Mapping Token Primitives from Solidity to Rust/Anchor — Forge College

How do common Solidity token idioms translate to Solana's account-based model? This lesson shows why the differences matter and how to preserve the original intent when porting token logic.

What you'll learn
Identify the core token primitives used in typical Solidity tokens (ownership, transfer/approval, mint/burn, metadata) and how to represent them in Rust with Anchor. You will see concrete mappings: an Ownable modifier becomes an explicit authority field and a PDA check, transfer and approval semantics become instruction-level checks and signer constraints, and mint/burn lifecycles are expressed with program-owned mint accounts or controlled SPL mints. The lesson covers storage decisions, state layout vs Solana accounts, and practical serialization/deserialization patterns (for example Borsh-compatible structs and Anchor account constraints). Examples show the exact intent-preserving translations you should apply when reimplementing token logic.

Who this is for
Intermediate developers who know Solidity and basic token patterns and want to learn how to implement the same primitives securely in Rust and Anchor on Solana.

Key topics covered
- Token ownership model and mapping Ownable to PDA authority fields
- Transfer and approval semantics as explicit instruction checks and signer constraints
- Mint and burn lifecycle translated to program-owned mints or controlled SPL mint flows
- Metadata handling, storage choices, and minimizing on-chain footprint
- State layout versus Solana account model and layout strategies
- Serialization and deserialization patterns for Anchor accounts (Borsh, AnchorSerialize)

Ready to apply these mappings in code? Learn more and get hands-on materials at https://www.forge.college/

Видео Mapping Token Primitives from Solidity to Rust/Anchor — Forge College канала Forge College