[Task] Compare cost of using map as default storage for rust contracts #605
Description
Background
During DevConnect Buenos Aires the people of Solidity discussed on the problem of contact migration
As it happens on NEAR, their contracts store data in a linearly serialized way, as we do with Borsh. This makes them run into the same "state is corrupted" error when they update the contract's state struct.
They are proposing a new EIP where they simply store the contract state as a map: variable_name -> value
Since on a map different variables are always in a different space, most of the corruption problems are easily avoidable
Would be useful for us to run some benchmarks, both in terms of NEAR locked and gas overhead to maybe propose a similar NEP
User Story
Acceptance Criteria
Resources & Additional Notes
No response