EVM at the execution layer when consensus is the novelty — the call we shipped at Incentiv and converged on for projects with novel consensus claims.
The core work is Incentiv — EVM-compatible L1 with custom Contribution-Scored Proof-of-Work consensus and native Account Abstraction at the protocol level. Shipped from genesis. The intersection page exists because the "EVM compatibility for chains where the consensus is the novelty" engineering decision is a recurring conversation we have with founder teams shipping novel-consensus L1s — and Incentiv is the worked example.
The decision to ship EVM-as-execution is more nuanced than "fork an EVM chain" or "use Cosmos SDK + EVM module." Two things matter.
Native AA at the protocol level — which Incentiv ships and ERC-4337 EVM chains do not — means Incentiv's transaction model isn't bytecode-identical to mainnet Ethereum. The tradeoff is intentional. Native AA delivers lower gas costs for AA flows, no separate mempool, and signature schemes that don't have to round-trip through a smart contract wallet. The cost is that some Ethereum-mainnet tools have to account for the difference. Most don't have to.
Building EVM execution + a new consensus mechanism in parallel works because the consensus has no upstream to fork. Designing Contribution-Scored PoW — the scoring layer, the cryptographic primitives, the game-theoretic analysis — is genuine cryptography and protocol engineering. EVM at execution lets the engineering attention concentrate there.
Engagements at this intersection led by Mike Yezhov and Anton Yezhov. See /founders.
If you're building an EVM-compatible L1 with novel consensus or protocol-level features, the engagement starts with a 30-minute call.
That call is with a founder. Shapes, discovery, and terms → /engagement