London, and Cancun are the most common targets.
Have you used the SMTChecker?
n = 854
45% of respondents don't know what the SMTChecker is. 30% have not used it. 18% have tried it and 7% use it often.
Have you used the IR pipeline (--via-ir)?
n = 852
35% of respondents don't know what the IR pipeline is. 28% use it sometimes, 15% use it often, and 22% do not use it.
Is the IR pipeline too slow to compile?
n = 284 | shown to IR pipeline users only
Among respondents who use the IR pipeline, 39% say it takes too long to compile.
Are you familiar with Sourcify?
n = 851
48% of respondents don't know about Sourcify. 28% know about it but don't use it. 23% know about it and use it.
Contract verification pain points
n = 142 | multiple choice
Top themes: no issues (18%), framework verification tools (15%), verification flaky/unreliable (15%), metadata/compiler mismatch (12%), Etherscan issues (11%).
Do you use appendCBOR: false or bytecodeHash: none?
n = 589
49% don't know what it is. 11% use it.
Why do you use appendCBOR: false or bytecodeHash: none?
n = 39
Main reasons: easier verification (36%), deterministic/reproducible builds (28%), and reduced bytecode size (23%).
Chains & Deployment
Which chains do you deploy to?
n = 871 | multiple choice
Ethereum mainnet leads (52%). Base is second (40%), ahead of Arbitrum (35%) and Polygon (30%). 72 respondents (8%) mentioned deploying only to testnets.
Do you use other smart contract languages?
n = 871 | multiple choice
43% don't use any other smart contract language. Rust is the most selected alternative (28%). This may reflect cross-ecosystem usage (Solana, NEAR, Stylus) rather than EVM development, as the question did not restrict answers to EVM-compatible languages.
Developer Experience
How has the Solidity DevEx changed in the past year?
n = 521
73% report improvement (43% a bit, 31% a lot). 25% reported no change. 2% say it got worse (8 respondents).
What has improved in the DevEx?
n = 151 | multiple choice
Top themes: personal skill growth (39%), Foundry improvements (15%), better tooling (14%), better compiler/errors (13%). Note: 39% of responses described personal skill growth rather than ecosystem improvements.
Which recurring issues do you encounter?
n = 702 | multiple choice
Stack-too-deep errors are the most reported issue (47%). Bytecode size limits (33%) and debugging issues (33%) follow. Optimizer-related issues account for 13%. 23% report no recurring issues.
How could debugging be improved?
n = 79
Top themes: better error messages (28%), step-by-step debugger (16%), better stack traces (16%), transaction replay/simulation (14%), IDE integration (11%).
Which language features are most important?
n = 702 | multiple choice
Contracts as objects and inheritance is considered important by 54%, the most frequently selected feature. Unbounded dynamic arrays (34%) and inline assembly (29%) follow.
Biggest pain points with Solidity
n = 215 | multiple choice
Top themes from 215 free-text responses: stack-too-deep (20%), bytecode size limit (11%), gas optimization tradeoffs (9%), array/data structure limitations (8%), verbose syntax (8%).
How could the documentation be improved?
n = 102 | multiple choice
Most requested improvement is more real-world examples (27%). 16% say the docs are good as-is. Simplifying for beginners (14%) and better organization/search (12%) follow.
Most wanted near-term features
n = 702 | multiple choice
Better gas optimizations is the most requested feature (44%). EIP-712 typehash support (29%) is the second most requested. Reference types in transient storage (23%) and more fine-grained storage layout control (23%) are also among the top requests.
Core Solidity
204 respondents are familiar with Core Solidity (30% of the 678 who answered this question).
Are you familiar with Core Solidity?
n = 678
Core Solidity is an initiative to redesign the language from scratch, incorporating lessons from 10 years of Solidity development. 30% of respondents who answered this question are familiar with it.
Which Core Solidity features interest you most?
n = 204 | multiple choice | shown to those familiar with Core Solidity
Among those familiar, better error handling / try-catch replacement (43%) and better delegatecall mechanism / library replacement (41%) are the most selected. 14% selected none.
Would removing inheritance cause challenges?
n = 200 | shown to those familiar with Core Solidity
63% say removing inheritance would cause challenges.
How difficult would rewriting to traits be?
n = 201 | shown to those familiar with Core Solidity
44% estimate the rewrite to type classes/traits would be somewhat difficult, 21% very difficult.
Would your codebase benefit from compile-time evaluation?
n = 201 | shown to those familiar with Core Solidity
71% of those familiar with Core Solidity say their codebase would benefit from improved compile-time evaluation.
Feedback on Core Solidity
n = 43 | multiple choice | shown to those familiar with Core Solidity
23% are skeptical/cautious. 21% are excited/supportive. 21% are concerned about fragmentation. 12% want it kept low-level. "Security focus" refers to respondents who emphasized that security should be the primary goal of any language redesign.
AI in Solidity Development
Do you use AI tools for development?
n = 650
58% use AI tools daily. 88% use them at least monthly. 4% don't use AI and don't plan to.
How do you view AI in development?
n = 650
77% of respondents view AI favorably (46% favorable, 31% very favorable). 9% hold unfavorable views. 14% are indifferent.
How much do you trust AI-generated code?
n = 591
49% somewhat trust, 30% somewhat distrust, 15% highly distrust, and 6% highly trust AI output. Notably, adoption outpaces trust: 88% use AI tools at least monthly, yet 45% express some level of distrust in the output.
What do you use AI for in your workflow?
n = 629 | multiple choice
Testing (61%), documenting code (59%), and learning about codebases (58%) are the top AI use cases. Debugging (53%), auditing (52%), and searching for answers (52%) follow. Writing code (49%) and reviewing code (49%) are somewhat lower.
Which editors do you use with AI agents?
n = 629 | multiple choice
VSCode (60%), Cursor (32%), and Antigravity (16%) are the top editors used with AI agents.
Preferred AI assistant
n = 545
Claude Code is the most selected preferred assistant (61%), followed by Codex/ChatGPT (16%) and Gemini (10%). Note: this survey was distributed via Solidity community channels, which may introduce distribution bias.
Cross-Analysis
For the cross-analysis charts, self-rated expertise was grouped into three tiers: Beginner (1-4), Intermediate (5-7), and Expert (8-10).
Self-rated expertise by years using Solidity
n = 865
Self-rated expertise increases with years of Solidity experience. The most common self-rating of 8+ appears at the 4-6 year mark.
Self-rated expertise by years coding
n = 865
Self-rated Solidity expertise also correlates with general programming experience, though less strongly than with Solidity-specific experience.
Recurring issues by expertise level
n = Beginner (1-4): 181, Intermediate (5-7): 285, Expert (8-10): 236
Stack-too-deep is reported by 25% of beginners vs 65% of experts. Bytecode size limit follows a similar pattern (17% vs 47%). Debugging issues are consistent across all levels (29-35%).
Expertise distribution by framework
n = Foundry: 467, Hardhat v3: 145, Hardhat v2: 126, Remix: 62
Framework choice correlates with expertise level: Remix users are predominantly beginners (60%), Hardhat v3 has the highest share of intermediate users (47%), and Foundry has the highest share of expert users (38%).
AI usage by expertise level
n = Beginner (1-4): 164, Intermediate (5-7): 260, Expert (8-10): 226
Daily AI usage is higher among more experienced respondents: 52% of beginners, 58% of intermediate, and 62% of expert respondents use AI daily.
AI trust vs. usage frequency
n = 591
36% of daily AI users express distrust (somewhat or highly) in the output. Nearly all who highly trust AI (37 of 38) are daily users.
Expertise: students vs. professionals
n = Students: 147, Professionals: 692
Students cluster at lower expertise (peak at 5), professionals peak at 7-8.
Framework choice: students vs. professionals
n = Students: 137, Professionals: 666
Remix usage is higher among students; Foundry is more common among professionals.
AI usage: students vs. professionals
n = Students: 101, Professionals: 536
AI adoption is similar between students and professionals.
Final Feedback Highlights
The 151 final feedback responses included the following recurring themes:
Feature requests:
- Bytecode size limit increase (mentioned multiple times)
- Generics support for library developers
- Better type conversions
- Native cryptographic primitives and smoother Yul integration
- Pre-dispatch hook: ability to run code before/after method dispatch
- Development tools for Zed editor
AI-related:
- Multiple respondents report AI-generated Solidity is unreliable
- Request for the Solidity team to help AI write more secure code
Community and communication:
- More visibility and outreach for Solidity
- More detail in Core Solidity article on try-catch replacement and typeclasses
- More outreach for the survey through ecosystem projects
Methodology
- Survey ran February-March 2026 using LimeSurvey
- 1,482 total submissions; 387 responses dropped (empty submissions or those who did not complete any survey page)
- 640 fully completed (all 8 pages), 1,095 usable (reached page 1+)
- Free-text "Other" answers were normalized and merged into parent columns
- Multi-value free-text answers are counted toward each mentioned item
- Troll/noise entries were filtered out
- Per-question N is used throughout: each chart shows the number of respondents who answered that specific question
- Questions marked "conditional" were only shown to respondents who met a prerequisite
- Distributed via Solidity community channels and social media
- Free-text responses were manually categorized by theme. A single response can match multiple themes. Misinterpretation or miscategorization of individual responses is possible; treat theme counts as approximate