We thought around the idea of eBPF as an alternative to Wasm but dismissed it in favor of RISC-V.
eBPF works great for what it was designed for by Kernel folks. It’s not a natural choice for smart contracts however.
My understand is that performance wise Polkadot VM is superior to Solana’s, but there are other parameters.
Even if you somehow were to get compatible implementations of their account model and parallel transaction model in your runtime. A Solana VM parachain would still be slower than Solana mainnet. They have high hardware requirements on nodes; this and parallel contract execution giving them “high TPS” despite eBPF.
Also I’m not exactly sure what you are referring to with “Polkadot VM”. Roughly, Polkadot as a sharded system scales horizontally where Solana scales vertically.
account mapping would be left and probably some other things that I forgot too
I think that you’d want a “Solana on Polkadot” to be fully compatible, i.e. shipping with a “frontier for Solana” compatibility layer. Otherwise you’d offer the same but worse in many ways (i.e. worse performance, not fully compatible, you aren’t mainnet making it more annoying and costly to interact with their ecosystem. EDIT: Decentralization, resilience and uptime would of course be much better than on mainnet, but at this point we see that the Solana ecosystem couldn’t care less about those factors anyways). I don’t see Solanas tech stack and standards being that relevant in web3, at least in no way as relevant as ETH.