The difference here is that JavaScript is a human-readable format and, although, it can be translated into a readable format, WASM is byte-code. It is more prac

The difference here is that JavaScript is a human-readable format and, although, it can be translated into a readable format, WASM is byte-code. It is more practical to write contracts in a high-level language and translate them into byte-code than writing the byte-code itself. Ethereum uses this concept by translating solidity code into ethereum byte-code, whereas Lisk appears to interpret the JavaScript directly without translation. WASM would be a candidate to replace the byte-code in ethereum, but in order to avoid the impracticality of writing contracts directly in WASM, we'd also need a high-level language from which to compile. This reason this is a good idea is because one could write contracts in any language for which a WASM compiler exists, but I imagine that could also be done with ethereum byte-code. WASM currently has the '"runs literally everywhere" advantage' here, but it should be simple to create a compiler that translates from solidity to WASM, or even directly from ethereum byte-code itself. Further, I don't buy in to the '"runs literally everywhere" advantage' for JavaScript because it loses this advantage to any language that can compile to it and this is becoming increasingly true for WASM as well.