21 posts tagged with "Ethereum"

The Blockchain Application Stanford Summit (BASS) kicked off the week of the Science of Blockchain Conference (SBC), bringing together innovators, researchers, and builders to explore the cutting edge of the ecosystem. Organizers Gil, Kung, and Stephen welcomed attendees, highlighting the event's focus on entrepreneurship and real-world applications, a spirit born from its close collaboration with SBC. With support from organizations like Blockchain Builders and the Cryptography and Blockchain Alumni of Stanford, the day was packed with deep dives into celestial blockchains, the future of Ethereum, institutional DeFi, and the burgeoning intersection of AI and crypto.

Dalia Maliki: Building an Orbital Root of Trust with Space Computer​

Dalia Maliki, a professor at UC Santa Barbara and an advisor to Space Computer, opened with a look at a truly out-of-this-world application: building a secure computing platform in orbit.

What is Space Computer? In a nutshell, Space Computer is an "orbital root of trust," providing a platform for running secure and confidential computations on satellites. The core value proposition lies in the unique security guarantees of space. "Once a box is launched securely and deployed into space, nobody can come later and hack into it," Maliki explained. "It's purely, perfectly tamper-proof at this point." This environment makes it leak-proof, ensures communications cannot be easily jammed, and provides verifiable geolocation, offering powerful decentralization properties.

Architecture and Use Cases The system is designed with a two-tier architecture:

• Layer 1 (Celestial): The authoritative root of trust runs on a network of satellites in orbit, optimized for limited and intermittent communication.
• Layer 2 (Terrestrial): Standard scaling solutions like rollups and state channels run on Earth, anchoring to the celestial Layer 1 for finality and security.

Early use cases include running highly secure blockchain validators and a true random number generator that captures cosmic radiation. However, Maliki emphasized the platform's potential for unforeseen innovation. "The coolest thing about building a platform is always that you build a platform and other people will come and build use cases that you never even dreamed of."

Drawing a parallel to the ambitious Project Corona of the 1950s, which physically dropped film buckets from spy satellites to be caught mid-air by aircraft, Maliki urged the audience to think big. "By comparison, what we work with today in space computer is a luxury, and we're very excited about the future."

Tomasz Stanczak: The Ethereum Roadmap - Scaling, Privacy, and AI​

Tomasz Stanczak, Executive Director of the Ethereum Foundation, provided a comprehensive overview of Ethereum's evolving roadmap, which is heavily focused on scaling, enhancing privacy, and integrating with the world of AI.

Short-Term Focus: Supporting L2s The immediate priority for Ethereum is to solidify its role as the best platform for Layer 2s to build upon. Upcoming forks, Fusaka and Glumpsterdom, are centered on this goal. "We want to make much stronger statements that yes, [L2s] innovate, they extend Ethereum, and they will have a commitment from protocol builders that Layer 1 will support L2s in the best way possible," Stanczak stated.

Long-Term Vision: Lean Ethereum and Real-Time Proving Looking further ahead, the "Lean Ethereum" vision aims for massive scalability and security hardening. A key component is the ZK-EVM roadmap, which targets real-time proving with latencies under 10 seconds for 99% of blocks, achievable by solo stakers. This, combined with data availability improvements, could push L2s to a theoretical "10 million TPS." The long-term plan also includes a focus on post-quantum cryptography through hash-based signatures and ZK-EVMs.

Privacy and the AI Intersection Privacy is another critical pillar. The Ethereum Foundation has established the Privacy and Scaling Explorations (PSC) team to coordinate efforts, support tooling, and explore protocol-level privacy integrations. Stanczak sees this as crucial for Ethereum's interaction with AI, enabling use cases like censorship-resistant financial markets, privacy-preserving AI, and open-source agentic systems. He emphasized that Ethereum's culture of connecting multiple disciplines—from finance and art to robotics and AI—is essential for navigating the challenges and opportunities of the next decade.

Sreeram Kannan: The Trust Framework for Ambitious Crypto Apps with EigenCloud​

Sreeram Kannan, founder of Eigen Labs, challenged the audience to think beyond the current scope of crypto applications, presenting a framework for understanding crypto's core value and introducing EigenCloud as a platform to realize this vision.

Crypto's Core Thesis: A Verifiability Layer "Underpinning all of this is a core thesis that crypto is the trust or verifiability layer on top of which you can build very powerful applications," Kannan explained. He introduced a "TAM vs. Trust" framework, illustrating that the total addressable market (TAM) for a crypto application grows exponentially as the trust it underwrites increases. Bitcoin's market grows as it becomes more trusted than fiat currencies; a lending platform's market grows as its guarantee of borrower solvency becomes more credible.

EigenCloud: Unleashing Programmability Kannan argued that the primary bottleneck for building more ambitious apps—like a decentralized Uber or trustworthy AI platforms—is not performance but programmability. To solve this, EigenCloud introduces a new architecture that separates application logic from token logic.

"Let's keep the token logic on-chain on Ethereum," he proposed, "but the application logic is moved outside. You can actually now write your core logic in arbitrary containers... execute them on any device of your choice, whether it's a CPU or a GPU... and then bring these results verifiably back on-chain."

This approach, he argued, extends crypto from a "laptop or server scale to cloud scale," allowing developers to build the truly disruptive applications that were envisioned in crypto's early days.

Panel: A Deep Dive into Blockchain Architecture​

A panel featuring Leiyang from MegaETH, Adi from Realo, and Solomon from the Solana Foundation explored the trade-offs between monolithic, modular, and "super modular" architectures.

• MegaETH (Modular L2): Leiyang described MegaETH's approach of using a centralized sequencer for extreme speed while delegating security to Ethereum. This design aims to deliver a Web2-level real-time experience for applications, reviving the ambitious "ICO-era" ideas that were previously limited by performance.
• Solana (Monolithic L1): Solomon explained that Solana's architecture, with its high node requirements, is deliberately designed for maximum throughput to support its vision of putting all global financial activity on-chain. The current focus is on asset issuance and payments. On interoperability, Solomon was candid: "Generally speaking, we don't really care about interoperability... It's about getting as much asset liquidity and usage on-chain as possible."
• Realo ("Super Modular" L1): Adi introduced Realo's "super modular" concept, which consolidates essential services like oracles directly into the base layer to reduce developer friction. This design aims to natively connect the blockchain to the real world, with a go-to-market focus on RWAs and making the blockchain invisible to end-users.

Panel: The Real Intersection of AI and Blockchain​

Moderated by Ed Roman of HackVC, this panel showcased three distinct approaches to merging AI and crypto.

• Ping AI (Bill): Ping AI is building a "personal AI" where users maintain self-custody of their data. The vision is to replace the traditional ad-exchange model. Instead of companies monetizing user data, Ping AI's system will reward users directly when their data leads to a conversion, allowing them to capture the economic value of their digital footprint.
• Public AI (Jordan): Described as the "human layer of AI," Public AI is a marketplace for sourcing high-quality, on-demand data that can't be scraped or synthetically generated. It uses an on-chain reputation system and staking mechanisms to ensure contributors provide signal, not noise, rewarding them for their work in building better AI models.
• Gradient (Eric): Gradient is creating a decentralized runtime for AI, enabling distributed inference and training on a network of underutilized consumer hardware. The goal is to provide a check on the centralizing power of large AI companies by allowing a global community to collaboratively train and serve models, retaining "intelligent sovereignty."

More Highlights from the Summit​

• Orin Katz (Starkware) presented building blocks for "compliant on-chain privacy," detailing how ZK-proofs can be used to create privacy pools and private tokens (ZRC20s) that include mechanisms like "viewing keys" for regulatory oversight.
• Sam Green (Cambrian) gave an overview of the "Agentic Finance" landscape, categorizing crypto agents into trading, liquidity provisioning, lending, prediction, and information, and highlighted the need for fast, comprehensive, and verifiable data to power them.
• Max Siegel (Privy) shared lessons from onboarding over 75 million users, emphasizing the need to meet users where they are, simplify product experiences, and let product needs inform infrastructure choices, not the other way around.
• Nil Dalal (Coinbase) introduced the "Onchain Agentic Commerce Stack" and the open standard X42, a crypto-native protocol designed to create a "machine-payable web" where AI agents can seamlessly transact using stablecoins for data, APIs, and services.
• Gordon Liao & Austin Adams (Circle) unveiled Circle Gateway, a new primitive for creating a unified USDC balance that is chain-abstracted. This allows for near-instant (<500ms) deployment of liquidity across multiple chains, dramatically improving capital efficiency for businesses and solvers.

The day concluded with a clear message: the foundational layers of crypto are maturing, and the focus is shifting decisively towards building robust, user-friendly, and economically sustainable applications that can bridge the gap between the on-chain world and the global economy.

TL;DR​

Memecoins are crypto tokens born from internet culture, jokes, and viral moments. Their value is driven by attention, community coordination, and speed, not fundamentals. The category began with Dogecoin in 2013 and has since exploded with tokens like SHIB, PEPE, and a massive wave of assets on Solana and Base. This sector now represents tens of billions in market value and can significantly impact network fees and on-chain volumes. However, most memecoins lack intrinsic utility; they are extremely volatile, high-turnover assets. The risks of "rug pulls" and flawed presales are exceptionally high. If you engage, use a strict checklist to evaluate liquidity, supply, ownership controls, distribution, and contract security.

The 10-Second Definition​

A memecoin is a cryptocurrency inspired by an internet meme, a cultural inside joke, or a viral social event. Unlike traditional crypto projects, it is typically community-driven and thrives on social media momentum rather than underlying cash flows or protocol utility. The concept began with Dogecoin, which was launched in 2013 as a lighthearted parody of Bitcoin. Since then, waves of similar tokens have emerged, riding new trends and narratives across different blockchains.

How Big Is This, Really?​

Don't let the humorous origins fool you—the memecoin sector is a significant force in the crypto market. On any given day, the aggregate market capitalization of memecoins can reach tens of billions of dollars. During peak bull cycles, this category has accounted for a material share of the entire non-BTC/ETH crypto economy. This scale is easily visible on data aggregators like CoinGecko and in the dedicated "meme" categories featured on major crypto exchanges.

Where Do Memecoins Live?​

While memecoins can exist on any smart contract platform, a few ecosystems have become dominant hubs.

• Ethereum: As the original smart contract chain, Ethereum hosts many iconic memecoins, from $DOGE-adjacent ERC-20s to tokens like $PEPE. During periods of intense speculative frenzy, the trading activity from these tokens has been known to cause significant spikes in network gas fees, even boosting validator revenue.
• Solana: In 2024 and 2025, Solana became the ground zero for memecoin creation and trading. A Cambrian explosion of new tokens pushed the network to record-breaking fee generation and on-chain volume, birthing viral hits like $BONK and $WIF.
• Base: Coinbase's Layer 2 network has cultivated its own vibrant meme sub-culture, with a growing list of tokens and dedicated community tracking on platforms like CoinGecko.

How a Memecoin Is Born (2025 Edition)​

The technical barrier to launching a memecoin has dropped to near zero. Today, two paths are most common:

1. Classic DEX Launch (EVM or Solana)​

In this model, a creator mints a supply of tokens, creates a liquidity pool (LP) on a decentralized exchange (like Uniswap or Raydium) by pairing the tokens with a base asset (like $ETH, $SOL, or $USDC), and then markets the token with a story or meme. The primary risks here hinge on who controls the token contract (e.g., can they mint more?) and the LP tokens (e.g., can they pull the liquidity?).

2. Bonding-Curve “Factory” (e.g., pump.fun on Solana)​

This model, which surged in popularity on Solana, standardizes and automates the launch process. Anyone can instantly launch a token with a fixed supply (often one billion) onto a linear bonding curve. The price is automatically quoted based on how much has been bought. Once the token reaches a certain market cap threshold, it "graduates" to a major DEX like Raydium, where the liquidity is automatically created and locked. This innovation dramatically lowered the technical barrier, shaping the culture and accelerating the pace of launches.

Why builders care: These new launchpads compress what used to be days of work into minutes. The result is massive, unpredictable traffic spikes that hammer RPC nodes, clog mempools, and challenge indexers. At their peak, these memecoin launches on Solana generated transaction volumes that matched or exceeded all previous network records.

Where "Value" Comes From​

Memecoin value is a function of social dynamics, not financial modeling. It typically derives from three sources:

• Attention Gravity: Memes, celebrity endorsements, or viral news stories act as powerful magnets for attention and, therefore, liquidity. In 2024–2025, tokens themed around celebrities and political figures saw massive, albeit often short-lived, trading flows, particularly on Solana DEXs.
• Coordination Games: A strong community can rally around a narrative, a piece of art, or a collective stunt. This shared belief can create powerful reflexive price movements, where buying begets more attention, which begets more buying.
• Occasional Utility Add-Ons: Some successful memecoin projects attempt to "bolt on" utility after gaining traction, introducing swaps, Layer 2 chains, NFT collections, or games. However, the vast majority remain purely speculative, trade-only assets.

The Risks You Can’t Ignore​

The memecoin space is rife with dangers. Understanding them is non-negotiable.

Contract and Control Risk​

• Mint/Freeze Authority: Can the original creator mint an infinite supply of new tokens, diluting holders to zero? Can they freeze transfers, trapping your funds?
• Ownership/Upgrade Rights: A contract with "renounced" ownership, where the admin keys are burned, reduces this risk but doesn't eliminate it entirely. Proxies or other hidden functions can still pose a threat.

Liquidity Risk​

• Locked Liquidity: Is the initial liquidity pool locked in a smart contract for a period of time? If not, the creator can perform a "rug pull" by removing all the valuable assets from the pool, leaving the token worthless. Thin liquidity also means high slippage on trades.

Presales and Soft Rugs​

• Even without a malicious contract, many projects fail. Teams can abandon a project after raising funds in a presale, or insiders can slowly dump their large allocations on the market. The infamous $SLERF launch on Solana showed how even an accidental mistake (like burning the LP tokens) can vaporize millions while paradoxically creating a volatile trading environment.

Market and Operational Risk​

• Extreme Volatility: Prices can swing 90%+ in either direction within minutes. Furthermore, the network effects of a frenzy can be costly. During $PEPE's initial surge, Ethereum gas fees skyrocketed, making transactions prohibitively expensive for late buyers.

Scams and Legal Exposure​

• Rug pulls, pump-and-dumps, phishing links disguised as airdrops, and fake celebrity endorsements are everywhere. Study how common scams work to protect yourself. This content does not constitute legal or investment advice.

A 5-Minute Memecoin Checklist (DYOR in Practice)​

Before interacting with any memecoin, run through this basic due diligence checklist:

1. Supply Math: What is the total supply vs. the circulating supply? How much is allocated to the LP, the team, or a treasury? Are there any vesting schedules?
2. LP Health: Is the liquidity pool locked? For how long? What percentage of the total supply is in the LP? Use a blockchain explorer to verify these details on-chain.
3. Admin Powers: Can the contract owner mint new tokens, pause trading, blacklist wallets, or change transaction taxes? Has ownership been renounced?
4. Distribution: Check the holder distribution. Is the supply concentrated in a few wallets? Look for signs of bot clusters or insider wallets that received large, early allocations.
5. Contract Provenance: Is the source code verified on-chain? Does it use a standard, well-understood template, or is it full of custom, unaudited code? Beware of honeypot patterns designed to trap funds.
6. Liquidity Venues: Where does it trade? Is it still on a bonding curve, or has it graduated to a major DEX or CEX? Check the slippage for the trade size you are considering.
7. Narrative Durability: Does the meme have genuine cultural resonance, or is it a fleeting joke destined to be forgotten by next week?

What Memecoins Do to Blockchains (and Infra)​

Memecoin frenzies are a powerful stress test for blockchain infrastructure.

• Fee and Throughput Spikes: Sudden, intense demand for blockspace stresses RPC gateways, indexers, and validator nodes. In March 2024, Solana recorded its highest-ever daily fees and billions in on-chain volume, driven almost entirely by a memecoin surge. Infrastructure teams must plan capacity for these events.
• Liquidity Migration: Capital rapidly concentrates around a few hot DEXs and launchpads, reshaping Miner Extractable Value (MEV) and order-flow patterns on the network.
• User Onboarding: For better or worse, memecoin waves often serve as the first point of contact for new crypto users, who may later explore other dApps in the ecosystem.

Canonical Examples (For Context, Not Endorsement)​

• $DOGE: The original (2013). A proof-of-work currency that still trades primarily on its brand recognition and cultural significance.
• $SHIB: An Ethereum ERC-20 token that evolved from a simple meme into a large, community-driven ecosystem with its own swap and L2.
• $PEPE: A 2023 phenomenon on Ethereum whose explosive popularity significantly impacted on-chain economics for validators and users.
• BONK & WIF (Solana): Emblematic of the 2024-2025 Solana wave. Their rapid rise and subsequent listings on major exchanges catalyzed massive activity on the network.

For Builders and Teams​

If you must launch, default to fairness and safety:

• Provide clear and honest disclosures. No hidden mints or team allocations.
• Lock a meaningful portion of the liquidity pool and publish proof of the lock.
• Avoid presales unless you have the operational security to administer them safely.
• Plan your infrastructure. Prepare for bot activity, rate-limit abuse, and have a clear communication plan for volatile periods.

If you integrate memecoins into your dApp, sandbox flows and protect users:

• Display prominent warnings about contract risks and thin liquidity.
• Clearly show slippage and price impact estimates before a user confirms a trade.
• Expose key metadata—like supply figures and admin rights—directly in your UI.

For Traders​

• Treat position sizing like leverage: use only a small amount of capital you are fully prepared to lose.
• Plan your entry and exit points before you trade. Do not let emotion drive your decisions.
• Automate your security hygiene. Use hardware wallets, regularly review token approvals, use allow-listed RPCs, and practice identifying phishing attempts.
• Be extremely cautious of spikes caused by celebrity or political news. These are often highly volatile and revert quickly.

Quick Glossary​

• Bonding Curve: An automated mathematical formula that sets a token's price as a function of its purchased supply. Common in pump.fun launches.
• LP Lock: A smart contract that time-locks liquidity pool tokens, preventing the project creator from removing liquidity and "rugging" the project.
• Renounced Ownership: The act of surrendering the admin keys to a smart contract, which reduces (but doesn't entirely eliminate) the risk of malicious changes.
• Graduation: The process of a token moving from an initial bonding curve launchpad to a public DEX with a permanent, locked liquidity pool.

Sources & Further Reading​

• Binance Academy: "What Are Meme Coins?" and "Rug pull" definitions.
• Wikipedia & Binance Academy: DOGE and SHIB origins.
• CoinGecko: Live memecoin market statistics by sector.
• CoinDesk: Reporting on Solana fee spikes, PEPE’s impact on Ethereum, and the SLERF case study.
• Decrypt & Wikipedia: Explanations of pump.fun mechanics and its cultural impact.
• Investopedia: Overview of common crypto scams and defenses.

Disclosure: This post is for educational purposes and is not investment advice. Crypto assets are extremely volatile. Always verify data on-chain and from multiple sources before making any decisions.

TL;DR​

Ethereum just got two powerful primitives that push user experience past seed phrases and bookmarkable dapps toward “clickable on-chain experiences.”

• ERC-4337 brings account abstraction to today’s Ethereum without core protocol changes. This makes features like smart contract accounts, gas sponsorship, batched calls, and passkey-style authentication native to wallets.
• ERC-4804 introduces web3:// URLs—human-readable links that resolve directly to contract read calls and can even render on-chain HTML or SVG, all without a traditional web server acting as a middleman. Think of it as “HTTP for the EVM.”

When used together, ERC-4337 handles actions, while ERC-4804 handles addresses. This combination allows you to share a link that verifiably pulls its user interface from a smart contract. When a user is ready to act, the flow hands off to a smart account that can sponsor gas and batch multiple steps into a single, seamless click.

Why This Matters Now​

This isn't just a theoretical future; these technologies are live and gaining significant traction. ERC-4337 is already scaled and proven in the wild. The canonical EntryPoint contract was deployed on the Ethereum mainnet on March 1, 2023, and has since powered tens of millions of smart contract accounts and processed over 100 million user operations.

Simultaneously, the core protocol is converging with these ideas. The Pectra upgrade, shipped in May 2025, included EIP-7702, which allows standard externally owned accounts (EOAs) to temporarily behave like smart accounts. This complements ERC-4337 by easing the transition for existing users, rather than replacing the standard.

On the addressing front, web3:// is now formalized. ERC-4804 specifies exactly how a URL translates into an EVM call, and web3 has been listed by IANA as a provisional URI scheme. The tooling and gateways needed to make these URLs practical are now available, turning on-chain data into shareable, linkable resources.

Primer: ERC-4337 in One Page​

At its core, ERC-4337 introduces a parallel transaction rail to Ethereum, built for flexibility. Instead of traditional transactions, users submit UserOperation objects into an alternative mempool. These objects describe what the account wants to do. Specialized nodes called "Bundlers" pick up these operations and execute them through a global EntryPoint contract.

This enables three key components:

1. Smart Contract Accounts (SCAs): These accounts contain their own logic. They define what makes a transaction valid, allowing for custom signature schemes (like passkeys or multisig), session keys for games, spending limits, and social recovery mechanisms. The account, not the network, enforces the rules.
2. Paymasters: These special contracts can sponsor gas fees for users or allow them to pay in ERC-20 tokens. This is the key to unlocking true “no-ETH-in-wallet” onboarding and creating one-click experiences by batching multiple calls into a single operation.
3. DoS Safety & Rules: The public ERC-4337 mempool is protected by standardized off-chain validation rules (defined in ERC-7562) that prevent Bundlers from wasting resources on operations that are destined to fail. While alternative mempools can exist for specialized use cases, these shared rules keep the ecosystem coherent and secure.

Mental model: ERC-4337 turns wallets into programmable apps. Instead of just signing raw transactions, users submit "intents" that their account's code validates and the EntryPoint contract executes—safely and atomically.

Primer: ERC-4804 in One Page​

ERC-4804 provides a simple, direct mapping from a web3:// URL to a read-only EVM call. The URL grammar is intuitive: web3://<name-or-address>[:chainId]/<method>/<arg0>?returns=(types). Names can be resolved via systems like ENS, and arguments are automatically typed based on the contract's ABI.

Here are a couple of examples:

• web3://uniswap.eth/ would call the contract at the uniswap.eth address with empty calldata.
• web3://.../balanceOf/vitalik.eth?returns=(uint256) would ABI-encode a call to the balanceOf function with Vitalik's address and return a properly typed JSON result.

Crucially, this standard is currently for read-only calls (equivalent to Solidity's view functions). Any action that changes state still requires a transaction—which is exactly where ERC-4337 or EIP-7702 come in. With web3 registered as a provisional URI scheme with IANA, the path is paved for native browser and client support, though for now, it often relies on extensions or gateways.

Mental model: ERC-4804 turns on-chain resources into linkable web objects. “Share this contract view as a URL” becomes as natural as sharing a link to a dashboard.

Together: "Clickable On-chain Experiences"​

Combining these two standards unlocks a powerful new pattern for building decentralized applications today.

First, you deliver a verifiable UI via web3://. Instead of hosting your frontend on a centralized server like S3, you can store a minimal HTML or SVG interface directly on-chain. A link like web3://app.eth/render allows a client to resolve the URL and render the UI directly from the contract, ensuring the user sees exactly what the code dictates.

From that verifiable interface, you can trigger a one-click action via ERC-4337. A "Mint" or "Subscribe" button can compile a UserOperation that a paymaster sponsors. The user approves with a passkey or a simple biometric prompt, and the EntryPoint contract executes a batched call that deploys their smart account (if it's their first time) and completes the desired action in a single, atomic step.

This creates a seamless deep-link handoff. The UI can embed intent-based links that are handled directly by the user's wallet, eliminating the need to send them to an external site they may not trust. The content is the contract, and the action is the account.

This unlocks:

• Gasless trials and "just works" onboarding: New users don't need to acquire ETH to get started. Your application can sponsor their first few interactions, dramatically reducing friction.
• Shareable state: A web3:// link is a query into the blockchain's state. This is perfect for dashboards, proofs of ownership, or any content that must be verifiably tamper-evident.
• Agent-friendly flows: AI agents can fetch verifiable state via web3:// URLs and submit transactional intents through ERC-4337 using scoped session keys, all without brittle screen scraping or insecure private key handling.

Design Notes for Builders​

When implementing these standards, there are a few architectural choices to consider. For ERC-4337, it's wise to start with minimal smart contract account templates and add capabilities through guarded modules to keep the core validation logic simple and secure. Your paymaster policy should be robust, with clear caps on sponsored gas and whitelists for approved methods to prevent griefing attacks.

For ERC-4804, prioritize human-readable links by using ENS names. Be explicit about chainId to avoid ambiguity and include the returns=(…) parameter to ensure clients receive typed, predictable responses. While you can render full UIs, it’s often best to keep on-chain HTML/SVG minimal, using them as verifiable shells that can fetch heavier assets from decentralized storage like IPFS.

Finally, remember that EIP-7702 and ERC-4337 work together, not against each other. With EIP-7702 now active in the Pectra upgrade, existing EOA users can delegate actions to contract logic without deploying a full smart account. The tooling in the account abstraction ecosystem is already aligning to support this, smoothing the migration path for everyone.

Security, Reality, and Constraints​

While powerful, these systems have trade-offs. The EntryPoint contract is a central chokepoint by design; it simplifies the security model but also concentrates risk. Always stick to audited, canonical versions. The mempool validation rules from ERC-7562 are a social convention, not an on-chain enforced rule, so don't assume every alternative mempool offers the same censorship resistance or DoS protection.

Furthermore, web3:// is still maturing. It remains a read-only standard, and any write operation requires a transaction. While the protocol itself is decentralized, the gateways and clients that resolve these URLs can still be potential points of failure or censorship. True "unblockability" will depend on widespread native client support.

A Concrete Blueprint​

Imagine you want to build an NFT-powered membership club with a shareable, verifiable UI and a one-click join process. Here’s how you could ship it this quarter:

1. Share the UI: Distribute a link like web3://club.eth/home. When a user opens it, their client resolves the URL, calls the contract, and renders an on-chain UI that displays the current member allowlist and mint price.
2. One-Click Join: The user clicks a "Join" button. Their wallet compiles an ERC-4337 UserOperation that is sponsored by your paymaster. This single operation batches three calls: deploying the user's smart account (if they don't have one), paying the mint fee, and registering their profile data.
3. Verifiable Receipt: After the transaction confirms, the user is shown a confirmation view that is just another web3:// link, like web3://club.eth/receipt/<tokenId>, creating a permanent, on-chain link to their membership proof.

The Bigger Arc​

These two standards signal a fundamental shift in how we build on Ethereum. Accounts are becoming software. ERC-4337 and EIP-7702 are turning "wallet UX" into a space for real product innovation, moving us beyond lectures about key management. At the same time, links are becoming queries. ERC-4804 restores the URL as a primitive for addressing verifiable facts on-chain, not just the frontends that proxy them.

Together, they shrink the gap between what users click and what contracts do. That gap was once filled by centralized web servers and trust assumptions. Now, it can be filled by verifiable code paths and open, permissionless mempools.

If you're building consumer crypto applications, this is your chance to make the user's first minute delightful. Share a link, render the truth, sponsor the first action, and keep your users inside a verifiable loop. The rails are here—now it's time to ship the experiences.

Introduction​

Rollups-as-a-Service (RaaS) and modular blockchain frameworks have become critical in 2025 for scaling Ethereum and building custom blockchains. Leading frameworks – Optimism’s OP Stack, zkSync’s ZK Stack (Hyperchains), Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon’s Chain Development Kit (CDK), and related solutions – allow developers to launch their own Layer-2 (L2) or Layer-3 (L3) chains with varying approaches (optimistic vs zero-knowledge). These frameworks share a philosophy of modularity: they separate concerns like execution, settlement, data availability, and consensus, enabling customization of each component. This report compares the frameworks across key dimensions – data availability options, sequencer design, fee models, ecosystem support – and examines their architecture, tooling, developer experience, and current adoption in both public and enterprise contexts.

Comparison Overview​

The table below summarizes several core features of each framework:

Table: High-level comparison of key technical features of OP Stack, zkSync’s ZK Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, and Polygon CDK.

Data Availability Layers​

Data Availability (DA) is where rollups store their transaction data so that anyone can reconstruct the chain’s state. All these frameworks support using Ethereum L1 as a DA (posting calldata or blob data on Ethereum for maximum security). However, to reduce costs, they also allow alternative DA solutions:

• OP Stack: By default, OP chains publish data on Ethereum (as calldata or blobs). Thanks to a modular “Alt-DA” interface, OP Stack chains can plug into other DA layers easily. For example, an OP chain could use Celestia (a dedicated DA blockchain) instead of Ethereum. In 2023 OP Labs and Celestia released a beta where an OP Stack rollup settles on Ethereum but stores bulk data on Celestia. This reduces fees while inheriting Celestia’s data availability guarantees. In general, any EVM or non-EVM chain – even Bitcoin or a centralized store – can be configured as the DA layer in OP Stack. (Of course, using a less secure DA trades off some security for cost.) Ethereum remains the predominant choice for production OP chains, but projects like Caldera’s Taro testnet have demonstrated OP Stack with Celestia DA.

• ZK Stack (zkSync Hyperchains): The ZK Stack offers both rollup and validium modes. In rollup mode, all data is on-chain (Ethereum). In validium mode, data is kept off-chain (with only validity proofs on-chain). Matter Labs is integrating Avail, Celestia, and EigenDA as first-class DA options for ZK Stack chains. This means a zkSync Hyperchain could post transaction data to Celestia or an EigenLayer-powered network instead of L1, massively increasing throughput. They even outline volition, where a chain can decide per-transaction whether to treat it as a rollup (on-chain data) or validium (off-chain). This flexibility allows developers to balance security and cost. For example, a gaming hyperchain might use Celestia to cheaply store data, while relying on Ethereum for periodic proofs. The ZK Stack’s design makes DA pluggable via a DA client/dispatcher component in the node software. Overall, Ethereum remains default, but zkSync’s ecosystem strongly emphasizes modular DA to achieve “hyperscale” throughput.

• Arbitrum Orbit: Orbit chains can choose between Arbitrum’s two data modes: rollup (data posted on Ethereum) or AnyTrust (data availability committee). In Rollup configuration, an Orbit L3 will post its call data to the L2 (Arbitrum One or Nova) or L1, inheriting full security at higher cost. In AnyTrust mode, data is kept off-chain by a committee (as used in Arbitrum Nova, which uses a Data Availability Committee). This greatly lowers fees for high-volume apps (gaming, social) at the cost of trusting a committee (if all committee members collude to withhold data, the chain could halt). Beyond these, Arbitrum is also integrating with emerging modular DA networks. Notably, Celestia and Polygon Avail are supported for Orbit chains as alternative DA layers. Projects like AltLayer have worked on Orbit rollups that use EigenDA (EigenLayer’s DA service) as well. In summary, Arbitrum Orbit offers flexible data availability: on-chain via Ethereum, off-chain via DACs or specialized DA chains, or hybrids. Many Orbit adopters choose AnyTrust for cost savings, especially if they have a known set of validators or partners ensuring data is available.

• Polygon CDK: Polygon’s CDK is inherently modular with respect to DA. A Polygon CDK chain can operate as a rollup (all data on Ethereum) or a validium (data on a separate network). Polygon has its own DA solution called Avail (a blockchain for data availability), and CDK chains can use Avail or any similar service. In late 2024, Polygon announced direct integration of Celestia into CDK – making Celestia an “easily-pluggable” DA option in the toolkit. This integration is expected in early 2024, enabling CDK chains to store compressed data on Celestia seamlessly. Polygon cites that using Celestia could reduce transaction fees by >100× compared to posting all data on Ethereum. Thus, a CDK chain creator can simply toggle the DA module to Celestia (or Avail) instead of Ethereum. Some Polygon chains (e.g. Polygon zkEVM) currently post all data to Ethereum (for maximal security), while others (perhaps certain enterprise chains) run as validiums with external DA. The CDK supports “hybrid” modes as well – for instance, critical transactions could go on Ethereum while others go to Avail. This modular DA approach aligns with Polygon’s broader Polygon 2.0 vision of multiple ZK-powered chains with unified liquidity but varied data backends.

In summary, all frameworks support multiple DA layers to various degrees. Ethereum remains the gold standard DA (especially with blob space from EIP-4844 making on-chain data cheaper), but new specialized DA networks (Celestia, Avail) and schemes (EigenLayer’s EigenDA, data committees) are being embraced across the board. This modularity allows rollup creators in 2025 to make trade-offs between cost and security by simply configuring a different DA module rather than building a new chain from scratch.

Sequencer Design and Decentralization​

The sequencer is the node (or set of nodes) that orders transactions and produces blocks for a rollup. How the sequencer is designed – centralized vs decentralized, permissionless vs permissioned – affects the chain’s throughput and trust assumptions:

• OP Stack (Optimism): Today, most OP Stack chains run a single sequencer operated by the chain’s core team or sponsor. For example, Optimism Mainnet’s sequencer is run by OP Labs, and Base’s sequencer is run by Coinbase. This yields low latency and simplicity at the cost of centralization (users must trust the sequencer to include their transactions fairly). However, Optimism has built in mechanisms for trust-minimization: there is an L1 transaction queue contract where users can submit transactions on Ethereum which the sequencer must include in the L2 chain. If the sequencer goes down or censors txs, users can rely on L1 to eventually get included (albeit with some delay). This provides a safety valve against a malicious or failed sequencer. In terms of decentralization, OP Stack is modular and theoretically allows multiple sequencers – e.g. one could implement a round-robin or proof-of-stake based block proposer set using the OP Stack code. In practice, this requires customization and is not the out-of-the-box configuration. The long-term Superchain roadmap envisions a shared sequencer for all OP Chains, which would be a set of validators sequencing transactions for many chains at once. A shared sequencer could enable cross-chain atomicity and reduce MEV across the Superchain. It’s still in development as of 2025, but the OP Stack’s design does not preclude plugging in such a consensus. For now, sequencer operations remain permissioned (run by whitelisted entities), but Optimism governance plans to decentralize this (possibly via staking or committee rotation) once the technology and economics are ready. In short: OP Stack chains start with centralized sequencing (with L1 as fallback), and a path to gradual decentralization is charted (moving from “Stage 0” to “Stage 2” maturity with no training wheels).

• ZK Stack (zkSync Hyperchains): zkSync Era (the L2) currently uses a centralized sequencer operated by Matter Labs. However, the ZK Stack is built to allow various sequencing modes for new chains. Options include a centralized sequencer (easy start), a decentralized sequencer set (e.g. multiple nodes reaching consensus on ordering), a priority transaction queue from L1, or even an external sequencer service. In Matter Labs’ Elastic Chains vision, chains remain independent but interoperability is handled by the L1 contracts and a “ZK Router/Gateway” – this implies each chain can choose its own sequencer model as long as it meets the protocols for submitting state roots and proofs. Because ZK-rollups don’t require a consensus on L2 for security (validity proofs ensure correctness), decentralizing the sequencer is more about liveness and censorship-resistance. A Hyperchain could implement a round-robin block producer or even hook into a high-performance BFT consensus for its sequencers if desired. That said, running a single sequencer is far simpler and remains the norm initially. The ZK Stack docs mention that a chain could use an “external protocol” for sequencing – for instance, one could imagine using Tendermint or SU consensus as the block producer and then generating zk proofs for the blocks. Also, like others, zkSync has an L1 priority queue mechanism: users can send transactions to the zkSync contract with a priority fee to guarantee L1->L2 inclusion in a timely manner (mitigating censorship). Overall, permissionless participation in sequencing is not yet realized on zkSync chains (no public slot auction or staking-based sequencer selection in production), but the architecture leaves room for it. As validity proofs mature, we might see zkSync chains with community-run sequencer nodes that collectively decide ordering (once performance allows).

• Arbitrum Orbit: On Arbitrum One (the main L2), the sequencer is centralized (run by Offchain Labs), though the chain’s state progression is ultimately governed by the Arbitrum validators and fraud proofs. Arbitrum has similarly provided an L1 queue for users as a backstop against sequencer issues. In Orbit (the L3 framework), each Orbit chain can have its own sequencer or validator set. Arbitrum’s Nitro tech includes the option to run a rollup with a decentralized sequencer: essentially, one could have multiple parties run the Arbitrum node software and use a leader election (possibly via the Arbitrum permissionless proof-of-stake chain in the future, or a custom mechanism). Out of the box, Orbit chains launched to date have been mostly centralized (e.g. the Xai gaming chain is run by a foundation in collaboration with Offchain Labs) – but this is a matter of configuration and governance. A noteworthy development is the introduction of BoLD (Bounded Liquidity Delay) in early 2025, which is a new protocol to make Arbitrum’s validation more permissionless. BoLD allows anyone to become a validator (prover) for the chain, resolving fraud challenges in a fixed time frame without a whitelist. This moves Arbitrum closer to trustless operation, although the sequencer role (ordering transactions day-to-day) might still be assigned or elected. Offchain Labs has expressed focus on advancing decentralization in 2024-2025 for Arbitrum. We also see multi-sequencer efforts: for example, an Orbit chain could use a small committee of known sequencers to get some fault tolerance (one goes down, another continues). Another angle is the idea of a shared sequencer for Orbit chains, though Arbitrum hasn’t emphasized this as much as Optimism. Instead, interoperability is achieved via L3s settling on Arbitrum L2 and using standard bridges. In summary, Arbitrum Orbit gives flexibility in sequencer design (from one entity to many), and the trend is toward opening the validator/sequencer set as the tech and community governance matures. Today, it’s fair to say Orbit chains start centralized but have a roadmap for permissionless validation.

• Polygon CDK: Polygon CDK chains (sometimes referred to under the umbrella “AggLayer” in late 2024) can similarly choose their sequencer/consensus setup. Polygon’s zkEVM chain (operated by Polygon Labs) began with a single sequencer and centralized prover, with plans to progressively decentralize both. The CDK, being modular, allows a chain to plug in a consensus module – for instance, one could launch a CDK chain with a Proof-of-Stake validator set producing blocks, effectively decentralizing sequencing from day one. In fact, Polygon’s earlier framework (Polygon Edge) was used for permissioned enterprise chains using IBFT consensus; CDK chains could take a hybrid approach (run Polygon’s zkProver but have a committee of nodes propose blocks). By default, many CDK chains might run with a single operator for simplicity and then later adopt a consensus as they scale. Polygon is also exploring a shared sequencer or aggregator concept through the AggLayer hub, which is intended to connect all Polygon chains. While AggLayer primarily handles cross-chain messaging and liquidity, it could evolve into a shared sequencing service in the future (Polygon co-founder has discussed sequencer decentralization as part of Polygon 2.0). In general, permissionlessness is not yet present – one cannot spontaneously become a sequencer for someone’s CDK chain unless that project allows it. But projects like dYdX V4 (which is building a standalone chain with a form of decentralized consensus) and others show the appetite for validator-based L2s. Polygon CDK makes it technically feasible to have many block producers, but the exact implementation is left to the chain deployer. Expect Polygon to roll out more guidance or even infrastructure for decentralized sequencers as more enterprises and communities launch CDK chains.

To summarize the sequencer comparison: All frameworks currently rely on a relatively centralized sequencer model in their live deployments, to ensure efficiency. However, each provides a route to decentralization – whether via shared sequencing networks (OP Stack), pluggable consensus (CDK, ZK Stack), or permissionless validators (Arbitrum’s BoLD). Table below highlights sequencer designs:

As seen, Optimism and Arbitrum include on-chain fallback queues, which is a strong censorship-resistance feature. ZK-based chains rely on the fact that a sequencer can’t forge state (thanks to ZK proofs), but if it censors, a new sequencer could be appointed by governance – an area still being refined. The trend in 2025 is that we’ll likely see more decentralized sequencer pools and possibly shared sequencer networks coming online, complementing these RaaS frameworks. Each project is actively researching this: e.g. Astria and others are building general shared sequencing services, and OP Labs, Polygon, and Offchain have all mentioned plans to decentralize the sequencer role.

Fee Models and Economics​

Fee models determine who pays what in these rollup frameworks and how the economic incentives align for operators and the ecosystem. Key considerations include: What token are fees paid in? Who collects the fees? What costs (L1 posting, proving) must be covered? Are there revenue-sharing or kickback arrangements? How customizable are fee parameters?

• Gas Token and Fee Customization: All compared frameworks allow customizing the native gas token, meaning a new chain can decide which currency users pay fees in. By default, rollups on Ethereum often choose ETH as the gas token for user convenience (users don’t need a new token to use the chain). For instance, Base (OP Stack) uses ETH for gas, as does zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM. OP Stack technically supports replacing ETH with another ERC-20, but in the context of the OP Superchain, there’s a push to keep a standard (to make interoperability smoother). In fact, some OP Stack chains that initially considered a custom token opted for ETH – e.g., Worldcoin’s OP-chain uses ETH for fees even though the project has its own token WLD. On the other hand, Arbitrum Orbit launched without custom token support but quickly added it due to demand. Now Orbit chains can use ARB or any ERC-20 as gas. The Ape Chain L3 chose APE coin as its gas currency, showcasing this flexibility. Polygon CDK likewise lets you define the token; many projects lean towards using MATIC to align with Polygon’s ecosystem (and MATIC will upgrade to POL token under Polygon 2.0), but it’s not enforced. zkSync’s ZK Stack explicitly supports custom base tokens as well (the docs even have a “Custom base token” tutorial). This is useful for enterprise chains that might want, say, a stablecoin or their own coin for fees. It’s also crucial for app-chains that have their own token economy – they can drive demand for their token by making it the gas token. In summary, fee token is fully configurable in all frameworks, although using a widely-held token like ETH can lower user friction.

• Fee Collection and Distribution: Generally, the sequencer (block producer) collects transaction fees on the L2/L3. This is a primary incentive for running a sequencer. For example, Optimism’s sequencer earns all the gas fees users pay on Optimism, but must then pay for posting batches to Ethereum. Usually, the sequencer will take the user-paid L2 fees, subtract the L1 costs, and keep the remainder as profit. On a well-run chain, L1 costs are a fraction of L2 fees, leaving some profit margin. For ZK-rollups, there’s an extra cost: generating the ZK proof. This can be significant (requiring specialized hardware or cloud compute). Currently, some ZK rollup operators subsidize proving costs (spending VC funds) to keep user fees low during growth phase. Over time, proving costs are expected to drop with better algorithms and hardware. Framework-wise: zkSync and Polygon both allow the sequencer to charge a bit more to cover proving – and if a chain uses an external prover service, they might have a revenue split with them. Notably, no framework except OP Superchain has an enforced revenue-sharing at protocol level. The Optimism Collective’s Standard Rollup Revenue scheme requires OP Chains to remit either 2.5% of gross fees or 15% of net profits (whichever is greater) to a collective treasury. This is a voluntary-but-expected agreement under the Superchain charter, rather than a smart contract enforcement, but all major OP Stack chains (Base, opBNB, Worldcoin, etc.) have agreed to it. Those fees (over 14,000 ETH so far) fund public goods via Optimism’s governance. In contrast, Arbitrum does not charge Orbit chains any fee; Orbit is permissionless to use. Arbitrum DAO could potentially ask for some revenue sharing in the future (to fund its own ecosystem), but none exists as of 2025. Polygon CDK similarly does not impose a tax; Polygon’s approach is to attract users into its ecosystem (thus raising MATIC value and usage) rather than charge per-chain fees. Polygon co-founder Sandeep Nailwal explicitly said AggLayer “does not seek rent” from chains. zkSync also hasn’t announced any fee sharing – Matter Labs likely focuses on growing usage of zkSync Era and hyperchains, which indirectly benefits them via network effects and possibly future token value.

• L1 Settlement Costs: A big part of the fee model is who pays for L1 transactions (posting data or proofs). In all cases, ultimately users pay, but the mechanism differs. In Optimistic rollups, the sequencer periodically posts batches of transactions (with calldata) to L1. The gas cost for those L1 transactions is paid by the sequencer using ETH. However, sequencers factor that into the L2 gas pricing. Optimism and Arbitrum have gas pricing formulas that estimate how much a transaction’s call-data will cost on L1 and include that in the L2 gas fee (often called the “amortized L1 cost” per tx). For example, a simple Optimism tx might incur 21,000 L2 gas for execution and maybe an extra few hundred for L1 data – the user’s fee covers both. If the pricing is misestimated, the sequencer might lose money on that batch or gain if usage is high. Sequencers typically adjust fees dynamically to match L1 conditions (raising L2 fees when L1 gas is expensive). In Arbitrum, the mechanism is similar, though Arbitrum has separate “L1 pricing” and “L2 pricing” components. In zkSync/Polygon (ZK), the sequencer must post a validity proof to L1 (costing a fixed gas amount to verify) plus either call data (if rollup) or state root (if validium). The proof verification cost is usually constant per batch (on zkSync Era it’s on the order of a few hundred thousand gas), so zkSync’s fee model spreads that cost across transactions. They might charge a slight overhead on each tx for proving. Notably, zkSync introduced features like state diffs and compression to minimize L1 data published. Polygon zkEVM likewise uses recursive proofs to batch many transactions into one proof, amortizing the verification cost. If a chain uses an alternative DA (Celestia/Avail), then instead of paying Ethereum for calldata, they pay that DA provider. Celestia, for instance, has its own gas token (TIA) to pay for data blobs. So a chain might need to convert part of fees to pay Celestia miners. Frameworks are increasingly abstracting these costs: e.g., an OP Stack chain could pay a Celestia DA node via an adapter, and include that cost in user fees.

• Costs to Users (Finality and Withdrawal): For optimistic rollups (OP Stack, Arbitrum Orbit in rollup mode), users face the infamous challenge period for withdrawals – typically 7 days on Ethereum L1. This is a usability hit, but most ecosystems have mitigations. Fast bridges (liquidity networks) allow users to swap their L2 tokens for L1 tokens instantly for a small fee, while arbitrageurs wait the 7 days. Arbitrum has gone further for Orbit chains, working with teams to enable fast withdrawals in as little as 15 minutes via liquidity providers integrated at the protocol level. This effectively means users don’t wait a week except in worst-case scenarios. ZK-rollups don’t have this delay – once a validity proof is accepted on L1, the state is final. So zkSync and Polygon users get faster finality (often minutes to an hour) depending on how often proofs are submitted. The trade-off is that proving might introduce a bit of delay between when a transaction is accepted on L2 and when it’s included in an L1 proof (could be a few minutes). But generally, ZK rollups are offering 10–30 minute withdrawals in 2025, which is a huge improvement over 7 days. Users may pay a slightly higher fee for immediate finality (to cover prover costs), but many deem it worth it. Fee Customization is also worth noting: frameworks allow custom fee schedules (like free transactions or gas subsidies) if projects want. For example, an enterprise could subsidize all user fees on their chain by running the sequencer at a loss (perhaps for a game or social app). Or they could set up a different gas model (some have toyed with no gas for certain actions, or alternative gas accounting). Since most frameworks aim for Ethereum-equivalence, such deep changes are rare, but possible with code modification. Arbitrum’s Stylus could enable different fee metering for WASM contracts (not charging for certain ops to encourage WASM usage, for instance). The Polygon CDK being open source and modular means if a project wanted to implement a novel fee mechanism (like fee burning or dynamic pricing), they could.

In essence, all rollup frameworks strive to align economic incentives: make it profitable to operate a sequencer (via fee revenue), keep fees reasonable for users by leveraging cheaper DA, and (optionally) funnel some value to their broader ecosystem. Optimism’s model is unique in explicitly sharing revenue for public goods, while others rely on growth and token economics (e.g., more chains -> more MATIC/ETH usage, increasing those token’s value).

Architecture and Modularity​

All these frameworks pride themselves on a modular architecture, meaning each layer of the stack (execution, settlement, consensus, DA, proofs) is swappable or upgradable. Let’s briefly note each:

• OP Stack: Built as a series of modules corresponding to Ethereum’s layers – execution engine (OP EVM, derived from geth), consensus/rollup node (op-node), settlement smart contracts, and soon fraud prover. The OP Stack’s design goal was EVM equivalence (no custom gas schedule or opcode changes) and ease of integration with Ethereum tooling. The Bedrock upgrade in 2023 further modularized Optimism’s stack, making it easier to swap out components (e.g., to implement ZK proofs in the future, or use a different DA). Indeed, OP Stack is not limited to optimistic fraud proofs – the team has said it’s open to integrating validity proofs when they mature, essentially turning OP Stack chains into ZK rollups without changing the developer experience. The Superchain concept extends the architecture to multiple chains: standardizing inter-chain communication, bridging, and maybe shared sequencing. OP Stack comes with a rich set of smart contracts on L1 (for deposits, withdrawals, fraud proof verification, etc.), which chains inherit out-of-the-box. It’s effectively a plug-and-play L2 chain template – projects like Base launched by forking the OP Stack repos and configuring them to point at their own contracts.

• ZK Stack: The ZK Stack is the framework underlying zkSync Era and future “Hyperchains.” Architecturally, it includes the zkEVM execution environment (an LLVM-based VM that allows running Solidity code with minimal changes), the prover system (the circuits and proof generation for transactions), the sequencer node, and the L1 contracts (the zkSync smart contracts that verify proofs and manage state roots). Modularity is seen in how it separates the ZK proof circuit from the execution – theoretically one could swap in a different proving scheme or even a different VM (though not trivial). The ZK Stack introduces the Elastic Chain Architecture with components like ZK Router and ZK Gateway. These act as an interoperability layer connecting multiple ZK Chains. It’s a bit like an “internet of ZK rollups” concept, where the Router (on Ethereum) holds a registry of chains and facilitates shared bridging/liquidity, and the Gateway handles messages between chains off-chain. This is modular because a new chain can plug into that architecture simply by deploying with the standard contracts. ZK Stack also embraces account abstraction at the protocol level (contracts as accounts, native meta-transactions), which is an architectural choice to improve UX. Another modular aspect: as discussed in DA, it can operate in rollup or validium mode – essentially flipping a switch in config. Also, the stack has a notion of Pluggable consensus for sequencing (as noted prior). Settlement layer can be Ethereum or potentially another chain: zkSync’s roadmap even floated settling hyperchains on L2 (e.g., an L3 that posts proofs to zkSync Era L2 instead of L1) – indeed they launched a prototype called “ZK Portal” for L3 settlement on L2. This gives a hierarchical modularity (L3->L2->L1). Overall, ZK Stack is a bit less turnkey for non-Matter-Labs teams as of 2025 (since running a ZK chain involves coordinating provers, etc.), but it’s highly flexible in capable hands.

• Arbitrum Orbit: Arbitrum’s architecture is built on the Arbitrum Nitro stack, which includes the ArbOS execution layer (Arbitrum’s interpretation of EVM with some small differences), the Sequencer/Relay, the AnyTrust component for alternative DA, and the fraud proof machinery (interactive fraud proofs). Orbit essentially lets you use that same stack but configure certain parameters (like chain ID, L2 genesis state, choice of rollup vs AnyTrust). Modularity: Arbitrum introduced Stylus, a new WASM-compatible smart contract engine that runs alongside the EVM. Stylus allows writing contracts in Rust, C, C++ which compile to WASM and run with near-native speed on Arbitrum chains. This is an optional module – Orbit chains can enable Stylus or not. It’s a differentiator for Arbitrum’s stack, making it attractive for high-performance dApps (e.g., gaming or trading apps might write some logic in Rust for speed). The data availability module is also pluggable as discussed (Arbitrum chains can choose on-chain or DAC). Another module is the L1 settlement: Orbit chains can post their proofs to either Ethereum (L1) or to Arbitrum One (L2). If the latter, they effectively are L3s anchored in Arbitrum One’s security (with slightly different trust assumptions). Many Orbit chains are launching as L3s (to inherit Arbitrum One’s lower fees and still ultimately Ethereum security). Arbitrum’s codebase is fully open source now, and projects like Caldera, Conduit build on it to provide user-friendly deployment – they might add their own modules (like monitoring, chain management APIs). It’s worth noting Arbitrum’s fraud proofs were historically not permissionless (only whitelisted validators could challenge), but with BoLD, that part of the architecture is changing to allow anyone to step in. So the fraud proof component is becoming more decentralized (which is a modular upgrade in a sense). One might say Arbitrum is less of a “lego kit” than OP Stack or Polygon CDK, in that Offchain Labs hasn’t released a one-click chain launcher (though they did release an Orbit deployment GUI on GitHub). But functionally, it’s modular enough that third parties have automated deployments for it.

• Polygon CDK (AggLayer): Polygon CDK is explicitly described as a “modular framework” for ZK-powered chains. It leverages Polygon’s ZK proving technology (from Polygon zkEVM, which is based on Plonky2 and recursive SNARKs). The architecture separates the execution layer (which is an EVM – specifically a fork of Geth adjusted for zkEVM) from the prover layer and the bridge/settlement contracts. Because it’s modular, a developer can choose different options for each: e.g. Execution – presumably always EVM for now (to use existing tooling), DA – as discussed (Ethereum or others), Sequencer consensus – single vs multi-node, Prover – one can run the prover Type1 (validity proofs posted to Ethereum) or a Type2 (validium proofs) etc., and AggLayer integration – yes or no (AggLayer for interop). Polygon even provided a slick interface (shown below) to visualize these choices:

Polygon CDK’s configuration interface, illustrating modular choices – e.g. Rollups vs Validium (scaling solution), decentralized vs centralized sequencer, local/Ethereum/3rd-party DA, different prover types, and whether to enable AggLayer interoperability.

Under the hood, Polygon CDK uses zk-Proofs with recursion to allow high throughput and a dynamic validator set. The AggLayer is an emerging part of the architecture that will connect chains for trustless messaging and shared liquidity. The CDK is built in a way that future improvements in Polygon’s ZK tech (like faster proofs, or new VM features) can be adopted by all CDK chains via upgrades. Polygon has a concept of “Type 1 vs Type 2” zkEVM – Type 1 is fully Ethereum-equivalent, Type 2 is almost equivalent with minor changes for efficiency. A CDK chain could choose a slightly modified EVM for more speed (sacrificing some equivalence) – this is an architectural option projects have. Overall, CDK is very lego-like: one can assemble a chain choosing components suitable for their use case (e.g., an enterprise might choose validium + permissioned sequencers + private Tx visibility; a public DeFi chain might choose rollup + decentralized sequencer + AggLayer enabled for liquidity). This versatility has attracted many projects to consider CDK for launching their own networks.

• Images and diagrams: The frameworks often provide visual diagrams of their modular architecture. For example, zkSync’s UI shows toggles for Rollup/Validium, L2/L3, centralized/decentralized, etc., highlighting the ZK Stack’s flexibility:

An example configuration for a zkSync “Hyperchain.” The ZK Stack interface allows selecting chain mode (Rollup vs Validium vs Volition), layer (L2 or L3), transaction sequencing (decentralized, centralized, or shared), data availability source (Ethereum, third-party network, or custom), data visibility (public or private chain), and gas token (ETH, custom, or gasless). This modular approach is designed to support a variety of use cases, from public DeFi chains to private enterprise chains.

In summary, all these stacks are highly modular and upgradable, which is essential given the pace of blockchain innovation. They are converging in some sense: OP Stack adding validity proofs, Polygon adding shared sequencing (OP Stack ideas), Arbitrum adding interoperable L3s (like others), zkSync pursuing L3s (like Orbit and OPStack do). This cross-pollination means modular frameworks in 2025 are more alike than different in philosophy – each wants to be the one-stop toolkit to launch scalable chains without reinventing the wheel.

Developer Experience and Tooling​

A critical factor for adoption is how easy and developer-friendly these frameworks are. This includes documentation, SDKs/APIs, CLIs for deployment, monitoring tools, and the learning curve for developers:

• OP Stack – Developer Experience: Optimism’s OP Stack benefits from being EVM-equivalent, so Ethereum developers can use familiar tools (Remix, Hardhat, Truffle, Solidity, Vyper) without modification. Smart contracts deployed to an OP chain behave exactly as on L1. This drastically lowers the learning curve. Optimism provides extensive documentation: the official Optimism docs have sections on the OP Stack, running an L2 node, and even an “OP Stack from scratch” tutorial. There are community-written guides as well (for example, QuickNode’s step-by-step guide on deploying an Optimism L2 rollup). In terms of tooling, OP Labs has released the op-node client (for the rollup node) and op-geth (execution engine). To launch a chain, a developer typically needs to configure these and deploy the L1 contracts (Standard Bridge, etc.). This was non-trivial but is becoming easier with provider services. Deployment-as-a-service: companies like Caldera, Conduit, and Infura/Alchemy offer managed OP Stack rollup deployments, which abstracts away much of the DevOps. For monitoring, because an OP Stack chain is essentially a geth chain plus a rollup coordinator, standard Ethereum monitoring tools (ETH metrics dashboards, block explorers like Etherscan/Blockscout) can be used. In fact, Etherscan supports OP Stack chains such as Optimism and Base, providing familiar block explorer interfaces. Developer tooling specifically for OP Chains includes the Optimism SDK for bridging (facilitating deposits/withdrawals in apps) and Bedrock’s integration with Ethereum JSON-RPC (so tools like MetaMask just work by switching network). The OP Stack code is MIT licensed, inviting developers to fork and experiment. Many did – e.g. BNB Chain’s team used OP Stack to build opBNB with their own modifications to consensus and gas token (they use BNB gas on opBNB). The OP Stack’s adherence to Ethereum standards makes the developer experience arguably the smoothest among these: essentially “Ethereum, but cheaper” from a contract developer’s perspective. The main new skills needed are around running the infrastructure (for those launching a chain) and understanding cross-chain bridging nuances. Optimism’s community and support (Discord, forums) are active to help new chain teams. Additionally, Optimism has funded ecosystem tools like Magi (an alternative Rust rollup client) to diversify the stack and make it more robust for developers.

• zkSync ZK Stack – Developer Experience: On the contract development side, zkSync’s ZK Stack offers a zkEVM that is intended to be high compatibility but currently not 100% bytecode-equivalent. It supports Solidity and Vyper contracts, but there are subtle differences (for example, certain precompiles or gas costs). That said, Matter Labs built an LLVM compiler that takes Solidity and produces zkEVM bytecode, so most Solidity code works with little to no change. They also natively support account abstraction, which devs can leverage to create gasless transactions, multi-sig wallets, etc., more easily than on Ethereum (no need for ERC-4337). The developer docs for zkSync are comprehensive (docs.zksync.io) and cover how to deploy contracts, use the Hyperchain CLI (if any), and configure a chain. However, running a ZK rollup is inherently more complex than an optimistic one – you need a proving setup. The ZK Stack provides the prover software (e.g. the GPU provers for zkSync’s circuits), but a chain operator must have access to serious hardware or cloud services to generate proofs continuously. This is a new DevOps challenge; to mitigate it, some companies are emerging that provide prover services or even Proof-as-a-Service. If a developer doesn’t want to run their own provers, they might be able to outsource it (with trust or crypto-economic assurances). Tooling: zkSync provides a bridge and wallet portal by default (the zkSync Portal) which can be forked for a new chain, giving users a UI to move assets and view accounts. For block exploration, Blockscout has been adapted to zkSync, and Matter Labs built their own block explorer for zkSync Era which could likely be used for new chains. The existence of the ZK Gateway and Router means that if a developer plugs into that, they get some out-of-the-box interoperability with other chains – but they need to follow Matter Labs’ standards. Overall, for a smart contract dev, building on zkSync is not too difficult (just Solidity, with perhaps minor differences like gasleft() might behave slightly differently due to not having actual Ethereum gas cost). But for a chain operator, the ZK Stack has a steeper learning curve than OP Stack or Orbit. In 2025, Matter Labs is focusing on improving this – for instance, simplifying the process of launching a Hyperchain, possibly providing scripts or cloud images to spin up the whole stack. There is also an emerging community of devs around ZK Stack; e.g., the ZKSync Community Edition is an initiative where community members run test L3 chains and share tips. We should note that language support for zkSync’s ecosystem might expand – they’ve talked about allowing other languages via the LLVM pipeline (e.g., a Rust-to-zkEVM compiler in the future), but Solidity is the main one now. In summary, zkSync’s dev experience: great for DApp devs (nearly Ethereum-like), moderate for chain launchers (need to handle prover and new concepts like validiums).

• Arbitrum Orbit – Developer Experience: For Solidity developers, Arbitrum Orbit (and Arbitrum One) is fully EVM-compatible at the bytecode level (Arbitrum Nitro uses geth-derived execution). Thus, deploying and interacting with contracts on an Arbitrum chain is just like Ethereum (with some small differences like slightly different L1 block number access, chainID, etc., but nothing major). Where Arbitrum stands out is Stylus – developers can write smart contracts in languages like Rust, C, C++ (compiled to WebAssembly) and deploy those alongside EVM contracts. This opens blockchain development to a wider pool of programmers and enables high-performance use cases. For example, an algorithmic intensive logic could be written in C for speed. Stylus is still in beta on Arbitrum mainnet, but Orbit chains can experiment with it. This is a unique boon for developer experience, albeit those using Stylus will need to learn new tooling (e.g., Rust toolchains, and Arbitrum’s libraries for interfacing WASM with the chain). The Arbitrum docs provide guidance on using Stylus and even writing Rust smart contracts. For launching an Orbit chain, Offchain Labs has provided Devnet scripts and an Orbit deployment UI. The process is somewhat technical: one must set up an Arbitrum node with --l3 flags (if launching an L3) and configure the genesis, chain parameters, etc.. QuickNode and others have published guides (“How to deploy your own Arbitrum Orbit chain”). Additionally, Orbit partnerships with Caldera, AltLayer, and Conduit mean these third parties handle a lot of the heavy lifting. A developer can essentially fill out a form or run a wizard with those services to get a customized Arbitrum chain, instead of manually modifying the Nitro code. In terms of debugging and monitoring, Arbitrum chains can use Arbiscan (for those that have it) or community explorers. There’s also Grafana/Prometheus integrations for node metrics. One complexity is the fraud proof system – developers launching an Orbit chain should ensure there are validators (maybe themselves or trusted others) who run the off-chain validator software to watch for fraud. Offchain Labs likely provides default scripts for running such validators. But since fraud proofs rarely trigger, it’s more about having the security process in place. Arbitrum’s large developer community (projects building on Arbitrum One) is an asset – resources like tutorials, stackexchange answers, etc., often apply to Orbit as well. Also, Arbitrum is known for its strong developer education efforts (workshops, hackathons), which presumably extend to those interested in Orbit.

• Polygon CDK – Developer Experience: Polygon CDK is newer (announced mid/late 2023), but it builds on familiar components. For developers writing contracts, Polygon CDK chains use a zkEVM that’s intended to be equivalent to Ethereum’s EVM (Polygon’s Type 2 zkEVM is nearly identical with a few edge cases). So, Solidity and Vyper are the go-to languages, with full support for standard Ethereum dev tools. If you’ve deployed on Polygon zkEVM or Ethereum, you can deploy on a CDK chain similarly. The challenge is more on the chain operations side. Polygon’s CDK is open-source on GitHub and comes with documentation on how to configure a chain. It likely provides a command-line tool to scaffold a new chain (similar to how one might use Cosmos SDK’s starport or Substrate’s node template). Polygon Labs has invested in making the setup as easy as possible – one quote: “launch a high-throughput ZK-powered Ethereum L2 as easily as deploying a smart contract”. While perhaps optimistic, this indicates tools or scripts exist to simplify deployment. Indeed, there have been early adopters like Immutable (for gaming) and OKX (exchange chain) that have worked with Polygon to launch CDK chains, suggesting a fairly smooth process with Polygon’s team support. The CDK includes SDKs and libraries to interact with the bridge (for deposits/withdrawals) and to enable AggLayer if desired. Monitoring a CDK chain can leverage Polygon’s block explorer (Polygonscan) if they integrate it, or Blockscout. Polygon is also known for robust SDKs for gaming and mobile (e.g., Unity SDKs) – those can be used on any Polygon-based chain. Developer support is a big focus: Polygon has academies, grants, hackathons regularly, and their Developer Relations team helps projects one-on-one. An example of enterprise developer experience: Libre, an institutional chain launched with CDK, presumably had custom requirements – Polygon was able to accommodate things like identity modules or compliance features on that chain. This shows the CDK can be extended for specific use cases by developers with help from the framework. As for learning materials, Polygon’s docs site and blog have guides on CDK usage, and because CDK is essentially the evolution of their zkEVM, those familiar with Polygon’s zkEVM design can pick it up quickly. One more tooling aspect: Cross-chain tools – since many Polygon CDK chains will coexist, Polygon provides the AggLayer for messaging, but also encourages use of standard cross-chain messaging like LayerZero (indeed Rarible’s Orbit chain integrated LayerZero for NFT transfers and Polygon chains can too). So, devs have options to integrate interoperability plugins easily. All told, the CDK developer experience is aimed to be turnkey for launching Ethereum-level chains with ZK security, benefiting from Polygon’s years of L2 experience.

In conclusion, developer experience has dramatically improved for launching custom chains: what once required a whole team of protocol engineers can now be done with guided frameworks and support. Optimism’s and Arbitrum’s offerings leverage familiarity (EVM equivalence), zkSync and Polygon offer cutting-edge tech with increasing ease-of-use, and all have growing ecosystems of third-party tools to simplify development (from block explorers to monitoring dashboards and devops scripts). The documentation quality is generally high – official docs plus community guides (Medium articles, QuickNode/Alchemy guides) cover a lot of ground. There is still a non-trivial learning curve to go from smart contract developer to “rollup operator,” but it’s getting easier as best practices emerge and the community of rollup builders expands.

Ecosystem Support and Go-to-Market Strategies​

Building a technology is one thing; building an ecosystem is another. Each of these frameworks is backed by an organization or community investing in growth through grants, funding, marketing, and partnership support. Here we compare their ecosystem support strategies – how they attract developers and projects, and how they help those projects succeed:

• OP Stack (Optimism) Ecosystem: Optimism has a robust ecosystem strategy centered on its Optimism Collective and ethos of public goods funding. They pioneered Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) – using OP token treasury to reward developers and projects that benefit the ecosystem. Through multiple RPGF rounds, Optimism has distributed millions in funding to infrastructure projects, dev tools, and applications on Optimism. Any project building with OP Stack (especially if aligning with the Superchain vision) is eligible to apply for grants from the Collective. Additionally, Optimism’s governance can authorize incentive programs (earlier in 2022, they had an airdrop and governance fund that projects could tap to distribute OP rewards to users). In 2024, Optimism established the Superchain Revenue Sharing model, where each OP Chain contributes a small portion of fees to a shared treasury. This creates a flywheel: as more chains (like Base, opBNB, Worldcoin’s chain, etc.) generate usage, they collectively fund more public goods that improve the OP Stack, which in turn attracts more chains. It’s a positive-sum approach unique to Optimism. On the go-to-market side, Optimism has actively partnered with major entities: getting Coinbase to build Base was a huge validation of OP Stack, and Optimism Labs provided technical help and support to Coinbase during that process. Similarly, they’ve worked with Worldcoin’s team, and Celo’s migration to an OP Stack L2 was done with consultation from OP Labs. Optimism does a lot of developer outreach – from running hackathons (often combined with ETHGlobal events) to maintaining a Developer Hub with tutorials. They also invest in tooling: e.g., funding teams to build alternative clients, monitoring tools, and providing an official faucet and block explorer integration for new chains. Marketing-wise, Optimism coined the term “Superchain” and actively promotes the vision of many chains uniting under one interoperable umbrella, which has attracted projects that want to be part of a broader narrative rather than an isolated appchain. There’s also the draw of shared liquidity: with the upcoming OPCraft (Superchain interoperability), apps on one OP Chain can easily interact with another, making it appealing to launch a chain that’s not an island. In essence, OP Stack’s ecosystem play is about community and collaboration – join the Superchain, get access to a pool of users (via easy bridging), funding, and collective branding. They even created a “Rollup Passport” concept where users can have a unified identity across OP Chains. All these efforts lower the barrier for new chains to find users and devs. Finally, Optimism’s own user base and reputation (being one of the top L2s) means any OP Stack chain can somewhat piggyback on that (Base did, by advertising itself as part of the Optimism ecosystem, for instance).

• zkSync (ZK Stack/Hyperchains) Ecosystem: Matter Labs (the team behind zkSync) secured large funding rounds (over $200M) to fuel its ecosystem. They have set up funds like the ** zkSync Ecosystem Fund**, often in collaboration with VCs, to invest in projects building on zkSync Era. For the ZK Stack specifically, they have started to promote the concept of Hyperchains to communities that need their own chain. One strategy is targeting specific verticals: for example, gaming. zkSync has highlighted how a game studio could launch its own Hyperchain to get customizability and still be connected to Ethereum. They are likely offering close support to initial partners (in the way Polygon did with some enterprises). The mention in the Zeeve article about a “Swiss bank; world’s largest bank” interested in ZK Stack suggests Matter Labs is courting enterprise use cases that need privacy (ZK proofs can ensure correctness while keeping some data private, a big deal for institutions). If zkSync lands a major enterprise chain, that would boost their credibility. Developer support on zkSync is quite strong: they run accelerators (e.g., an program with Blockchain Founders Fund was announced), hackathons (often zk themed ones), and have an active community on their Discord providing technical help. While zkSync doesn’t have a live token (as of 2025) for governance or incentives, there’s speculation of one, and projects might anticipate future incentive programs. Matter Labs has also been working on bridging support: they partnered with major bridges like Across, LayerZero, Wormhole to ensure assets and messages can move easily to and from zkSync and any hyperchains. In fact, Across Protocol integrated zkSync’s ZK Stack, boasting support across “all major L2 frameworks”. This interoperability focus means a project launching a hyperchain can readily connect to Ethereum mainnet and other L2s, crucial for attracting users (nobody wants to be siloed). Marketing-wise, zkSync pushes the slogan “Web3 without compromise” and emphasizes being first to ZK mainnet. They publish roadmaps (their 2025 roadmap blog) to keep excitement high. If we consider ecosystem funds: aside from direct Matter Labs grants, there’s also the Ethereum Foundation and other ZK-focused funds that favor zkSync development due to the general importance of ZK tech. Another strategy: zkSync is open source and neutral (no licensing fees), which appeals to projects that might be wary of aligning with a more centralized ecosystem. The ZK Stack is trying to position itself as the decentralizer’s choice – e.g., highlighting full decentralization and no training wheels, whereas OP Stack and others still have some centralization in practice. Time will tell if that resonates, but certainly within the Ethereum community, zkSync has supporters who want a fully trustless stack. Finally, Matter Labs and BitDAO’s Windranger have a joint initiative called “ZK DAO” which might deploy capital or incentives for the ZK Stack adoption. Overall, zkSync’s ecosystem efforts are a mix of technical superiority messaging (ZK is the future) and building practical bridges (both figurative and literal) for projects to come onboard.

• Arbitrum Orbit Ecosystem: Arbitrum has a huge existing ecosystem on its L2 (Arbitrum One), with the highest DeFi TVL among L2s in 2024. Offchain Labs leverages this by encouraging successful Arbitrum dApps to consider Orbit chains for sub-applications or L3 expansions. They announced that over 50 Orbit chains were in development by late 2023, expecting perhaps 100+ by end of 2024 – indicating substantial interest. To nurture this, Offchain Labs adopted a few strategies. First, partnerships with RaaS providers: They realized not every team can handle the rollup infra, so they enlisted Caldera, Conduit, and AltLayer to streamline it. These partners often have their own grant or incentive programs (sometimes co-sponsored by Arbitrum) to entice projects. For example, there might be an Arbitrum x AltLayer grant for gaming chains. Second, Offchain Labs provides direct technical support and co-development for key projects. The case of Xai Chain is illustrative: it’s a gaming L3 where Offchain Labs co-developed the chain and provides ongoing tech and even marketing support. They basically helped incubate Xai to showcase Orbit’s potential in gaming. Similarly, Rarible’s RARI NFT chain got integrated with many partners (Gelato for gasless, LayerZero for cross-chain NFTs, etc.) with presumably Arbitrum’s guidance. Offchain Labs also sometimes uses its war chest (Arbitrum DAO has a huge treasury of ARB tokens) to fund initiatives. While the Arbitrum DAO is separate, Offchain Labs can coordinate with it for ecosystem matters. For instance, if an Orbit chain heavily uses ARB token or benefits Arbitrum, the DAO could vote grants. However, a more direct approach: Offchain Labs launched Arbitrum Orbit Challenge hackathons and prizes to encourage developers to try making L3s. On marketing: Arbitrum’s brand is developer-focused, and they promote Orbit’s advantages like Stylus (fast, multi-language contracts) and no 7-day withdrawal (with fast bridging). They also highlight successful examples: e.g., Treasure DAO’s Bridgeworld announced an Orbit chain, etc. One more support angle: liquidity and Defi integration. Arbitrum is working with protocols so that if you launch an Orbit chain, you can tap into liquidity from Arbitrum One easily (via native bridging or LayerZero). The easier it is to get assets and users moving to your new chain, the more likely you’ll succeed. Arbitrum has a very large, active community (on Reddit, Discord, etc.), and by extending that to Orbit, new chains can market to existing Arbitrum users (for example, an Arbitrum user might get an airdrop on a new Orbit chain to try it out). In summary, Arbitrum’s ecosystem strategy for Orbit is about leveraging their L2 dominance – if you build an L3, you’re effectively an extension of the largest L2, so you get to share in that network effect. Offchain Labs is actively removing hurdles (technical and liquidity hurdles) and even directly helping build some early L3s to set precedents for others to follow.

• Polygon CDK (AggLayer) Ecosystem: Polygon has been one of the most aggressive in ecosystem and business development. They have a multi-pronged approach:

  • Grants and Funds: Polygon established a $100M Ecosystem Fund a while back, and has invested in hundreds of projects. They also had specific vertical funds (e.g., Polygon Gaming Fund, Polygon DeFi Fund). For CDK chains, Polygon announced incentives such as covering part of the cost of running a chain or providing liquidity support. The CoinLaw stats mention “More than 190 dApps are leveraging Polygon CDK to build their own chains” – which implies Polygon has gotten a vast pipeline of projects (likely many still in development). They’ve likely offered grants or resource sharing to these teams.
  • Enterprise and Institutional Onboarding: Polygon’s BizDev team has on-boarded major companies (Starbucks, Reddit, Nike, Disney for NFTs on Polygon POS). Now with CDK, they pitch enterprises to launch dedicated chains. E.g., Immutable (gaming platform) partnering to use CDK for game-specific chains, Franklin Templeton launching a fund on Polygon, and Walmart’s trial of a supply chain on a private Polygon chain. Polygon provides white-glove support to these partners: technical consulting, custom feature development (privacy, compliance), and co-marketing. The introduction of Libre (by JP Morgan/Siemens) built on Polygon CDK shows how they cater to financial institutions with specialized needs.
  • Go-to-Market and Interoperability: Polygon is creating the AggLayer as an interoperability and liquidity hub connecting all Polygon chains. This means if you launch a CDK chain, you’re not on your own – you become part of “Polygon 2.0,” a constellation of chains with unified liquidity. They promise things like one-click token transfer between CDK chains and Ethereum (via AggLayer). They are also not charging any protocol fees (no rent), which they tout as a competitive advantage against, say, Optimism’s fee sharing. Polygon’s marketing highlights that launching a CDK chain can give you “the best of both worlds”: custom sovereignty and performance plus access to the large user base and developer base of Polygon/Ethereum. They often cite that Polygon (POS+zkEVM) combined processed 30%+ of all L2 transactions, to assure potential chain builders that the flow of users on Polygon is huge.
  • Developer Support: Polygon runs perhaps the most hackathons and DevRel events in the blockchain space. They have a dedicated Polygon University, online courses, and they frequently sponsor ETHGlobal and other hackathons with challenges around using CDK, zkEVM, etc. So developers can win prizes building prototypes of CDK chains or cross-chain dapps. They also maintain a strong presence in developer communities and provide quick support (the Polygon Discord has channels for technical questions where core devs answer).
  • Community and Governance: Polygon is transitioning to Polygon 2.0 with a new POL token and community governance that spans all chains. This could mean community treasuries or incentive programs that apply to CDK chains. For example, there may be a Polygon Ecosystem Mining program where liquidity mining rewards are offered to projects that deploy on new CDK chains to bootstrap usage. The idea is to ensure new chains aren’t ghost towns.
  • Success Stories: Already, several CDK chains are live or announced: OKX’s OKB Chain (X Layer), Gnosis Pay’s chain, Astar’s zkEVM, Palm Network migrating, GameSwift (gaming chain), etc.. Polygon actively publicizes these and shares knowledge from them to others.

Overall, Polygon’s strategy is “we will do whatever it takes to help you succeed if you build on our stack.” That includes financial incentives, technical manpower, marketing exposure (speaking slots in conferences, press releases on CoinTelegraph like we saw), and integration into a larger ecosystem. It’s very much a business development-driven approach in addition to grassroots dev community, reflecting Polygon’s more corporate style relative to the others.

To summarize ecosystem support: All these frameworks understand that attracting developers and projects requires more than tech – it needs funding, hand-holding, and integration into a larger narrative. Optimism pushes a collaborative public-goods-focused narrative with fair revenue sharing. zkSync pushes the cutting-edge tech angle and likely will announce incentives aligned with a future token. Arbitrum leverages its existing dominance and provides partner networks to make launching easy, plus possibly the deepest DeFi liquidity to tap into. Polygon arguably goes the furthest in smoothing the path for both crypto-native and enterprise players, effectively subsidizing and co-marketing chains.

An illustrative comparative snapshot:

As the table suggests, each ecosystem has its strengths – Optimism with collaborative ethos and Coinbase’s weight, zkSync with ZK leadership and innovation focus, Arbitrum with proven adoption and technical prowess (Stylus), Polygon with corporate connections and comprehensive support. All are pumping significant resources into growing their communities, because ultimately the success of a rollup framework is measured by the apps and users on the chains built with it.

Deployments and Adoption in 2025​

Finally, let’s look at where these frameworks stand in terms of real-world adoption as of 2025 – both in the crypto-native context (public networks, DeFi/NFT/gaming projects) and enterprise or institutional use:

• OP Stack Adoption: The OP Stack has powered Optimism Mainnet, which itself is one of the top Ethereum L2s with a thriving DeFi ecosystem (Uniswap, Aave, etc.) and tens of thousands of daily users. In 2023–2024, OP Stack was chosen by Coinbase for their Base network – Base launched in August 2023 and quickly onboarded popular apps (Coinbase’s own wallet integration, friend.tech social app) and reached high activity (at times even surpassing Optimism in transactions). Base’s success validated OP Stack for many; Base had 800M transactions in 2024, making it the second-highest chain by tx count that year. Another major OP Stack deployment is opBNB – Binance’s BNB Chain team created an L2 using OP Stack (but settling to BNB Chain instead of Ethereum). opBNB went live in 2023, indicating OP Stack’s flexibility to use a non-Ethereum settlement. Worldcoin’s World ID chain went live on OP Stack (settling on Ethereum) in 2023 to handle its unique biometric identity transactions. Zora Network, an NFT-centric chain by Zora, launched on OP Stack as well, tailored for creator economy use cases. Perhaps the most ambitious is Celo’s migration: Celo voted to transition from an independent L1 to an Ethereum L2 built on OP Stack – as of 2025, this migration is underway, effectively bringing a whole existing ecosystem (Celo’s DeFi and phone-focused apps) into the OP Stack fold. We also have smaller projects like Mode (Bybit’s side chain), Mantle (BitDAO’s chain) – actually Mantle opted for a modified OP Stack too. And many more are rumored or in development, given Optimism’s open-source approach (anyone can fork and launch without permission). On enterprise side, we haven’t seen much explicit OP Stack enterprise chain (enterprises seem drawn more to Polygon or custom). However, Base is an enterprise (Coinbase) backing, and that’s significant. The Superchain vision implies that even enterprise chains might join as OP Chains to benefit from shared governance – for instance, if some fintech wanted to launch a compliant chain, using OP Stack and plugging into Superchain could give it ready connectivity. As of 2025, OP Stack chains collectively (Optimism, Base, others) handle a significant portion of L2 activity, and the Superchain aggregated throughput is presented as a metric (Optimism often publishes combined stats). With Bedrock upgrade and further improvements, OP Stack chains are proving high reliability (Optimism had negligible downtime). The key measure of adoption: OP Stack is arguably the most forked rollup framework so far, given Base, BNB, Celo, etc., which are high-profile. In total, ~5-10 OP Stack chains are live mainnets, and many more testnets. If we include devnets and upcoming launches, the number grows.

• zkSync Hyperchains Adoption: zkSync Era mainnet (L2) itself launched in March 2023 and by 2025 it’s among the top ZK rollups, with ~$100M TVL and dozens of projects. Notable apps like Curve, Uniswap, Chainlink deployed or announced deployment on zkSync. Now, regarding Hyperchains (L3 or sovereign chains), this is very cutting-edge. In late 2024, Matter Labs launched a program for teams to experiment with L3s on top of zkSync. One example: the Rollup-as-a-Service provider Decentriq was reportedly testing a private Hyperchain for data sharing. Also, Blockchain Capital (VC) hinted at experimenting with an L3. We have mention that an ecosystem of 18+ protocols is leveraging ZK Stack for things like AI agents and specialized use cases – possibly on testnets. No major Hyperchain is publicly serving users yet (as far as known by mid-2025). However, interest is high in specific domains: gaming projects have shown interest in ZK hyperchains for fast finality and customizability, and privacy-oriented chains (a Hyperchain could include encryption and use zkProofs to hide data – something an optimistic rollup can’t offer as easily). The comment about a “Swiss bank” suggests maybe UBS or a consortium is testing a private chain using ZK Stack, likely attracted by throughput (~10k TPS) and privacy. If that moves to production, it would be a flagship enterprise case. In summary, zkSync’s Hyperchain adoption in 2025 is in an early pilot stage: developer infrastructure is ready (as evidenced by documentation and some test deployments), but we’re waiting for the first movers to go live. It’s comparable to where Optimism was in early 2021 – proven tech but just starting adoption. By end of 2025, we could expect a couple of Hyperchains live, possibly one community-driven (maybe a gaming Hyperchain spun out of a popular zkSync game) and one enterprise-driven. Another factor: there’s talk of Layer3s on zkSync Era as well – essentially permissionless L3s where anyone can deploy an app-chain atop zkSync’s L2. Matter Labs has built the contracts to allow that, so we may see user-driven L3s (like someone launching a mini rollup for their specific app) which counts as adoption of the ZK Stack.

• Arbitrum Orbit Adoption: Arbitrum Orbit saw a surge of interest after its formal introduction in mid-2023. By late 2023, around 18 Orbit chains were publicly disclosed, and Offchain Labs indicated over 50 in progress. As of 2025, some of the prominent ones:

  • Xai Chain: A gaming-focused L3, now live (mainnet launched late 2023). It’s used by game developers (like Ex Populus studio) and had a token launch via Binance Launchpad. This indicates decent adoption (Binance Launchpad involvement suggests lots of user interest). Xai uses AnyTrust mode (for high TPS).
  • Rari Chain: An NFT-centric L3 by Rarible. Launched mainnet Jan 2024. It’s focused on NFT marketplaces with features like credit card payments for gas (via Stripe) and gasless listings. This chain is a good showcase of customizing user experience (as noted, Gelato provides gasless transactions, etc. on Rari Chain).
  • Frame: A creator-focused L2 (though called L2, it’s likely an Orbit chain settling on Ethereum or Arbitrum). It launched early 2024 after raising funding.
  • EduChain (by Camelot/GMX communities): The Zeeve article mentions an EDU chain with a large number of projects – possibly an ecosystem for on-chain education and AI, built on Orbit.
  • Ape Chain: Not explicitly mentioned above, but the context from Zeeve suggests an “Ape chain” (maybe Yuga Labs or ApeCoin DAO chain) exists with $9.86M TVL and uses APE for gas. That could be an Orbit chain in the ApeCoin ecosystem (this would be significant given Yuga’s influence in NFTs).
  • Other gaming chains: e.g., Cometh’s “Muster” L3 was announced (a gaming platform partnering with AltLayer). Syndr Chain for an options trading protocol is on testnet as Orbit L3. Meliora (DeFi credit protocol) building an Orbit L3.
  • Many of these are in early stages (testnet or recently launched mainnet), but collectively they indicate Orbit is gaining adoption among specialized dApps that outgrew a shared L2 environment or wanted their own governance.
  • On enterprise: not as much noise here. Arbitrum is known more for DeFi/gaming adoption. However, the technology could appeal to enterprise if they want an Ethereum-secured chain with flexible trust (via AnyTrust). It’s possible some enterprise quietly used Arbitrum technology for a private chain, but not publicized.
  • By the numbers, Arbitrum Orbit’s biggest user so far might be Ape Chain (if confirmed) with ~$10M TVL and 17 protocols on it (according to Zeeve). Another is EDU chain with 1.35M TVL and 30+ projects.
  • Arbitrum One and Nova themselves are part of this narrative – the fact Orbit chains can settle on Nova (ultra-cheap social/gaming chain) or One means adoption of Orbit also drives activity to those networks. Nova has seen usage for Reddit points etc. If Orbit chains plug into Nova’s AnyTrust committee, Nova’s role grows.
  • In sum, Arbitrum Orbit has moved beyond theory: dozens of real projects are building on it, focusing on gaming, social, and custom DeFi. Arbitrum’s approach of showing real use-cases (like Xai, Rari) has paid off, and we can expect by end of 2025 there will be possibly 50+ Orbit chains live, some with significant user bases (especially if one of the gaming chains hits a popular game release).

• Polygon CDK Adoption: Polygon only announced CDK in H2 2023, but it piggybacks on the success of Polygon’s existing networks. Already, Polygon zkEVM (mainnet beta) itself is essentially a CDK chain run by Polygon Labs. It has seen decent adoption (over $50M TVL, major protocols deployed). But beyond that, numerous independent chains are in motion:

  • Immutable X (a large Web3 gaming platform) declared support for Polygon CDK to let game studios spin up their own zk-rollups that connect to Immutable and Polygon liquidity. This alliance means possibly dozens of games using CDK via Immutable in 2025.
  • OKX (exchange) launched OKB Chain (aka X Chain) using Polygon CDK in late 2024. An exchange chain can drive a lot of transactions (cex-to-dex flows, etc.). OKX chose Polygon presumably for scalability and because many of their users already use Polygon.
  • Canto (DeFi chain) and Astar (Polkadot sidechain) are mentioned as migrating to or integrating with Polygon CDK. Canto moving from Cosmos to Polygon layer indicates the appeal of sharing security with Ethereum via Polygon’s ZK.
  • Gnosis Pay: launched Gnosis Card chain with CDK – it’s a chain to allow fast stablecoin payments connected to a Visa card. This is live and an innovative fintech use.
  • Palm Network: a NFT-specialized chain originally on Ethereum is moving to Polygon CDK (Palm was co-founded by ConsenSys for NFTs with DC Comics, etc.).
  • dYdX: This is interesting – dYdX was building its own Cosmos chain, but Zeeve’s info lists dYdX under AggLayer CDK chains. If dYdX were to consider Polygon instead, that would be huge (though as of known info, dYdX V4 is Cosmos-based; perhaps they plan cross-chain or future pivot).
  • Nubank: one of the largest digital banks in Brazil, appears in Zeeve’s list. Nubank had launched a token on Polygon earlier; a CDK chain for their rewards or CBDC-like program could be in testing.
  • Wirex, IDEX, GameSwift, Aavegotchi, Powerloom, Manta… these names in Zeeve’s list show how cross-ecosystem the CDK reach is: e.g., Manta (a Polkadot privacy project) might use CDK for an Ethereum-facing ZK solution; Aavegotchi (an NFT game originally on Polygon POS) might get its own chain for game logic.
  • The Celestia integration in early 2024 will likely attract projects that want the Polygon tech but with Celestia DA – possibly some Cosmos projects (since Celestia is Cosmos-based) will choose Polygon CDK for execution and Celestia for DA.
  • Enterprises: Polygon has a dedicated enterprise team. Apart from those mentioned (Stripe on stablecoins, Franklin Templeton fund on Polygon, country governments minting stamps, etc.), with CDK they can promise enterprises their own chain with custom rules. We might see pilots like “Polygon Siemens Chain” or government chains emerging, though often those start private.
  • Polygon’s approach of being chain-agnostic (they even support an “OP Stack mode” now in CDK per Zeeve!) and not charging rent, has meant a rapid onboarding – they claim 190+ projects using or considering CDK by Q1 2025. If even a quarter of those go live, Polygon will have an expansive network of chains. They envision themselves not just as one chain but as an ecosystem of many chains (Polygon 2.0), possibly the largest such network if successful.
  • By numbers: as of early 2025, 21+ chains are either in mainnet or testnet using CDK according to the AggLayer site. This should accelerate through 2025 as more migrate or launch.
  • We can expect some high-profile launches, e.g. a Reddit chain (Reddit’s avatars on Polygon POS were huge; a dedicated Polygon L2 for Reddit could happen). Also, if any central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) or government projects choose a scaling solution, Polygon is often in those conversations – a CDK chain could be their choice for a permissioned L2 with zk proofs.

In summary, 2025 adoption status: OP Stack and Arbitrum Orbit have multiple live chains with real users and TVL, zkSync’s hyperchains are on the cusp with strong test pilots, and Polygon CDK has many lined up and a few live successes in both crypto and enterprise. The space is evolving rapidly, and projects often cross-consider these frameworks before choosing. It’s not zero-sum either – e.g., an app might use an OP Stack chain and a Polygon CDK chain for different regions or purposes. The modular blockchain future likely involves interoperability among all these frameworks. It’s notable that efforts like LayerZero and bridge aggregators now ensure assets move relatively freely between Optimism, Arbitrum, Polygon, zkSync, etc., so users might not even realize which stack a chain is built on under the hood.

Conclusion​

Rollups-as-a-Service in 2025 offers a rich menu of options. OP Stack provides a battle-tested optimistic rollup framework with Ethereum alignment and the backing of a collaborative Superchain community. ZK Stack (Hyperchains) delivers cutting-edge zero-knowledge technology with modular validity and data choices, aiming for massive scalability and new use-cases like private or Layer-3 chains. Arbitrum Orbit extends a highly optimized optimistic rollup architecture to developers, with flexibility in data availability and the exciting addition of Stylus for multi-language smart contracts. Polygon CDK empowers projects to launch zkEVM chains with out-of-the-box interoperability (AggLayer) and the full support of Polygon’s ecosystem and enterprise ties. zkSync Hyperchains (via ZK Stack) promise to unlock Web3 at scale – multiple hyperchains all secured by Ethereum, each optimized for its domain (be it gaming, DeFi, or social), with seamless connectivity through zkSync’s Elastic framework.

In comparing data availability, we saw all frameworks embracing modular DA – Ethereum for security, and newer solutions like Celestia, EigenDA, or committees for throughput. Sequencer designs are initially centralized but moving toward decentralization: Optimism and Arbitrum provide L1 fallback queues and are enabling multi-sequencer or permissionless validator models, while Polygon and zkSync allow custom consensus deployment for chains that desire it. Fee models differ mainly in ecosystem philosophy – Optimism’s revenue share vs others’ self-contained economies – but all allow custom tokens and aim to minimize user costs by leveraging cheaper DA and fast finality (especially ZK chains).

On ecosystem support, Optimism fosters a collective where each chain contributes to shared goals (funding public goods) and benefits from shared upgrades. Arbitrum leverages its thriving community and liquidity, actively helping projects launch Orbit chains and integrating them with its DeFi hub. Polygon goes all-in with resources, courting both crypto projects and corporates, providing perhaps the most hands-on support and boasting an extensive network of partnerships and funds. Matter Labs (zkSync) drives innovation and appeals to those who want the latest ZK tech, and while its incentive programs are less publicly structured (pending a token), it has significant funding to deploy and a strong pull for ZK-minded builders.

From a developer’s perspective, launching a rollup in 2025 is more accessible than ever. Whether one’s priority is EVM-equivalence and ease (OP Stack, Arbitrum) or maximum performance and future-proof tech (ZK Stack, Polygon CDK), the tools and documentation are in place. Even monitoring and dev-tools have grown to support these custom chains – for instance, Alchemy and QuickNode’s RaaS platforms support Optimism, Arbitrum, and zkSync stacks out-of-the-box. This means teams can focus on their application and leave much of the heavy lifting to these frameworks.

Looking at public and enterprise adoption, it’s clear that modular rollups are moving from experimental to mainstream. We have global brands like Coinbase, Binance, and OKX running their own chains, major DeFi protocols like Uniswap expanding to multiple L2s and possibly their own rollups, and even governments and banks exploring these technologies. The competition (and collaboration) between OP Stack, ZK Stack, Orbit, CDK, etc., is driving rapid innovation – ultimately benefiting Ethereum by scaling it to reach millions of new users through tailored rollups.

Each framework has its unique value proposition:

• OP Stack: Easy on-ramp to L2, shared Superchain network effects, and a philosophy of “impact = profit” via public goods.
• ZK Stack: Endgame scalability with ZK integrity, flexibility in design (L2 or L3, rollup or validium), and prevention of liquidity fragmentation through the Elastic chain model.
• Arbitrum Orbit: Proven tech (Arbitrum One never had a major failure), high performance (Nitro + Stylus), and the ability to customize trust assumptions (full rollup security or faster AnyTrust) for different needs.
• Polygon CDK: Turnkey zk-rollups backed by one of the largest ecosystems, with immediate connectivity to Polygon/Ethereum assets and the promise of future “unified liquidity” via AggLayer – effectively a launchpad not just for a chain, but for a whole economy on that chain.
• zkSync Hyperchains: A vision of Layer-3 scalability where even small apps can have their own chain secured by Ethereum, with minimal overhead, enabling Web2-level performance in a Web3 environment.

As of mid-2025, we are seeing the multi-chain modular ecosystem materialize: dozens of app-specific or sector-specific chains coexisting, many built with these stacks. L2Beat and similar sites now track not just L2s but L3s and custom chains, many of which use OP Stack, Orbit, CDK, or ZK Stack. Interoperability standards are being developed so that whether a chain uses Optimism or Polygon tech, they can talk to each other (projects like Hyperlane, LayerZero, and even OP and Polygon collaboration on shared sequencing).

In conclusion, Rollups-as-a-Service in 2025 has matured into a competitive landscape with OP Stack, ZK Stack, Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon CDK, and zkSync Hyperchains each offering robust, modular blockchain frameworks. They differ in technical approach (Optimistic vs ZK), but all aim to empower developers to launch scalable, secure chains tailored to their needs. The choice of stack may depend on a project’s specific priorities – EVM compatibility, finality speed, customization, community alignment, etc. – as outlined above. The good news is that there is no shortage of options or support. Ethereum’s rollup-centric roadmap is being realized through these frameworks, heralding an era where launching a new chain is not a monumental feat, but rather a strategic decision akin to choosing a cloud provider or tech stack in Web2. The frameworks will continue to evolve (e.g. we anticipate more convergence, like OP Stack embracing ZK proofs, Polygon’s AggLayer connecting to non-Polygon chains, etc.), but even now they collectively ensure that Ethereum’s scalability and ecosystem growth are limited only by imagination, not infrastructure.

Sources:

• Optimism OP Stack – Documentation and Mirror posts
• zkSync ZK Stack – zkSync docs and Matter Labs posts
• Arbitrum Orbit – Arbitrum docs, Offchain Labs announcements
• Polygon CDK – Polygon Tech docs, CoinTelegraph report
• General comparison – QuickNode Guides (Mar 2025), Zeeve and others for ecosystem stats, plus various project blogs as cited above.

On May 7, 2025, Ethereum’s Pectra upgrade (Prague + Electra) hit mainnet. Among its most developer-visible changes is EIP-7702, which lets an externally owned account (EOA) "mount" smart-contract logic—without migrating funds or changing addresses. If you build wallets, dapps, or relayers, this unlocks a simpler path to smart-account UX.

Below is a concise, implementation-first guide: what actually shipped, how 7702 works, when to choose it over pure ERC-4337, and a cut-and-paste scaffold you can adapt today.

What Actually Shipped​

• EIP-7702 is in Pectra’s final scope. The meta-EIP for the Pectra hard fork officially lists 7702 among the included changes.
• Activation details: Pectra activated on mainnet at epoch 364032 on May 7, 2025, following successful activations on all major testnets.
• Toolchain note: Solidity v0.8.30 updated its default EVM target to prague for Pectra compatibility. You'll need to upgrade your compilers and CI pipelines, especially if you pin specific versions.

EIP-7702—How It Works (Nuts & Bolts)​

EIP-7702 introduces a new transaction type and a mechanism for an EOA to delegate its execution logic to a smart contract.

• New Transaction Type (0x04): A Type-4 transaction includes a new field called an authorization_list. This list contains one or more authorization tuples—(chain_id, address, nonce, y_parity, r, s)—each signed by the EOA's private key. When this transaction is processed, the protocol writes a delegation indicator to the EOA’s code field: 0xef0100 || address. From that point forward, any calls to the EOA are proxied to the specified address (the implementation), but they execute within the EOA’s storage and balance context. This delegation remains active until it's explicitly changed.
• Chain Scope: An authorization can be chain-specific by providing a chain_id, or it can apply to all chains if chain_id is set to 0. This allows you to deploy the same implementation contract across multiple networks without requiring users to sign a new authorization for each one.
• Revocation: To revert an EOA back to its original, non-programmable behavior, you simply send another 7702 transaction where the implementation address is set to the zero address. This clears the delegation indicator.
• Self-Sponsored vs. Relayed: An EOA can submit the Type-4 transaction itself, or a third-party relayer can submit it on the EOA's behalf. The latter is common for creating a gasless user experience. Nonce handling differs slightly depending on the method, so it's important to use libraries that correctly manage this distinction.

Security Model Shift: Because the original EOA private key still exists, it can always override any smart contract rules (like social recovery or spending limits) by submitting a new 7702 transaction to change the delegation. This is a fundamental shift. Contracts that rely on tx.origin to verify that a call is from an EOA must be re-audited, as 7702 can break these assumptions. Audit your flows accordingly.

7702 or ERC-4337? (And When to Combine)​

Both EIP-7702 and ERC-4337 enable account abstraction, but they serve different needs.

• Choose EIP-7702 when…
  • You want to provide instant smart-account UX for existing EOAs without forcing users to migrate funds or change addresses.
  • You need consistent addresses across chains that can be progressively upgraded with new features.
  • You want to stage your transition to account abstraction, starting with simple features and adding complexity over time.
• Choose pure ERC-4337 when…
  • Your product requires full programmability and complex policy engines (e.g., multi-sig, advanced recovery) from day one.
  • You are building for new users who don't have existing EOAs, making new smart-account addresses and the associated setup acceptable.
• Combine them: The most powerful pattern is to use both. An EOA can use a 7702 transaction to designate an ERC-4337 wallet implementation as its logic. This makes the EOA behave like a 4337 account, allowing it to be bundled, sponsored by paymasters, and processed by the existing 4337 infrastructure—all without the user needing a new address. This is a forward-compatible path explicitly encouraged by the EIP's authors.

Minimal 7702 Scaffold You Can Adapt​

Here’s a practical example of an implementation contract and the client-side code to activate it.

1. A Tiny, Auditable Implementation Contract​

This contract code will execute in the EOA’s context once designated. Keep it small, auditable, and consider adding an upgrade mechanism.

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;

/// @notice Executes calls from the EOA context when designated via EIP-7702.
contract DelegatedAccount {
    // Unique storage slot to avoid collisions with other contracts.
    bytes32 private constant INIT_SLOT =
        0x3fb93b3d3dcd1d1f4b4a1a8db6f4c5d55a1b7f9ac01dfe8e53b1b0f35f0c1a01;

    event Initialized(address indexed account);
    event Executed(address indexed to, uint256 value, bytes data, bytes result);

    modifier onlyEOA() {
        // Optional: add checks to restrict who can call certain functions.
        _;
    }

    function initialize() external payable onlyEOA {
        // Set a simple one-time init flag in the EOA's storage.
        bytes32 slot = INIT_SLOT;
        assembly {
            if iszero(iszero(sload(slot))) { revert(0, 0) } // Revert if already initialized
            sstore(slot, 1)
        }
        emit Initialized(address(this));
    }

    function execute(address to, uint256 value, bytes calldata data)
        external
        payable
        onlyEOA
        returns (bytes memory result)
    {
        (bool ok, bytes memory ret) = to.call{value: value}(data);
        require(ok, "CALL_FAILED");
        emit Executed(to, value, data, ret);
        return ret;
    }

    function executeBatch(address[] calldata to, uint256[] calldata value, bytes[] calldata data)
        external
        payable
        onlyEOA
    {
        uint256 n = to.length;
        require(n == value.length && n == data.length, "LENGTH_MISMATCH");
        for (uint256 i = 0; i < n; i++) {
            (bool ok, ) = to[i].call{value: value[i]}(data[i]);
            require(ok, "CALL_FAILED");
        }
    }
}

2. Designate the Contract on an EOA (Type-4 tx) with viem​

Modern clients like viem have built-in helpers to sign authorizations and send Type-4 transactions. In this example, a relayer account pays the gas to upgrade an eoa.

import { createWalletClient, http, encodeFunctionData } from "viem";
import { sepolia } from "viem/chains";
import { privateKeyToAccount } from "viem/accounts";
import { abi, implementationAddress } from "./DelegatedAccountABI";

// 1. Define the relayer (sponsors gas) and the EOA to be upgraded
const relayer = privateKeyToAccount(process.env.RELAYER_PK as `0x${string}`);
const eoa = privateKeyToAccount(process.env.EOA_PK as `0x${string}`);

const client = createWalletClient({
  account: relayer,
  chain: sepolia,
  transport: http(),
});

// 2. The EOA signs the authorization pointing to the implementation contract
const authorization = await client.signAuthorization({
  account: eoa,
  contractAddress: implementationAddress,
  // If the EOA itself were sending this, you would add: executor: 'self'
});

// 3. The relayer sends a Type-4 transaction to set the EOA's code and call initialize()
const hash = await client.sendTransaction({
  to: eoa.address, // The destination is the EOA itself
  authorizationList: [authorization], // The new EIP-7702 field
  data: encodeFunctionData({ abi, functionName: "initialize" }),
});

// 4. Now, the EOA can be controlled via its new logic without further authorizations
// For example, to execute a transaction:
// await client.sendTransaction({
//   to: eoa.address,
//   data: encodeFunctionData({ abi, functionName: 'execute', args: [...] })
// });

3. Revoke Delegation (Back to Plain EOA)​

To undo the upgrade, have the EOA sign an authorization that designates the zero address as the implementation and send another Type-4 transaction. Afterward, a call to eth_getCode(eoa.address) should return empty bytes.

Integration Patterns That Work in Production​

• Upgrade in Place for Existing Users: In your dapp, detect if the user is on a Pectra-compatible network. If so, display an optional "Upgrade Account" button that triggers the one-time authorization signature. Maintain fallback paths (e.g., classic approve + swap) for users with older wallets.
• Gasless Onboarding: Use a relayer (either your backend or a service) to sponsor the initial Type-4 transaction. For ongoing gasless transactions, route user operations through an ERC-4337 bundler to leverage existing paymasters and public mempools.
• Cross-Chain Rollouts: Use a chain_id = 0 authorization to designate the same implementation contract across all chains. You can then enable or disable features on a per-chain basis within your application logic.
• Observability: Your backend should index Type-4 transactions and parse the authorization_list to track which EOAs have been upgraded. After a transaction, verify the change by calling eth_getCode and confirming the EOA's code now matches the delegation indicator (0xef0100 || implementationAddress).

Threat Model & Gotchas (Don’t Skip This)​

• Delegation is Persistent: Treat changes to an EOA's implementation contract with the same gravity as a standard smart contract upgrade. This requires audits, clear user communication, and ideally, an opt-in flow. Never push new logic to users silently.
• tx.origin Landmines: Any logic that used msg.sender == tx.origin to ensure a call came directly from an EOA is now potentially vulnerable. This pattern must be replaced with more robust checks, like EIP-712 signatures or explicit allowlists.
• Nonce Math: When an EOA sponsors its own 7702 transaction (executor: 'self'), its authorization nonce and transaction nonce interact in a specific way. Always use a library that correctly handles this to avoid replay issues.
• Wallet UX Responsibility: The EIP-7702 specification warns that dapps should not ask users to sign arbitrary designations. It is the wallet's responsibility to vet proposed implementations and ensure they are safe. Design your UX to align with this principle of wallet-mediated security.

When 7702 is a Clear Win​

• DEX Flows: A multi-step approve and swap can be combined into a single click using the executeBatch function.
• Games & Sessions: Grant session-key-like privileges for a limited time or scope without requiring the user to create and fund a new wallet.
• Enterprise & Fintech: Enable sponsored transactions and apply custom spending policies while keeping the same corporate address on every chain for accounting and identity.
• L2 Bridges & Intents: Create smoother meta-transaction flows with a consistent EOA identity across different networks.

These use cases represent the same core benefits promised by ERC-4337, but are now available to every existing EOA with just a single authorization.

Ship Checklist​

Protocol​

• Ensure nodes, SDKs, and infrastructure providers support Type-4 transactions and Pectra's "prague" EVM.
• Update indexers and analytics tools to parse the authorization_list field in new transactions.

Contracts​

• Develop a minimal, audited implementation contract with essential features (e.g., batching, revocation).
• Thoroughly test revoke and re-designate flows on testnets before deploying to mainnet.

Clients​

• Upgrade client-side libraries (viem, ethers, etc.) and test the signAuthorization and sendTransaction functions.
• Verify that both self-sponsored and relayed transaction paths handle nonces and replays correctly.

Security​

• Remove all assumptions based on tx.origin from your contracts and replace them with safer alternatives.
• Implement post-deployment monitoring to detect unexpected code changes at user addresses and alert on suspicious activity.

Bottom line: EIP-7702 provides a low-friction on-ramp to smart-account UX for the millions of EOAs already in use. Start with a tiny, audited implementation, use a relayed path for gasless setup, make revocation clear and easy, and you can deliver 90% of the benefits of full account abstraction—without the pain of address churn and asset migration.

For years, the conventional wisdom in the blockchain space has been that bigger is better. The Ethereum Global Network (EGN), the vast peer-to-peer (P2P) layer supporting thousands of services from the Ethereum mainnet to countless other projects, was built on this very idea[cite: 4, 25]. The theory was simple: a massive, blended network where everyone shares the same space would boost node discovery and make the ecosystem more resilient to attacks[cite: 34, 35].

However, a critical research paper, "A Place for Everyone vs Everyone in its Place: Measuring and Attacking the Ethereum Global Network," challenges this foundational belief. The study reveals that this "place for everyone" architecture, rather than being a source of strength, introduces severe inefficiencies and alarming security vulnerabilities that could impact services with a collective market cap of over $500 billion[cite: 6, 24].

The Efficiency Nightmare: Shouting into a Crowd​

The promise of EGN was that nodes could easily find and connect with peers offering the same service[cite: 34]. The reality is the complete opposite. The study found that nodes desperately struggle to find their counterparts in the vast, noisy sea of the EGN[cite: 8].

The inefficiency is staggering:

• Wasted Connections: Over 75% of a node's connection attempts are directed at peers from entirely different services[cite: 8].
• Extreme Connection Costs: In one startling case, a node had to make an average of 45,908 connection attempts just to find a single valid neighbor[cite: 9]. This stands in stark contrast to Bitcoin's estimated success rate of one in four[cite: 54].
• A Step Backward: The newer discovery protocol, Discv5, which was intended to be an improvement, performs even more poorly. In a 12-hour test, nodes using Discv5 established three or fewer connections, largely because a crucial "topic discovery mechanism" designed to advertise services remains unimplemented in all major clients[cite: 57, 59].

The core issue is that the vast majority of nodes in the EGN have routing tables (their "address books") filled with irrelevant peers. The research found that most Discv4 nodes maintain less than 5% of same-service peers in their DHTs (Distributed Hash Tables)[cite: 44].

The Security Illusion: A Vulnerable Giant​

The second pillar of the "bigger is better" argument was security—that EGN's sheer size would dilute any attacker's influence[cite: 35]. The paper demolishes this assumption by simulating a DHT pollution attack, a foundational attack where malicious nodes flood the network's address books with their own entries[cite: 61, 62].

The results show that EGN's blended nature is not a defense, but a critical vulnerability[cite: 10, 65]:

• Devastatingly Effective: With just 300 malicious nodes (less than 0.3% of the network), an attacker can pollute the network so effectively that connection success rates for most services plummet to below 1%[cite: 11, 63].
• Mass Isolation: After just 24 hours, this small-scale attack was able to successfully partition the network, isolating thousands of honest nodes from their services[cite: 11, 64].
• Design, Not a Flaw: This vulnerability isn't due to a bug but is an inherent consequence of the blended architecture[cite: 65]. When the same attack was simulated on separate, dedicated networks for each service, it proved "largely ineffective" because the routing tables were clean and filled only with relevant peers[cite: 66].

The Path Forward: "Everyone in its Place"​

The research concludes that the EGN's blended architecture is detrimental, especially to smaller services that become collateral damage in this inefficient and insecure environment[cite: 37]. The solution is not to abandon the global network but to organize it better, shifting from "a place for everyone" to ensuring "everyone is in its place"[cite: 522].

The paper proposes two key solutions:

1. Service-Specific DHTs: Mandate that all nodes include their service information directly in their Ethereum Node Record (ENR)[cite: 490, 491]. This simple change would allow nodes to filter for and prioritize same-service peers, dramatically improving discovery efficiency and security without sacrificing decentralization[cite: 495].
2. More Reliable Bootnodes: The simulations highlighted the critical role of bootnodes as a last line of defense against network partitioning[cite: 496]. The paper recommends that services increase the number of their bootnodes and configure them to prioritize storing same-service peers, creating a resilient backbone for network recovery[cite: 499].

For developers and the health of the entire ecosystem, these findings are a crucial wake-up call. A robust and efficient P2P layer is the bedrock of any decentralized service. By implementing these proposed fixes, the community can move toward a more organized, secure, and truly global network that works for everyone.

Plume Network: Overview and Value Proposition​

Plume Network is a blockchain platform purpose-built for Real-World Assets (RWA). It is a public, Ethereum-compatible chain designed to tokenize a wide range of real-world financial assets – from private credit and real estate to carbon credits and even collectibles – and make them as usable as native crypto assets. In other words, Plume doesn’t just put assets on-chain; it allows users to hold and utilize tokenized real assets in decentralized finance (DeFi) – enabling familiar crypto activities like staking, lending, borrowing, swapping, and speculative trading on assets that originate in traditional finance.

The core value proposition of Plume is to bridge TradFi and DeFi by turning traditionally illiquid or inaccessible assets into programmable, liquid tokens. By integrating institutional-grade assets (e.g. private credit funds, ETFs, commodities) with DeFi infrastructure, Plume aims to make high-quality investments – which were once limited to large institutions or specific markets – permissionless, composable, and a click away for crypto users. This opens the door for crypto participants to earn “real yield” backed by stable real-world cash flows (such as loan interest, rental income, bond yields, etc.) rather than relying on inflationary token rewards. Plume’s mission is to drive “RWA Finance (RWAfi)”, creating a transparent and open financial system where anyone can access assets like private credit, real estate debt, or commodities on-chain, and use them freely in novel ways.

In summary, Plume Network serves as an “on-chain home for real-world assets”, offering a full-stack ecosystem that transforms off-chain assets into globally accessible financial tools with true crypto-native utility. Users can stake stablecoins to earn yields from top fund managers (Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, etc.), loop and leverage RWA-backed tokens as collateral, and trade RWAs as easily as ERC-20 tokens. By doing so, Plume stands out as a platform striving to make alternative assets more liquid and programmable, bringing fresh capital and investment opportunities into Web3 without sacrificing transparency or user experience.

Technology and Architecture​

Plume Network is implemented as an EVM-compatible blockchain with a modular Layer-2 architecture. Under the hood, Plume operates similarly to an Ethereum rollup (comparable to Arbitrum’s technology), utilizing Ethereum for data availability and security. Every transaction on Plume is eventually batch-posted to Ethereum, which means users pay a small extra fee to cover the cost of publishing calldata on Ethereum. This design leverages Ethereum’s robust security while allowing Plume to have its own high-throughput execution environment. Plume runs a sequencer that aggregates transactions and commits them to Ethereum periodically, giving the chain faster execution and lower fees for RWA use-cases, but anchored to Ethereum for trust and finality.

Because Plume is EVM-compatible, developers can deploy Solidity smart contracts on Plume just as they would on Ethereum, with almost no changes. The chain supports the standard Ethereum RPC methods and Solidity operations, with only minor differences (e.g. Plume’s block number and timestamp semantics mirror Arbitrum’s conventions due to the Layer-2 design). In practice, this means Plume can easily integrate existing DeFi protocols and developer tooling. The Plume docs note that cross-chain messaging is supported between Ethereum (the “parent” chain) and Plume (the L2), enabling assets and data to move between the chains as needed.

Notably, Plume describes itself as a “modular blockchain” optimized for RWA finance. The modular approach is evident in its architecture: it has dedicated components for bridging assets (called Arc for bringing anything on-chain), for omnichain yield routing (SkyLink) across multiple blockchains, and for on-chain data feeds (Nexus, an “onchain data highway”). This suggests Plume is building an interconnected system where real-world asset tokens on Plume can interact with liquidity on other chains and where off-chain data (like asset valuations, interest rates, etc.) is reliably fed on-chain. Plume’s infrastructure also includes a custom wallet called Plume Passport (the “RWAfi Wallet”) which likely handles identity/AML checks necessary for RWA compliance, and a native stablecoin (pUSD) for transacting in the ecosystem.

Importantly, Plume’s current iteration is often called a Layer-2 or rollup chain – it is built atop Ethereum for security. However, the team has hinted at ambitious plans to evolve the tech further. Plume’s CTO noted that they started as a modular L2 rollup but are now pushing “down the stack” toward a fully sovereign Layer-1 architecture, optimizing a new chain from scratch with high performance, privacy features “comparable to Swiss banks,” and a novel crypto-economic security model to secure the next trillion dollars on-chain. While specifics are scant, this suggests that over time Plume may transition to a more independent chain or incorporate advanced features like FHE (Fully Homomorphic Encryption) or zk-proofs (the mention of zkTLS and privacy) to meet institutional requirements. For now, though, Plume’s mainnet leverages Ethereum’s security and EVM environment to rapidly onboard assets and users, providing a familiar but enhanced DeFi experience for RWAs.

Tokenomics and Incentives​

PLUME ($PLUME) is the native utility token of the Plume Network. The $PLUME token is used to power transactions, governance, and network security on Plume. As the gas token, $PLUME is required to pay transaction fees on the Plume chain (similar to how ETH is gas on Ethereum). This means all operations – trading, staking, deploying contracts – consume $PLUME for fees. Beyond gas, $PLUME has several utility and incentive roles:

• Governance: $PLUME holders can participate in governance decisions, presumably voting on protocol parameters, upgrades, or asset onboarding decisions.
• Staking/Security: The token can be staked, which likely supports the network’s validator or sequencer operations. Stakers help secure the chain and in return earn staking rewards in $PLUME. (Even as a rollup, Plume may use a proof-of-stake mechanism for its sequencer or for eventual decentralization of block production).
• Real Yield and DeFi utility: Plume’s docs mention that users can use $PLUME across dApps to “unlock real yield”. This suggests that holding or staking $PLUME might confer higher yields in certain RWA yield farms or access to exclusive opportunities in the ecosystem.
• Ecosystem Incentives: $PLUME is also used to reward community engagement – for example, users might earn tokens via community quests, referral programs, testnet participation (such as the “Take Flight” developer program or the testnet “Goons” NFTs). This incentive design is meant to bootstrap network effects by distributing tokens to those who actively use and grow the platform.

Token Supply & Distribution: Plume has a fixed total supply of 10 billion $PLUME tokens. At the Token Generation Event (mainnet launch), the initial circulating supply is 20% of the total (i.e. 2 billion tokens). The allocation is heavily weighted toward community and ecosystem development:

• 59% to Community, Ecosystem & Foundation – this large share is reserved for grants, liquidity incentives, community rewards, and a foundation pool to support the ecosystem’s long-term growth. This ensures a majority of tokens are available to bootstrap usage (and potentially signals commitment to decentralization over time).
• 21% to Early Backers – these tokens are allocated to strategic investors and partners who funded Plume’s development. (As we’ll see, Plume raised capital from prominent crypto funds; this allocation likely vests over time as per investor agreements.)
• 20% to Core Contributors (Team) – allocated to the founding team and core developers driving Plume. This portion incentivizes the team and aligns them with the network’s success, typically vesting over a multi-year period.

Besides $PLUME, Plume’s ecosystem includes a stablecoin called Plume USD (pUSD). pUSD is designed as the RWAfi ecosystem stablecoin for Plume. It serves as the unit of account and primary trading/collateral currency within Plume’s DeFi apps. Uniquely, pUSD is fully backed 1:1 by USDC – effectively a wrapped USDC for the Plume network. This design choice (wrapping USDC) was made to reduce friction for traditional institutions: if an organization is already comfortable holding and minting USDC, they can seamlessly mint and use pUSD on Plume under the same frameworks. pUSD is minted and redeemed natively on both Ethereum and Plume, meaning users or institutions can deposit USDC on Ethereum and receive pUSD on Plume, or vice versa. By tying pUSD 1:1 to USDC (and ultimately to USD reserves), Plume ensures its stablecoin remains fully collateralized and liquid, which is critical for RWA transactions (where predictability and stability of the medium of exchange are required). In practice, pUSD provides a common stable liquidity layer for all RWA apps on Plume – whether it’s buying tokenized bonds, investing in RWA yield vaults, or trading assets on a DEX, pUSD is the stablecoin that underpins value exchange.

Overall, Plume’s tokenomics aim to balance network utility with growth incentives. $PLUME ensures the network is self-sustaining (through fees and staking security) and community-governed, while large allocations to ecosystem funds and airdrops help drive early adoption. Meanwhile, pUSD anchors the financial ecosystem in a trustworthy stable asset, making it easier for traditional capital to enter Plume and for DeFi users to measure returns on real-world investments.

Founding Team and Backers​

Plume Network was founded in 2022 by a trio of entrepreneurs with backgrounds in crypto and finance: Chris Yin (CEO), Eugene Shen (CTO), and Teddy Pornprinya (CBO). Chris Yin is described as the visionary product leader of the team, driving the platform’s strategy and thought leadership in the RWA space. Eugene Shen leads the technical development as CTO (previously having worked on modular blockchain architectures, given his note about “customizing geth” and building from the ground up). Teddy Pornprinya, as Chief Business Officer, spearheads partnerships, business development, and marketing – he was instrumental in onboarding dozens of projects into the Plume ecosystem early on. Together, the founders identified the gap in the market for an RWA-optimized chain and quit their prior roles to build Plume, officially launching the project roughly a year after conception.

Plume has attracted significant backing from both crypto-native VCs and traditional finance giants, signaling strong confidence in its vision:

• In May 2023, Plume raised a $10 million seed round led by Haun Ventures (the fund of former a16z partner Katie Haun). Other participants in the seed included Galaxy Digital, Superscrypt (Temasek’s crypto arm), A Capital, SV Angel, Portal Ventures, and Reciprocal Ventures. This diverse investor base gave Plume a strong start, combining crypto expertise and institutional connections.

• By late 2024, Plume secured a $20 million Series A funding to accelerate its development. This round was backed by top-tier investors such as Brevan Howard Digital, Haun Ventures (returning), Galaxy, and Faction VC. The inclusion of Brevan Howard, one of the world’s largest hedge funds with a dedicated crypto arm, is especially notable and underscored the growing Wall Street interest in RWAs on blockchain.

• In April 2025, Apollo Global Management – one of the world’s largest alternative asset managers – made a strategic investment in Plume. Apollo’s investment was a seven-figure (USD) amount intended to help Plume scale its infrastructure and bring more traditional financial products on-chain. Apollo’s involvement is a strong validation of Plume’s approach: Christine Moy, Apollo’s Head of Digital Assets, said their investment “underscores Apollo’s focus on technologies that broaden access to institutional-quality products… Plume represents a new kind of infrastructure focused on digital asset utility, investor engagement, and next-generation financial solutions”. In other words, Apollo sees Plume as key infrastructure to make private markets more liquid and accessible via blockchain.

• Another strategic backer is YZi Labs, formerly Binance Labs. In early 2025, YZi (Binance’s venture arm rebranded) announced a strategic investment in Plume Network as well. YZi Labs highlighted Plume as a “cutting-edge Layer-2 blockchain designed for scaling real world assets”, and their support signals confidence that Plume can bridge TradFi and DeFi at a large scale. (It’s worth noting Binance Labs’ rebranding to YZi Labs indicates continuity of their investments in core infrastructure projects like Plume.)

• Plume’s backers also include traditional fintech and crypto institutions through partnerships (detailed below) – for example, Mercado Bitcoin (Latin America’s largest digital asset platform) and Anchorage Digital (a regulated crypto custodian) are ecosystem partners, effectively aligning themselves with Plume’s success. Additionally, Grayscale Investments – the world’s largest digital asset manager – has taken notice: in April 2025, Grayscale officially added $PLUME to its list of assets “Under Consideration” for future investment products. Being on Grayscale’s radar means Plume could potentially be included in institutional crypto trusts or ETFs, a major nod of legitimacy for a relatively new project.

In summary, Plume’s funding and support comes from a who’s-who of top investors: premier crypto VCs (Haun, Galaxy, a16z via GFI’s backing of Goldfinch, etc.), hedge funds and TradFi players (Brevan Howard, Apollo), and corporate venture arms (Binance/YZi). This mix of backers brings not just capital but also strategic guidance, regulatory expertise, and connections to real-world asset originators. It has also provided Plume with war-chest funding (at least $30M+ over seed and Series A) to build out its specialized blockchain and onboard assets. The strong backing serves as a vote of confidence that Plume is positioned as a leading platform in the fast-growing RWA sector.

Ecosystem Partners and Integrations​

Plume has been very active in forging ecosystem partnerships across both crypto and traditional finance, assembling a broad network of integrations even before (and immediately upon) mainnet launch. These partners provide the assets, infrastructure, and distribution that make Plume’s RWA ecosystem functional:

• Nest Protocol (Nest Credit): An RWA yield platform that operates on Plume, allowing users to deposit stablecoins into vaults and receive yield-bearing tokens backed by real-world assets. Nest is essentially a DeFi frontend for RWA yields, offering products like tokenized U.S. Treasury Bills, private credit, mineral rights, etc., but abstracting away the complexity so they “feel like crypto.” Users swap USDC (or pUSD) for Nest-issued tokens that are fully backed by regulated, audited assets held by custodians. Nest works closely with Plume – a testimonial from Anil Sood of Anemoy (a partner) highlights that “partnering with Plume accelerates our mission to bring institutional-grade RWAs to every investor… This collaboration is a blueprint for the future of RWA innovation.”. In practice, Nest is Plume’s native yield marketplace (sometimes called “Nest Yield” or RWA staking platform), and many of Plume’s big partnerships funnel into Nest vaults.

• Mercado Bitcoin (MB): The largest digital asset exchange in Latin America (based in Brazil) has partnered with Plume to tokenize ~$40 million of Brazilian real-world assets. This initiative, announced in Feb 2025, involves MB using Plume’s blockchain to issue tokens representing Brazilian asset-backed securities, consumer credit portfolios, corporate debt, and accounts receivable. The goal is to connect global investors with yield-bearing opportunities in Brazil’s economy – effectively opening up Brazilian credit markets to on-chain investors worldwide through Plume. These Brazilian RWA tokens will be available from day one of Plume’s mainnet on the Nest platform, providing stable on-chain returns backed by Brazilian small-business loans and credit receivables. This partnership is notable because it gives Plume a geographic reach (LATAM) and a pipeline of emerging-market assets, showcasing how Plume can serve as a hub connecting regional asset originators to global liquidity.

• Superstate: Superstate is a fintech startup founded by Robert Leshner (former founder of Compound), focused on bringing regulated U.S. Treasury fund products on-chain. In 2024, Superstate launched a tokenized U.S. Treasury fund (approved as a 1940 Act mutual fund) targeted at crypto users. Plume was chosen by Superstate to power its multi-chain expansion. In practice, this means Superstate’s tokenized T-bill fund (which offers stable yield from U.S. government bonds) is being made available on Plume, where it can be integrated into Plume’s DeFi ecosystem. Leshner himself said: “by expanding to Plume – the unique RWAfi chain – we can demonstrate how purpose-built infrastructure can enable great new use-cases for tokenized assets. We’re excited to build on Plume.”. This indicates Superstate will deploy its fund tokens (e.g., maybe an on-chain share of a Treasuries fund) on Plume, allowing Plume users to hold or use them in DeFi (perhaps as collateral for borrowing, or in Nest vaults for auto-yield). It is a strong validation that Plume’s chain is seen as a preferred home for regulated asset tokens like Treasuries.

• Ondo Finance: Ondo is a well-known DeFi project that pivoted into the RWA space by offering tokenized bonds and yield products (notably, Ondo’s OUSG token, which represents shares in a short-term U.S. Treasury fund, and USDY, representing an interest-bearing USD deposit product). Ondo is listed among Plume’s ecosystem partners, implying a collaboration where Ondo’s yield-bearing tokens (like OUSG, USDY) can be used on Plume. In fact, Ondo’s products align closely with Plume’s goals: Ondo established legal vehicles (SPVs) to ensure compliance, and its OUSG token is backed by BlackRock’s tokenized money market fund (BUIDL), providing ~4.5% APY from Treasuries. By integrating Ondo, Plume gains blue-chip RWA assets like U.S. Treasuries on-chain. Indeed, as of late 2024, Ondo’s RWA products had a market value around $600+ million, so bridging them to Plume adds significant TVL. This synergy likely allows Plume users to swap into Ondo’s tokens or include them in Nest vaults for composite strategies.

• Centrifuge: Centrifuge is a pioneer in RWA tokenization (operating its own Polkadot parachain for RWA pools). Plume’s site lists Centrifuge as a partner, suggesting collaboration or integration. This could mean that Centrifuge’s pools of assets (trade finance, real estate bridge loans, etc.) might be accessible from Plume, or that Centrifuge will use Plume’s infrastructure for distribution. For example, Plume’s SkyLink omnichain yield might route liquidity from Plume into Centrifuge pools on Polkadot, or Centrifuge could tokenize certain assets directly onto Plume for deeper DeFi composability. Given Centrifuge leads the private credit RWA category with ~$409M TVL in its pools, its participation in Plume’s ecosystem is significant. It indicates an industry-wide move toward interoperability among RWA platforms, with Plume acting as a unifying layer for RWA liquidity across chains.

• Credbull: Credbull is a private credit fund platform that partnered with Plume to launch a large tokenized credit fund. According to CoinDesk, Credbull is rolling out up to a $500M private credit fund on Plume, offering a fixed high yield to on-chain investors. This likely involves packaging private credit (loans to mid-sized companies or other credit assets) into a vehicle where on-chain stablecoin holders can invest for a fixed return. The significance is twofold: (1) It adds a huge pipeline of yield assets (~half a billion dollars) to Plume’s network, and (2) it exemplifies how Plume is attracting real asset managers to originate products on its chain. Combined with other pipeline assets, Plume said it planned to tokenize about $1.25 billion worth of RWAs by late 2024, including Credbull’s fund, plus $300M of renewable energy assets (solar farms via Plural Energy), ~$120M of healthcare receivables (Medicaid-backed invoices), and even oil & gas mineral rights. This large pipeline shows that at launch, Plume isn’t empty – it comes with tangible assets ready to go.

• Goldfinch: Goldfinch is a decentralized credit protocol that provided undercollateralized loans to fintech lenders globally. In 2023, Goldfinch pivoted to “Goldfinch Prime”, targeting accredited and institutional investors by offering on-chain access to top private credit funds. Plume and Goldfinch announced a strategic partnership to bring Goldfinch Prime’s offerings to Plume’s Nest platform, effectively marrying Goldfinch’s institutional credit deals with Plume’s user base. Through this partnership, institutional investors on Plume can stake stablecoins into funds managed by Apollo, Golub Capital, Aries, Stellus, and other leading private credit managers via Goldfinch’s integration. The ambition is massive: collectively these managers represent over $1 trillion in assets, and the partnership aims to eventually make portions of that available on-chain. In practical terms, a user on Plume could invest in a diversified pool that earns yield from hundreds of real-world loans made by these credit funds, all tokenized through Goldfinch Prime. This not only enhances Plume’s asset diversity but also underscores Plume’s credibility to partner with top-tier RWA platforms.

• Infrastructure Partners (Custody and Connectivity): Plume has also integrated key infrastructure players. Anchorage Digital, a regulated crypto custodian bank, is a partner – Anchorage’s involvement likely means institutional users can custody their tokenized assets or $PLUME securely in a bank-level custody solution (a must for big money). Paxos is another listed partner, which could relate to stablecoin infrastructure (Paxos issues USDP stablecoin and also provides custody and brokerage services – possibly Paxos could be safeguarding the reserves for pUSD or facilitating asset tokenization pipelines). LayerZero is mentioned as well, indicating Plume uses LayerZero’s interoperability protocol for cross-chain messaging. This would allow assets on Plume to move to other chains (and vice versa) in a trust-minimized way, complementing Plume’s rollup bridge.

• Other DeFi Integrations: Plume’s ecosystem page cites 180+ protocols, including RWA specialists and mainstream DeFi projects. For instance, names like Nucleus Yield (a platform for tokenized yields), and possibly on-chain KYC providers or identity solutions, are part of the mix. By the time of mainnet, Plume had over 200 integrated protocols in its testnet environment – meaning many existing dApps (DEXs, money markets, etc.) have deployed or are ready to deploy on Plume. This ensures that once real-world assets are tokenized, they have immediate utility: e.g., a tokenized solar farm revenue stream could be traded on an order-book exchange, or used as collateral for a loan, or included in an index – because the DeFi “money lego” pieces (DEXs, lending platforms, asset management protocols) are available on the chain from the start.

In summary, Plume’s ecosystem strategy has been aggressive and comprehensive: secure anchor partnerships for assets (e.g. funds from Apollo, BlackRock via Superstate/Ondo, private credit via Goldfinch and Credbull, emerging market assets via Mercado Bitcoin), ensure infrastructure and compliance in place (Anchorage custody, Paxos, identity/AML tooling), and port over the DeFi primitives to allow a flourishing of secondary markets and leverage. The result is that Plume enters 2025 as potentially the most interconnected RWA network in Web3 – a hub where various RWA protocols and real-world institutions plug in. This “network-of-networks” effect could drive significant total value locked and user activity, as indicated by early metrics (Plume’s testnet saw 18+ million unique wallets and 280+ million transactions in a short span, largely due to incentive campaigns and the breadth of projects testing the waters).

Roadmap and Development Milestones​

Plume’s development has moved at a rapid clip, with a phased approach to scaling up real-world assets on-chain:

• Testnet and Community Growth (2023): Plume launched its incentivized testnet (code-named “Miles”) in mid-late 2023. The testnet campaign was extremely successful in attracting users – over 18 million testnet wallet addresses were created, executing 280 million+ transactions. This was likely driven by testnet “missions” and an airdrop campaign (Season 1 of Plume’s airdrop was claimed by early users). The testnet also onboarded over 200 protocols and saw 1 million NFTs (“Goons”) minted, indicating a vibrant trial ecosystem. This massive testnet was a milestone proving out Plume’s tech scalability and generating buzz (and a large community: Plume now counts ~1M Twitter followers and hundreds of thousands in Discord/Telegram).

• Mainnet Launch (Q1 2025): Plume targeted the end of 2024 or early 2025 for mainnet launch. Indeed, by February 2025, partners like Mercado Bitcoin announced their tokenized assets would go live “from the first day of Plume’s mainnet launch.”. This implies Plume mainnet went live or was scheduled to go live around Feb 2025. Mainnet launch is a crucial milestone, bringing the testnet’s lessons to production along with the initial slate of real assets (~$1B+ worth) ready to be tokenized. The launch likely included the release of Plume’s core products: the Plume Chain (mainnet), Arc for asset onboarding, pUSD stablecoin, and Plume Passport wallet, as well as initial DeFi dApps (DEXs, money markets) deployed by partners.

• Phased Asset Onboarding: Plume has indicated a “phased onboarding” strategy for assets to ensure a secure, liquid environment. In early phases, simpler or lower-risk assets (like fully backed stablecoins, tokenized bonds) come first, alongside controlled participation (perhaps whitelisted institutions) to build trust and liquidity. Each phase then unlocks more use cases and asset classes as the ecosystem proves itself. For example, Phase 1 might focus on on-chain Treasuries and private credit fund tokens (relatively stable, yield-generating assets). Subsequent phases could bring more esoteric or higher-yield assets like renewable energy revenue streams, real estate equity tokens, or even exotic assets (the docs amusingly mention “GPUs, uranium, mineral rights, durian farms” as eventual on-chain asset possibilities). Plume’s roadmap thus expands the asset menu over time, parallel with developing the needed market depth and risk management on-chain.

• Scaling and Decentralization: Following mainnet, a key development goal is to decentralize the Plume chain’s operations. Currently, Plume has a sequencer model (likely run by the team or a few nodes). Over time, they plan to introduce a robust validator/sequencer set where $PLUME stakers help secure the network, and possibly even transition to a fully independent consensus. The founder’s note about building an optimized L1 with a new crypto-economic model hints that Plume might implement a novel Proof-of-Stake or hybrid security model to protect high-value RWAs on-chain. Milestones in this category would include open-sourcing more of the stack, running incentivized testnet for node operators, and implementing fraud proofs or zk-proofs (if moving beyond an optimistic rollup).

• Feature Upgrades: Plume’s roadmap also includes adding advanced features demanded by institutions. This could involve:

  • Privacy enhancements: e.g., integrating zero-knowledge proofs for confidential transactions or identity, so that sensitive financial details of RWAs (like borrower info or cashflow data) can be kept private on a public ledger. The mention of FHE and zkTLS suggests research in enabling private yet verifiable asset handling.
  • Compliance and Identity: Plume already has AML screening and compliance modules, but future work will refine on-chain identity (perhaps DID integration in Plume Passport) so that RWA tokens can enforce transfer restrictions or only be held by eligible investors when required.
  • Interoperability: Further integrations with cross-chain protocols (expanding on LayerZero) and bridges so that Plume’s RWA liquidity can seamlessly flow into major ecosystems like Ethereum mainnet, Layer-2s, and even other app-chains. The SkyLink omnichain yield product is likely part of this, enabling users on other chains to tap yields from Plume’s RWA pools.

• Growth Targets: Plume’s leadership has publicly stated goals like “tokenize $3 billion+ in assets by Q4 2024” and eventually far more. While $1.25B was the short-term pipeline at launch, the journey to $3B in tokenized RWAs is an explicit milestone. Longer term, given the trillions in institutional assets potentially tokenizable, Plume will measure success in how much real-world value it brings on-chain. Another metric is TVL and user adoption: by April 2025 the RWA tokenization market crossed $20B in TVL overall, and Plume aspires to capture a significant share of that. If its partnerships mature (e.g., if even 5% of that $1 trillion Goldfinch pipeline comes on-chain), Plume’s TVL could grow exponentially.

• Recent Highlights: By spring 2025, Plume had several noteworthy milestones:

  • The Apollo investment (Apr 2025) – which not only brought funding but also the opportunity to work with Apollo’s portfolio (Apollo manages $600B+ including credit, real estate, and private equity assets that could eventually be tokenized).
  • Grayscale consideration (Apr 2025) – being added to Grayscale’s watchlist is a milestone in recognition, potentially paving the way for a Plume investment product for institutions.
  • RWA Market Leadership: Plume’s team frequently publishes the “Plumeberg” Newsletters noting RWA market trends. In one, they celebrated RWA protocols surpassing $10B TVL and noted Plume’s key role in the narrative. They have positioned Plume as core infrastructure as the sector grows, which suggests a milestone of becoming a reference platform in the RWA conversation.

In essence, Plume’s roadmap is about scaling up and out: scale up in terms of assets (from hundreds of millions to billions tokenized), and scale out in terms of features (privacy, compliance, decentralization) and integrations (connecting to more assets and users globally). Each successful asset onboarding (be it a Brazilian credit deal or an Apollo fund tranche) is a development milestone in proving the model. If Plume can maintain momentum, upcoming milestones might include major financial institutions launching products directly on Plume (e.g., a bank issuing a bond on Plume), or government entities using Plume for public asset auctions – all part of the longer-term vision of Plume as a global on-chain marketplace for real-world finance.

Metrics and Traction​

While still early, Plume Network’s traction can be gauged by a combination of testnet metrics, partnership pipeline, and the overall growth of RWA on-chain:

• Testnet Adoption: Plume’s incentivized testnet (2023) saw extraordinary participation. 18 million+ unique addresses and 280 million transactions were recorded – numbers rivaling or exceeding many mainnets. This was driven by an enthusiastic community drawn by Plume’s airdrop incentives and the allure of RWAs. It demonstrates a strong retail interest in the platform (though many may have been speculators aiming for rewards, it nonetheless seeded a large user base). Additionally, over 200 DeFi protocols deployed contracts on the testnet, signaling broad developer interest. This effectively primed Plume with a large user and developer community even before launch.

• Community Size: Plume quickly built a social following in the millions (e.g., 1M followers on X/Twitter, 450k in Discord, etc.). They brand their community members as “Goons” – over 1 million “Goon” NFTs were minted as a part of testnet achievements. Such gamified growth reflects one of the fastest community buildups in recent Web3 memory, indicating that the narrative of real-world assets resonates with a wide audience in crypto.

• Ecosystem and TVL Pipeline: At mainnet launch, Plume projected having over $1 billion in real-world assets tokenized or available on day one. In a statement, co-founder Chris Yin highlighted proprietary access to high-yield, privately held assets that are “exclusively” coming to Plume. Indeed, specific assets lined up included:

  • $500M from a Credbull private credit fund,
  • $300M in solar energy farms (Plural Energy),
  • $120M in healthcare (Medicaid receivables),
  • plus mineral rights and other esoteric assets. These sum to ~$1B, and Yin stated the aim to reach $3B tokenized by end of 2024. Such figures, if realized, would place Plume among the top chains for RWA TVL. By comparison, the entire RWA sector’s on-chain TVL was about $20B as of April 2025, so $3B on one platform would be a very significant share.

• Current TVL / Usage: Since mainnet launch is recent, concrete TVL figures on Plume aren’t yet publicly reported like on DeFiLlama. However, we know several integrated projects bring their own TVL:

  • Ondo’s products (OUSG, etc.) had $623M in market value around early 2024 – some of that may now reside or be mirrored on Plume.
  • The tokenized assets via Mercado Bitcoin (Brazil) add $40M pipeline.
  • Goldfinch Prime’s pool could attract large deposits (Goldfinch’s legacy pools originated ~$100M+ of loans; Prime could scale higher with institutions).
  • If Nest vaults aggregate multiple yields, that could quickly accumulate nine-figure TVL on Plume as stablecoin holders seek 5-10% yields from RWAs. As a qualitative metric, demand for RWA yields has been high even in bear markets – for instance, tokenized Treasury funds like Ondo’s saw hundreds of millions in a few months. Plume, concentrating many such offerings, could see a rapid uptick in TVL as DeFi users rotate into more “real” yields.

• Transactions and Activity: We might anticipate relatively lower on-chain transaction counts on Plume compared to say a gaming chain, because RWA transactions are higher-value but less frequent (e.g., moving millions in a bond token vs. many micro-transactions). That said, if secondary trading picks up (on an order book exchange or AMM on Plume), we could see steady activity. The presence of 280M test txns suggests Plume can handle high throughput if needed. With Plume’s low fees (designed to be cheaper than Ethereum) and composability, it encourages more complex strategies (like looping collateral, automated yield strategies by smart contracts) which could drive interactions.

• Real-World Impact: Another “metric” is traditional participation. Plume’s partnership with Apollo and others means institutional AuM (Assets under Management) connected to Plume is in the tens of billions (just counting Apollo’s involved funds, BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, etc.). While not all that value is on-chain, even a small allocation from each could quickly swell Plume’s on-chain assets. For example, BlackRock’s BUIDL fund (tokenized money market) hit $1B AUM within a year. Franklin Templeton’s on-chain government money fund reached $368M. If similar funds launch on Plume or existing ones connect, those figures reflect potential scale.

• Security/Compliance Metrics: It’s worth noting Plume touts being fully onchain 24/7, permissionless yet compliant. One measure of success will be zero security incidents or defaults in the initial cohorts of RWA tokens. Metrics like payment yields delivered to users (e.g., X amount of interest paid out via Plume smart contracts from real assets) will build credibility. Plume’s design includes real-time auditing and on-chain verification of asset collateral (some partners provide daily transparency reports, as Ondo does for USDY). Over time, consistent, verified yield payouts and perhaps credit ratings on-chain could become key metrics to watch.

In summary, early indicators show strong interest and a robust pipeline for Plume. The testnet numbers demonstrate crypto community traction, and the partnerships outline a path to significant on-chain TVL and usage. As Plume transitions to steady state, we will track metrics like how many asset types are live, how much yield is distributed, and how many active users (especially institutional) engage on the platform. Given that the entire RWA category is growing fast (over $22.4B TVL as of May 2025, with a 9.3% monthly growth rate), Plume’s metrics should be viewed in context of this expanding pie. There is a real possibility that Plume could emerge as a leading RWA hub capturing a multi-billion-dollar share of the market if it continues executing.

Real-World Assets (RWA) in Web3: Overview and Significance​

Real-World Assets (RWAs) refer to tangible or financial assets from the traditional economy that are tokenized on blockchain – in other words, digital tokens that represent ownership or rights to real assets or cash flows. These can include assets like real estate properties, corporate bonds, trade invoices, commodities (gold, oil), stocks, or even intangible assets like carbon credits and intellectual property. RWA tokenization is arguably one of the most impactful trends in crypto, because it serves as a bridge between traditional finance (TradFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi). By bringing real-world assets on-chain, blockchain technology can inject transparency, efficiency, and broader access into historically opaque and illiquid markets.

The significance of RWAs in Web3 has grown dramatically in recent years:

• They unlock new sources of collateral and yield for the crypto ecosystem. Instead of relying on speculative token trading or purely crypto-native yield farming, DeFi users can invest in tokens that derive value from real economic activity (e.g., revenue from a real estate portfolio or interest from loans). This introduces “real yield” and diversification, making DeFi more sustainable.
• For traditional finance, tokenization promises to increase liquidity and accessibility. Assets like commercial real estate or loan portfolios, which typically have limited buyers and cumbersome settlement processes, can be fractionalized and traded 24/7 on global markets. This can reduce financing costs and democratize access to investments that were once restricted to banks or large funds.
• RWAs also leverage blockchain’s strengths: transparency, programmability, and efficiency. Settlement of tokenized securities can be near-instant and peer-to-peer, eliminating layers of intermediaries and reducing settlement times from days to seconds. Smart contracts can automate interest payments or enforce covenants. Additionally, the immutable audit trail of blockchains enhances transparency – investors can see exactly how an asset is performing (especially when coupled with oracle data) and trust that the token supply matches real assets (with on-chain proofs of reserve, etc.).
• Importantly, RWA tokenization is seen as a key driver of the next wave of institutional adoption of blockchain. Unlike the largely speculative DeFi summer of 2020 or the NFT boom, RWAs appeal directly to the finance industry’s core, by making familiar assets more efficient. A recent report by Ripple and BCG projected that the market for tokenized assets could reach **$18.9 trillion** by 2033, underscoring the vast addressable market. Even nearer term, growth is rapid – as of May 2025, RWA projects’ TVL was $22.45B (up ~9.3% in one month) and projected to hit ~$50B by end of 2025. Some estimates foresee **$1–$3 trillion tokenized by 2030**, with upper scenarios as high as $30T if adoption accelerates.

In short, RWA tokenization is transforming capital markets by making traditional assets more liquid, borderless, and programmable. It represents a maturation of the crypto industry – moving beyond purely self-referential assets toward financing the real economy. As one analysis put it, RWAs are “rapidly shaping up to be the bridge between traditional finance and the blockchain world”, turning the long-hyped promise of blockchain disrupting finance into a reality. This is why 2024–2025 has seen RWAs touted as the growth narrative in Web3, attracting serious attention from big asset managers, governments, and Web3 entrepreneurs alike.

Key Protocols and Projects in the RWA Space​

The RWA landscape in Web3 is broad, comprising various projects each focusing on different asset classes or niches. Here we highlight some key protocols and platforms leading the RWA movement, along with their focus areas and recent progress:

(Table sources: Centrifuge TVL, Maple transition and loan volume, Goldfinch Prime description, Ondo stats, Ondo–BlackRock partnership, Maker & market projection, Maple rank.)

Centrifuge: Often cited as the first RWA DeFi protocol (launched 2019), Centrifuge allows asset originators (like financing companies) to pool real-world assets and issue ERC-20 tokens called DROP (senior tranche) and TIN (junior tranche) representing claims on the asset pool. These tokens can be used as collateral in MakerDAO or held for yield. Centrifuge operates its own chain for efficiency but connects to Ethereum for liquidity. It currently leads the pack in on-chain private credit TVL (~$409M), demonstrating product-market fit in areas like invoice financing. A recent development is Centrifuge partnering with Clearpool’s upcoming RWA chain (Ozea) to expand its reach, and working on Centrifuge V3 which will enable assets to be composable across any EVM chain (so Centrifuge pools could be tapped by protocols on chains like Ethereum, Avalanche, or Plume).

Maple Finance: Maple showed the promise and perils of undercollateralized DeFi lending. It provided a platform for delegate managers to run credit pools lending to market makers and crypto firms on an unsecured basis. After high-profile defaults in 2022 (e.g. Orthogonal Trading’s collapse related to FTX) which hit Maple’s liquidity, Maple chose to reinvent itself with a safer model. Now Maple’s focus is twofold: (1) RWA “cash management” – giving stablecoin lenders access to Treasury yields, and (2) overcollateralized crypto lending – requiring borrowers to post liquid collateral (BTC/ETH). The Treasury pool (in partnership with Icebreaker Finance) was launched on Solana in 2023, then on Ethereum, enabling accredited lenders to earn ~5% on USDC by purchasing short-duration U.S. Treasury notes. Maple also introduced Maple Direct pools that lend to institutions against crypto collateral, effectively becoming a facilitator for more traditional secured lending. The Maple 2.0 architecture (launched Q1 2023) improved transparency and control for lenders. Despite setbacks, Maple has facilitated nearly $2.5B in loans cumulatively and remains a key player, now straddling both crypto and RWA lending. Its journey underscores the importance of proper risk management and has validated the pivot to real-world collateral for stability.

Goldfinch: Goldfinch’s innovation was to allow “borrower pools” where real-world lending businesses (like microfinance institutions or fintech lenders) could draw stablecoin liquidity from DeFi without posting collateral, instead relying on the “trust-through-consensus” model (where backers stake junior capital to vouch for the borrower). It enabled loans in places like Kenya, Nigeria, Mexico, etc., delivering yields often above 10%. However, to comply with regulations and attract larger capital, Goldfinch introduced KYC gating and Prime. Now with Goldfinch Prime, the protocol is basically onboarding well-known private credit fund managers and letting non-US accredited users provide capital to them on-chain. For example, rather than lending to a single fintech lender, a Goldfinch Prime user can invest in a pool that aggregates many senior secured loans managed by Ares or Apollo – essentially investing in slices of those funds (which off-chain are massive, e.g. Blackstone’s private credit fund is $50B+). This moves Goldfinch upmarket: it’s less about frontier market fintech loans and more about giving crypto investors an entry to institutional-grade yield (with lower risk). Goldfinch’s GFI token and governance remain, but the user base and pool structures have shifted to a more regulated stance. This reflects a broader trend: RWA protocols increasingly working directly with large TradFi asset managers to scale.

Ondo Finance: Ondo’s transformation is a case study in adapting to demand. When DeFi degen yields dried up in the bear market, the thirst for safe yield led Ondo to tokenize T-bills and money market funds. Ondo set up a subsidiary (Ondo Investments) and registered offerings so that accredited and even retail (in some regions) could buy regulated fund tokens. Ondo’s flagship OUSG token is effectively tokenized shares of a short-term US Treasuries ETF; it grew quickly to over half a billion in circulation, confirming huge demand for on-chain Treasuries. Ondo also created USDY, which takes a step further by mixing T-bills and bank deposits to approximate a high-yield savings account on-chain. At ~4.6% APY and a low $500 entry, USDY aims for mass market within crypto. To complement these, Ondo’s Flux protocol lets holders of OUSG or USDY borrow stablecoins against them (solving liquidity since these tokens might otherwise be lockups). Ondo’s success has made it a top-3 RWA issuer by TVL. It’s a prime example of working within regulatory frameworks (SPVs, broker-dealers) to bring traditional securities on-chain. It also collaborates (e.g., using BlackRock’s fund) rather than competing with incumbents, which is a theme in RWA: partnership over disruption.

MakerDAO: While not a standalone RWA platform, Maker deserves mention because it effectively became one of the largest RWA investors in crypto. Maker realized that diversifying DAI’s collateral beyond volatile crypto could both stabilize DAI and generate revenue (through real-world yields). Starting with small experiments (like a loan to a U.S. bank, and vaults for Centrifuge pool tokens), Maker ramped up in 2022-2023 by allocating hundreds of millions of DAI to buy short-term bonds and invest in money market funds via custody accounts. By mid-2023 Maker had allocated $500M to a BlackRock-managed bond fund and a similar amount to a startup (Monetalis) to invest in Treasuries – these are analogous to Ondo’s approach but done under Maker governance. Maker also onboarded loans like the Societe Generale $30M on-chain bond, and vaults for Harbor Trade’s Trade Finance pool, etc. The revenue from these RWA investments has been substantial – by some reports, Maker’s RWA portfolio generates tens of millions in annualized fees, which has made DAI’s system surplus grow (and MKR token started buybacks using those profits). This RWA strategy is central to Maker’s “Endgame” plan, where eventually Maker might spin out specialized subDAOs to handle RWA. The takeaway is that even a decentralized stablecoin protocol sees RWA as key to sustainability, and Maker’s scale (with DAI ~$5B supply) means it can materially impact real-world markets by deploying liquidity there.

Others: There are numerous other projects in the RWA space, each carving out a niche:

• Tokenized Commodities: Projects like Paxos Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT) have made gold tradable on-chain (combined market cap of ~$1.4B). These tokens give the convenience of crypto with the stability of gold and are fully backed by physical gold in vaults.
• Tokenized Stocks: Firms like Backed Finance and Synthesized (formerly Mirror, etc.) have issued tokens mirroring equity like Apple (bAAPL) or Tesla. Backed’s tokens (e.g., bNVDA for Nvidia) are 100% collateralized by shares held by a custodian and available under EU regulatory sandbox exemptions, enabling 24/7 trading of stocks on DEXs. The total for tokenized stocks is still small (~$0.46B), but growing as interest in around-the-clock trading and fractional ownership picks up.
• Real Estate Platforms: Lofty AI (Algorand-based) allows fractional ownership of rental properties with tokens as low as $50 per fraction. RealT (Ethereum) offers tokens for shares in rental homes in Detroit and elsewhere (paying rental income as USDC dividends). Real estate is a huge market ($300T+ globally), so even a fraction coming on-chain could dwarf other categories; projections see $3–4 Trillion in tokenized real estate by 2030-2035 if adoption accelerates. While current on-chain real estate is small, pilots are underway (e.g., Hong Kong’s government sold tokenized green bonds; Dubai is running a tokenized real estate sandbox).
• Institutional Funds: Beyond Ondo, traditional asset managers are launching tokenized versions of their funds. We saw BlackRock’s BUIDL (a tokenized money market fund that grew from $100M to $1B AUM in one year). WisdomTree issued 13 tokenized ETFs by 2025. Franklin Templeton’s government money fund (BENJI token on Polygon) approached $370M AUM. These efforts indicate that large asset managers view tokenization as a new distribution channel. It also means competition for crypto-native issuers, but overall it validates the space. Many of these tokens target institutional or accredited investors initially (to comply with securities laws), but over time could open to retail as regulations evolve.

Why multiple approaches? The RWA sector has a diverse cast because the space “real-world assets” is extremely broad. Different asset types have different risk, return, and regulatory profiles, necessitating specialized platforms:

• Private credit (Maple, Goldfinch, Centrifuge) focuses on lending and debt instruments, requiring credit assessment and active management.
• Tokenized securities/funds (Ondo, Backed, Franklin) deal with regulatory compliance to represent traditional securities on-chain one-to-one.
• Real estate involves property law, titles, and often local regulations – some platforms work on REIT-like structures or NFTs that confer ownership of an LLC that owns a property.
• Commodities like gold have simpler one-to-one backing models but require trust in custody and audits.

Despite this fragmentation, we see a trend of convergence and collaboration: e.g., Centrifuge partnering with Clearpool, Goldfinch partnering with Plume (and indirectly Apollo), Ondo’s assets being used by Maker and others, etc. Over time, we may get interoperability standards (perhaps via projects like RWA.xyz, which is building a data aggregator for all RWA tokens).

Common Asset Types Being Tokenized​

Almost any asset with an income stream or market value can, in theory, be tokenized. In practice, the RWA tokens we see today largely fall into a few categories:

• Government Debt (Treasuries & Bonds): This has become the largest category of on-chain RWA by value. Tokenized U.S. Treasury bills and bonds are highly popular as they carry low risk and ~4-5% yield – very attractive to crypto holders in a low DeFi yield environment. Multiple projects offer this: Ondo’s OUSG, Matrixdock’s treasury token (MTNT), Backed’s TBILL token, etc. As of May 2025, government securities dominate tokenized assets with ~$6.79B TVL on-chain, making it the single biggest slice of the RWA pie. This includes not just U.S. Treasuries, but also some European government bonds. The appeal is global 24/7 access to a safe asset; e.g., a user in Asia can buy a token at 3 AM that effectively puts money in U.S. T-Bills. We also see central banks and public entities experimenting: e.g., the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) ran Project Guardian to explore tokenized bonds and forex; Hong Kong’s HSBC and CSOP launched a tokenized money market fund. Government bonds are likely the “killer app” of RWA to date.

• Private Credit & Corporate Debt: These include loans to businesses, invoices, supply chain finance, consumer loans, etc., as well as corporate bonds and private credit funds. On-chain private credit (via Centrifuge, Maple, Goldfinch, Credix, etc.) is a fast-growing area and forms over 50% of the RWA market by count of projects (though not by value due to Treasuries being big). Tokenized private credit often offers higher yields (8-15% APY) because of higher risk and less liquidity. Examples: Centrifuge tokens (DROP/TIN) backed by loan portfolios; Goldfinch’s pools of fintech loans; Maple’s pools to market makers; JPMorgan’s private credit blockchain pilot (they did intraday repo on-chain); and startups like Flowcarbon (tokenizing carbon credit-backed loans). Even trade receivables from governments (Medicaid claims) are being tokenized (as Plume highlighted). Additionally, corporate bonds are being tokenized: e.g., European Investment Bank issued digital bonds on Ethereum; companies like Siemens did a €60M on-chain bond. There’s about $23B of tokenized “global bonds” on-chain as of early 2025 – a figure that’s still small relative to the $100+ trillion bond market, but the trajectory is upward.

• Real Estate: Tokenized real estate can mean either debt (e.g., tokenized mortgages, real estate loans) or equity/ownership (fractional ownership of properties). Thus far, more activity has been in tokenized debt (because it fits into DeFi lending models easily). For instance, parts of a real estate bridge loan might be turned into DROP tokens on Centrifuge and used to generate DAI. On the equity side, projects like Lofty have tokenized residential rental properties (issuing tokens that entitle holders to rental income and a share of sale proceeds). We’ve also seen a few REIT-like tokens (RealT’s properties, etc.). Real estate is highly illiquid traditionally, so tokenization’s promise is huge – one could trade fractions of a building on Uniswap, or use a property token as collateral for a loan. That said, legal infrastructure is tricky (you often need each property in an LLC and the token represents LLC shares). Still, given projections of $3-4 Trillion tokenized real estate by 2030-35, many are bullish that this sector will take off as legal frameworks catch up. A notable example: RedSwan tokenized portions of commercial real estate (like student housing complexes) and raised millions via token sales to accredited investors.

• Commodities: Gold is the poster child here. Paxos Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT) together have over $1.4B market cap, offering investors on-chain exposure to physical gold (each token = 1 fine troy ounce stored in vault). These have become popular as a way to hedge in crypto markets. Other commodities tokenized include silver, platinum (e.g., Tether has XAGT, XAUT, etc.), and even oil to some extent (there were experiments with tokens for oil barrels or hash-rate futures). Commodity-backed stablecoins like Ditto’s eggs or soybean tokens have popped up, but gold remains dominant due to its stable demand. We can also include carbon credits and other environmental assets: tokens like MCO2 (Moss Carbon Credit) or Toucan’s nature-based carbon tokens had a wave of interest in 2021 as corporates looked at on-chain carbon offsets. In general, commodities on-chain are straightforward as they’re fully collateralized, but they require trust in custodians and auditors.

• Equities (Stocks): Tokenized stocks allow 24/7 trading and fractional ownership of equities. Platforms like Backed (out of Switzerland) and DX.Exchange / FTX (earlier) issued tokens mirroring popular stocks (Tesla, Apple, Google, etc.). Backed’s tokens are fully collateralized (they hold the actual shares via a custodian and issue ERC-20 tokens representing them). These tokens can be traded on DEXs or held in DeFi wallets, which is novel since conventional stock trading is weekdays only. As of 2025, about $460M of tokenized equities are circulating – still a tiny sliver of the multi-trillion stock market, but it’s growing. Notably, in 2023, MSCI launched indices tracking tokenized assets including tokenized stocks, signaling mainstream monitoring. Another angle is synthetic equities (Mirroring stock price via derivatives without holding the stock, as projects like Synthetix did), but regulatory pushback (they can be seen as swaps) made the fully backed approach more favored now.

• Stablecoins (fiat-backed): It’s worth mentioning that fiat-backed stablecoins like USDC, USDT are essentially tokenized real-world assets (each USDC is backed by $1 in bank accounts or T-bills). In fact, stablecoins are the largest RWA by far – over $200B in stablecoins outstanding (USDT, USDC, BUSD, etc.), mostly backed by cash, Treasury bills, or short-term corporate debt. This has often been cited as the first successful RWA use-case in crypto: tokenized dollars became the lifeblood of crypto trading and DeFi. However, in the RWA context, stablecoins are usually considered separately, because they are currency tokens, not investment products. Still, the existence of stablecoins has paved the way for other RWA tokens (and indeed, projects like Maker and Ondo effectively channel stablecoin capital into real assets).

• Miscellaneous: We are starting to see even more exotic assets:

  • Fine Art and Collectibles: Platforms like Maecenas and Masterworks explored tokenizing high-end artworks (each token representing a share of a painting). NFTs have proven digital ownership, so it’s conceivable real art or luxury collectibles can be fractionalized similarly (though legal custody and insurance are considerations).
  • Revenue-Sharing Tokens: e.g., CityDAO and other DAOs experimented with tokens that give rights to a revenue stream (like a cut of city revenue or business revenue). These blur the line between securities and utility tokens.
  • Intellectual Property and Royalties: There are efforts to tokenize music royalties (so fans can invest in an artist’s future streaming income) or patents. Royalty Exchange and others have looked into this, allowing tokens that pay out when, say, a song is played (using smart contracts to distribute royalties).
  • Infrastructure and Physical assets: Companies have considered tokenizing things like data center capacity, mining hashpower, shipping cargo space, or even infrastructure projects (some energy companies looked at tokenizing ownership in solar farms or oil wells – Plume itself mentioned “uranium, GPUs, durian farms” as possibilities). These remain experimental but show the broad range of what could be brought on-chain.

In summary, virtually any asset that can be legally and economically ring-fenced can be tokenized. The current focus has been on financial assets with clear cash flows or store-of-value properties (debt, commodities, funds) because they fit well with investor demand and existing law (e.g., an SPV can hold bonds and issue tokens relatively straightforwardly). More complex assets (like direct property ownership or IP rights) will likely take longer due to legal intricacies. But the tide is moving in that direction, as the technology proves itself with simpler assets first and then broadens.

It’s also important to note that each asset type’s tokenization must grapple with how to enforce rights off-chain: e.g., if you hold a token for a property, how do you ensure legal claim on that property? Solutions involve legal wrappers (LLCs, trust agreements) that recognize token holders as beneficiaries. Standardization efforts (like the ERC-1400 standard for security tokens or initiatives by the Interwork Alliance for tokenized assets) are underway to make different RWA tokens more interoperable and legally sound.

Recent Trends, Innovations, and Challenges in RWA​

Trends & Innovations:

• Institutional Influx: Perhaps the biggest trend is the entrance of major financial institutions and asset managers into the RWA blockchain space. In the past two years, giants like BlackRock, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, WisdomTree, and Apollo have either invested in RWA projects or launched tokenization initiatives. For example, BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink publicly praised “the tokenization of securities” as the next evolution. BlackRock’s own tokenized money market fund (BUIDL) reaching $1B AUM in one year is a proof-point. WisdomTree creating 13 tokenized index funds by 2025 shows traditional ETFs coming on-chain. Apollo not only invested in Plume but also partnered on tokenized credit (Apollo and Hamilton Lane worked with Figure’s Provenance to tokenize parts of their funds). The involvement of such institutions has a flywheel effect: it legitimizes RWA in the eyes of regulators and investors and accelerates development of compliant platforms. It’s telling that surveys show 67% of institutional investors plan to allocate an average 5.6% of their portfolio to tokenized assets by 2026. High-net-worth individuals similarly are showing ~80% interest in exposure via tokenization. This is a dramatic shift from the 2017-2018 ICO era, as now the movement is institution-led rather than purely grassroots crypto-led.

• Regulated On-Chain Funds: A notable innovation is bringing regulated investment funds directly on-chain. Instead of creating new instruments from scratch, some projects register traditional funds with regulators and then issue tokens that represent shares. Franklin Templeton’s OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund is a SEC-registered mutual fund whose share ownership is tracked on Stellar (and now Polygon) – investors buy a BENJI token which is effectively a share in a regulated fund, subject to all the usual oversight. Similarly, ARB ETF (Europe) launched a fully regulated digital bond fund on a public chain. This trend of tokenized regulated funds is crucial because it marries compliance with blockchain’s efficiency. It basically means the traditional financial products we know (funds, bonds, etc.) can gain new utility by existing as tokens that trade anytime and integrate with smart contracts. Grayscale’s consideration of $PLUME and similar moves by other asset managers to list crypto or RWA tokens in their offerings also indicates convergence of TradFi and DeFi product menus.

• Yield Aggregation and Composability: As more RWA yield opportunities emerge, DeFi protocols are innovating to aggregate and leverage them. Plume’s Nest is one example of aggregating multiple yields into one interface. Another example is Yearn Finance beginning to deploy vaults into RWA products (Yearn considered investing in Treasuries through protocols like Notional or Maple). Index Coop created a yield index token that included RWA yield sources. We are also seeing structured products like tranching on-chain: e.g., protocols that issue a junior-senior split of yield streams (Maple explored tranching pools to offer safer vs. riskier slices). Composability means you could one day do things like use a tokenized bond as collateral in Aave to borrow a stablecoin, then use that stablecoin to farm elsewhere – complex strategies bridging TradFi yield and DeFi yield. This is starting to happen; for instance, Flux Finance (by Ondo) lets you borrow against OUSG and then you could deploy that into a stablecoin farm. Leveraged RWA yield farming may become a theme (though careful risk management is needed).

• Real-Time Transparency & Analytics: Another innovation is the rise of data platforms and standards for RWA. Projects like RWA.xyz aggregate on-chain data to track the market cap, yields, and composition of all tokenized RWAs across networks. This provides much-needed transparency – one can see how big each sector is, track performance, and flag anomalies. Some issuers provide real-time asset tracking: e.g., a token might be updated daily with NAV (net asset value) data from the TradFi custodian, and that can be shown on-chain. The use of oracles is also key – e.g., Chainlink oracles can report interest rates or default events to trigger smart contract functions (like paying out insurance if a debtor defaults). The move towards on-chain credit ratings or reputations is also starting: Goldfinch experimented with off-chain credit scoring for borrowers, Centrifuge has models to estimate pool risk. All of this is to make on-chain RWAs as transparent (or more so) than their off-chain counterparts.

• Integration with CeFi and Traditional Systems: We see more blending of CeFi and DeFi in RWA. For instance, Coinbase introduced “Institutional DeFi” where they funnel client funds into protocols like Maple or Compound Treasury – giving institutions a familiar interface but yield sourced from DeFi. Bank of America and others have discussed using private blockchain networks to trade tokenized collateral with each other (for faster repo markets, etc.). On the retail front, fintech apps may start offering yields that under the hood come from tokenized assets. This is an innovation in distribution: users might not even know they’re interacting with a blockchain, they just see better yields or liquidity. Such integration will broaden the reach of RWA beyond crypto natives.

Challenges:

Despite the excitement, RWA tokenization faces several challenges and hurdles:

• Regulatory Compliance and Legal Structure: Perhaps the number one challenge. By turning assets into digital tokens, you often turn them into securities in the eyes of regulators (if they weren’t already). This means projects must navigate securities laws, investment regulations, money transmitter rules, etc. Most RWA tokens (especially in the US) are offered under Reg D (private placement to accredited investors) or Reg S (offshore) exemptions. This limits participation: e.g., retail US investors usually cannot buy these tokens legally. Additionally, each jurisdiction has its own rules – what’s allowed in Switzerland (like Backed’s stock tokens) might not fly in the US without registration. There’s also the legal enforceability angle: a token is a claim on a real asset; ensuring that claim is recognized by courts is crucial. This requires robust legal structuring (LLCs, trusts, SPVs) behind the scenes. It’s complex and costly to set up these structures, which is why many RWA projects partner with legal firms or get acquired by existing players with licenses (for example, Securitize handles a lot of heavy lifting for others). Compliance also means KYC/AML: unlike DeFi’s permissionless nature, RWA platforms often require investors to undergo KYC and accreditation checks, either at token purchase or continuously via whitelists. This friction can deter some DeFi purists and also means these platforms can’t be fully open to “anyone with a wallet” in many cases.

• Liquidity and Market Adoption: Tokenizing an asset doesn’t automatically make it liquid. Many RWA tokens currently suffer from low liquidity/low trading volumes. For instance, if you buy a tokenized loan, there may be few buyers when you want to sell. Market makers are starting to provide liquidity for certain assets (like stablecoins or Ondo’s fund tokens on DEXes), but order book depth is a work in progress. In times of market stress, there’s concern that RWA tokens could become hard to redeem or trade, especially if underlying assets themselves aren’t liquid (e.g., a real estate token might effectively only be redeemable when the property is sold, which could take months/years). Solutions include creating redemption mechanisms (like Ondo’s funds allow periodic redemptions through the Flux protocol or directly with the issuer), and attracting a diverse investor base to trade these tokens. Over time, as more traditional investors (who are used to holding these assets) come on-chain, liquidity should improve. But currently, fragmentation across different chains and platforms also hinders liquidity – efforts to standardize and maybe aggregate exchanges for RWA tokens (perhaps a specialized RWA exchange or more cross-listings on major CEXes) are needed.

• Trust and Transparency: Ironically for blockchain-based assets, RWAs often require a lot of off-chain trust. Token holders must trust that the issuer actually holds the real asset and won’t misuse funds. They must trust the custodian holding collateral (in case of stablecoins or gold). They also must trust that if something goes wrong, they have legal recourse. There have been past failures (e.g., some earlier “tokenized real estate” projects that fizzled, leaving token holders in limbo). So, building trust is key. This is done through audits, on-chain proof-of-reserve, reputable custodians (e.g., Coinbase Custody, etc.), and insurance. For example, Paxos publishes monthly audited reports of PAXG reserves, and USDC publishes attestations of its reserves. MakerDAO requires overcollateralization and legal covenants when engaging in RWA loans to mitigate risk of default. Nonetheless, a major default or fraud in a RWA project could set the sector back significantly. This is why, currently, many RWA protocols focus on high-credit quality assets (government bonds, senior secured loans) to build a track record before venturing into riskier territory.

• Technological Integration: Some challenges are technical. Integrating real-world data on-chain requires robust oracles. For example, pricing a loan portfolio or updating NAV of a fund requires data feeds from traditional systems. Any lag or manipulation in oracles can lead to incorrect valuations on-chain. Additionally, scalability and transaction costs on mainnets like Ethereum can be an issue – moving potentially thousands of real-world payments (think of a pool of hundreds of loans, each with monthly payments) on-chain can be costly or slow. This is partly why specialized chains or Layer-2 solutions (like Plume, or Polygon for some projects, or even permissioned chains) are being used – to have more control and lower cost for these transactions. Interoperability is another technical hurdle: a lot of RWA action is on Ethereum, but some on Solana, Polygon, Polkadot, etc. Bridging assets between chains securely is still non-trivial (though projects like LayerZero, as used by Plume, are making progress). Ideally, an investor shouldn’t have to chase five different chains to manage a portfolio of RWAs – smoother cross-chain operability or a unified interface will be important.

• Market Education and Perception: Many crypto natives originally were skeptical of RWAs (seeing them as bringing “off-chain risk” into DeFi’s pure ecosystem). Meanwhile, many TradFi people are skeptical of crypto. There is an ongoing need to educate both sides about the benefits and risks. For crypto users, understanding that a token is not just another meme coin but a claim on a legal asset with maybe lock-up periods, etc., is crucial. We’ve seen cases where DeFi users got frustrated that they couldn’t instantly withdraw from a RWA pool because off-chain loan settlements take time – managing expectations is key. Similarly, institutional players often worry about issues like custody of tokens (how to hold them securely), compliance (avoiding wallets that interact with sanctioned addresses, etc.), and volatility (ensuring the token technology is stable). Recent positive developments, like Binance Research showing RWA tokens have lower volatility and even considered “safer than Bitcoin” during certain macro events, help shift perception. But broad acceptance will require time, success stories, and likely regulatory clarity that holding or issuing RWA tokens is legally safe.

• Regulatory Uncertainty: While we covered compliance, a broader uncertainty is regulatory regimes evolving. The U.S. SEC has not yet given explicit guidance on many tokenized securities beyond enforcing existing laws (which is why most issuers use exemptions or avoid U.S. retail). Europe introduced MiCA (Markets in Crypto Assets) regulation which mostly carves out how crypto (including asset-referenced tokens) should be handled, and launched a DLT Pilot Regime to let institutions trade securities on blockchain with some regulatory sandboxes. That’s promising but not permanent law yet. Countries like Singapore, UAE (Abu Dhabi, Dubai), Switzerland are being proactive with sandboxes and digital asset regulations to attract tokenization business. A challenge is if regulations become too onerous or fragmented: e.g., if every jurisdiction demands a slightly different compliance approach, it adds cost and complexity. On the flip side, regulatory acceptance (like Hong Kong’s recent encouragement of tokenization or Japan exploring on-chain securities) could be a boon. In the U.S., a positive development is that certain tokenized funds (like Franklin’s) got SEC approval, showing that it’s possible within existing frameworks. But the looming question: will regulators eventually allow wider retail access to RWA tokens (perhaps through qualified platforms or raising the caps on crowdfunding exemptions)? If not, RWAfi might remain predominantly an institutional play behind walled gardens, which limits the “open finance” dream.

• Scaling Trustlessly: Another challenge is how to scale RWA platforms without introducing central points of failure. Many current implementations rely on a degree of centralization (an issuer that can pause token transfers to enforce KYC, a central party that handles asset custody, etc.). While this is acceptable to institutions, it’s philosophically at odds with DeFi’s decentralization. Over time, projects will need to find the right balance: e.g., using decentralized identity solutions for KYC (so it’s not one party controlling the whitelist but a network of verifiers), or using multi-sig/community governance to control issuance and custody operations. We’re seeing early moves like Maker’s Centrifuge vaults where MakerDAO governance approves and oversees RWA vaults, or Maple decentralizing pool delegate roles. But full “DeFi” RWA (where even legal enforcement is trustless) is a hard problem. Eventually, maybe smart contracts and real-world legal systems will interface directly (for example, a loan token smart contract that can automatically trigger legal action via a connected legal API if default occurs – this is futuristic but conceivable).

In summary, the RWA space is rapidly innovating to tackle these challenges. It’s a multi-disciplinary effort: requiring savvy in law, finance, and blockchain tech. Each success (like a fully repaid tokenized loan pool, or a smoothly redeemed tokenized bond) builds confidence. Each challenge (like a regulatory action or an asset default) provides lessons to strengthen the systems. The trajectory suggests that many of these hurdles will be overcome: the momentum of institutional involvement and the clear benefits (efficiency, liquidity) mean tokenization is likely here to stay. As one RWA-focused newsletter put it, “tokenized real-world assets are emerging as the new institutional standard… the infrastructure is finally catching up to the vision of on-chain capital markets.”

Regulatory Landscape and Compliance Considerations​

The regulatory landscape for RWAs in crypto is complex and still evolving, as it involves the intersection of traditional securities/commodities laws with novel blockchain technology. Key points and considerations include:

• Securities Laws: In most jurisdictions, if an RWA token represents an investment in an asset with an expectation of profit (which is often the case), it is deemed a security. For example, in the U.S., tokens representing fractions of income-generating real estate or loan portfolios squarely fall under the definition of investment contracts (Howey Test) or notes, and thus must be registered or offered under an exemption. This is why nearly all RWA offerings to date in the U.S. use private offering exemptions (Reg D 506(c) for accredited investors, Reg S for offshore, Reg A+ for limited public raises, etc.). Compliance with these means restricting token sales to verified investors, implementing transfer restrictions (tokens can only move between whitelisted addresses), and providing necessary disclosures. For instance, Ondo’s OUSG and Maple’s Treasury pool required investors to clear KYC/AML and accreditation checks, and tokens are not freely transferable to unapproved wallets. This creates a semi-permissioned environment, quite different from open DeFi. Europe under MiFID II/MiCA similarly treats tokenized stocks or bonds as digital representations of traditional financial instruments, requiring prospectuses or using the DLT Pilot regime for trading venues. Bottom line: RWA projects must integrate legal compliance from day one – many have in-house counsel or work with legal-tech firms like Securitize, because any misstep (like selling a security token to the public without exemption) could invite enforcement.

• Consumer Protection and Licensing: Some RWA platforms may need additional licenses. For example, if a platform holds customer fiat to convert into tokens, it might need a money transmitter license or equivalent. If it provides advice or brokerage (matching borrowers and lenders), it might need broker-dealer or ATS (Alternative Trading System) licensing (this is why some partner with broker-dealers – Securitize, INX, Oasis Pro etc., which have ATS licenses to run token marketplaces). Custody of assets (like real estate deeds or cash reserves) might require trust or custody licenses. Anchorage being a partner to Plume is significant because Anchorage is a qualified custodian – institutions feel more at ease if a licensed bank is holding the underlying asset or even the private keys of tokens. In Asia and the Middle East, regulators have been granting specific licenses for tokenization platforms (e.g., the Abu Dhabi Global Market’s FSRA issues permissions for crypto assets including RWA tokens, MAS in Singapore gives project-specific approvals under its sandbox).

• Regulatory Sandboxes and Government Initiatives: A positive trend is regulators launching sandboxes or pilot programs for tokenization. The EU’s DLT Pilot Regime (2023) allows approved market infrastructures to test trading tokenized securities up to certain sizes without full compliance with every rule – this has led to several European exchanges piloting blockchain bond trading. Dubai announced a tokenization sandbox to boost its digital finance hub. Hong Kong in 2023-24 made tokenization a pillar of its Web3 strategy, with Hong Kong’s SFC exploring tokenized green bonds and art. The UK in 2024 consulted on recognizing digital securities under English law (they already recognize crypto as property). Japan updated its laws to allow security tokens (they call them “electronically recorded transferable rights”) and several tokenized securities have been issued there under that framework. These official programs indicate a willingness by regulators to modernize laws to accommodate tokenization – which could eventually simplify compliance (e.g., creating special categories for tokenized bonds that streamline approval).

• Travel Rule / AML: Crypto’s global nature triggers AML laws. FATF’s “travel rule” requires that when crypto (including tokens) above a certain threshold is transferred between VASPs (exchanges, custodians), identifying info travels with it. If RWA tokens are mainly transacted on KYC’ed platforms, this is manageable, but if they enter the wider crypto ecosystem, compliance gets tricky. Most RWA platforms currently keep a tight grip: transfers are often restricted to whitelisted addresses whose owners have done KYC. This mitigates AML concerns (as every holder is known). Still, regulators will expect robust AML programs – e.g., screening wallet addresses against sanctions (OFAC lists, etc.). There was a case of a tokenized bond platform in the UK that had to unwind some trades because a token holder became a sanctioned entity – such scenarios will test protocols’ ability to comply. Many platforms build in pause or freeze functions to comply with law enforcement requests (this is controversial in DeFi, but for RWA it’s often non-negotiable to have the ability to lock tokens tied to wrongdoing).

• Taxation and Reporting: Another compliance consideration: how are these tokens taxed? If you earn yield from a tokenized loan, is it interest income? If you trade a tokenized stock, do wash sale rules apply? Tax authorities have yet to issue comprehensive guidance. In the interim, platforms often provide tax reports to investors (e.g., a Form 1099 in the US for interest or dividends earned via tokens). The transparency of blockchain can help here, as every payment can be recorded and categorized. But cross-border taxation (if someone in Europe holds a token paying US-source interest) can be complex – requiring things like digital W-8BEN forms, etc. This is more of an operational challenge than a roadblock, but it adds friction that automated compliance tech will need to solve.

• Enforcement and Precedents: We’ve not yet seen many high-profile enforcement actions specifically for RWA tokens – likely because most are trying to comply. However, we have seen enforcement in adjacent areas: e.g., the SEC’s actions against crypto lending products (BlockFi, etc.) underscore that offering yields without registering can be a violation. If an RWA platform slipped up and, say, allowed retail to buy security tokens freely, it could face similar action. There’s also the question of secondary trading venues: If a decentralized exchange allows trading of a security token between non-accredited investors, is that unlawful? Likely yes in the US. This is why a lot of RWA tokens are not listed on Uniswap or are wrapped in a way that restricts addresses. It’s a fine line to walk between DeFi liquidity and compliance – many are erring on the side of compliance, even if it reduces liquidity.

• Jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws: RWAs by nature connect to specific jurisdictions (e.g., a tokenized real estate in Germany falls under German property law). If tokens trade globally, there can be conflicts of law. Smart contracts might need to encode which law governs. Some platforms choose friendly jurisdictions for incorporation (e.g., the issuer entity in the Cayman Islands and the assets in the U.S., etc.). It’s complex but solvable with careful legal structuring.

• Investor Protection and Insurance: Regulators will also care about investor protection: ensuring that token holders have clear rights. For example, if a token is supposed to be redeemable for a share of asset proceeds, the mechanism for that must be legally enforceable. Some tokens represent debt securities that can default – what disclosures were given about that risk? Platforms often publish offering memorandums or prospectuses (Ondo did for its tokens). Over time, regulators might require standardized risk disclosures for RWA tokens, much like mutual funds provide. Also, insurance might be mandated or at least expected – for instance, insuring a building in a real estate token, or having crime insurance for a custodian holding collateral.

• Decentralization vs Regulation: There’s an inherent tension: the more decentralized and permissionless you make an RWA platform, the more it rubs against current regulations which assume identifiable intermediaries. One evolving strategy is to use Decentralized Identities (DID) and verifiable credentials to square this circle. E.g., a wallet could hold a credential that proves the owner is accredited without revealing their identity on-chain, and smart contracts could check for that credential before allowing transfer – making compliance automated and preserving some privacy. Projects like Xref (on XDC network) and Astra Protocol are exploring this. If successful, regulators might accept these novel approaches, which could allow permissionless trading among vetted participants. But that’s still in nascent stages.

In essence, regulation is the make-or-break factor for RWA adoption. The current landscape shows regulators are interested and cautiously supportive, but also vigilant. The RWA projects that thrive will be those that proactively embrace compliance yet innovate to make it as seamless as possible. Jurisdictions that provide clear, accommodative rules will attract more of this business (we’ve seen significant tokenization activity gravitate to places like Switzerland, Singapore, and the UAE due to clarity there). Meanwhile, the industry is engaging with regulators – for instance, by forming trade groups or responding to consultations – to help shape sensible policies. A likely outcome is that regulated DeFi will emerge as a category: platforms like those under Plume’s umbrella could become Alternative Trading Systems (ATS) or registered digital asset securities exchanges for tokenized assets, operating under licenses but with blockchain infrastructure. This hybrid approach may satisfy regulators’ objectives while still delivering the efficiency gains of crypto rails.

Investment and Market Size Data​

The market for tokenized real-world assets has grown impressively and is projected to explode in the coming years, reaching into the trillions of dollars if forecasts hold true. Here we’ll summarize some key data points on market size, growth, and investment trends:

• Current On-Chain RWA Market Size: As of mid-2025, the total on-chain Real-World Asset market (excluding traditional stablecoins) is in the tens of billions. Different sources peg slightly different totals depending on inclusion criteria, but a May 2025 analysis put it at $22.45 billion in Total Value Locked. This figure was up ~9.3% from the previous month, showcasing rapid growth. The composition of that ~$22B (as previously discussed) includes around $6.8B in government bonds, $1.5B in commodity tokens, $0.46B in equities, $0.23B in other bonds, and a few billion in private credit and funds. For perspective, this is still small relative to the broader crypto market (which is ~$1.2T in market cap as of 2025, largely driven by BTC and ETH), but it’s the fastest-growing segment of crypto. It’s also worth noting stablecoins (~$226B) if counted would dwarf these numbers, but usually they’re kept separate.

• Growth Trajectory: The RWA market has shown a 32% annual growth rate in 2024. If we extrapolate or consider accelerating adoption, some estimate $50B by end of 2025 as plausible. Beyond that, industry projections become very large:

  • BCG and others (2030+): The often-cited BCG/Ripple report projected $16 trillion by 2030 (and ~$19T by 2033) in tokenized assets. This includes broad tokenization of financial markets (not just DeFi-centric usage). This figure would represent about 10% of all assets tokenized, which is aggressive but not unthinkable given tokenization of cash (stablecoins) is already mainstream.
  • Citi GPS Report (2022) talked about $4–5 trillion tokenized by 2030 as a base case, with higher scenarios if institutional adoption is faster.
  • The LinkedIn analysis we saw noted projections ranging from $1.3 trillion to $30 trillion by 2030 – indicating a lot of uncertainty but consensus that trillions are on the table.
  • Even the conservative end (say $1-2T by 2030) would mean a >50x increase from today’s ~$20B level, which gives a sense of the strong growth expectations.

• Investment into RWA Projects: Venture capital and investment is flowing into RWA startups:

  • Plume’s own funding ($20M Series A, etc.) is one example of VC conviction.
  • Goldfinch raised ~$25M (led by a16z in 2021). Centrifuge raised ~$4M in 2021 and more via token sales; it’s also backed by Coinbase and others.
  • Maple raised $10M Series A in 2021, then additional in 2022.
  • Ondo raised $20M in 2022 (from Founders Fund and Pantera) and more recently did a token sale.
  • There’s also new dedicated funds: e.g., a16z’s crypto fund and others earmarked portions for RWA; Franklin Templeton in 2022 joined a $20M round for a tokenization platform; Matrixport launched a $100M fund for tokenized Treasuries.
  • Traditional finance is investing: Nasdaq Ventures invested in a tokenization startup (XYO Network), London Stock Exchange Group acquired TORA (with tokenization capabilities), etc.
  • We see mergers too: Securitize acquired Distributed Technology Markets to get a broker-dealer; INX (token exchange) raising money to expand offerings.

  Overall, tens of millions have been invested into the leading RWA protocols, and larger financial institutions are acquiring stakes or forming joint ventures in this arena. Apollo’s direct investment in Plume and Hamilton Lane partnering with Securitize to tokenize funds (with Hamilton Lane’s funds being multi-billion themselves) show that this is not just VC bets but real money engagement.

• Notable On-Chain Assets and Performance: Some data on specific tokens can illustrate traction:

  • Ondo’s OUSG: launched early 2023, by early 2025 it had >$580M outstanding, delivering ~4-5% yield. It rarely deviates in price because it’s fully collateralized and redeemable.
  • Franklin’s BENJI: by mid-2023 reached $270M, and by 2024 ~$368M. It’s one of the first instances of a major US mutual fund being reflected on-chain.
  • MakerDAO’s RWA earnings: Maker, through its ~$1.6B RWA investments, was earning on the order of $80M+ annualized in yield by late 2023 (mostly from bonds). This turned Maker’s finances around after crypto yields dried up.
  • Maple’s Treasury pool: in its pilot, raised ~$22M for T-bill investments from <10 participants (institutions). Maple’s total lending after restructuring is smaller now (~$50-100M active loans), but it’s starting to tick up as trust returns.
  • Goldfinch: funded ~$120M loans and repaid ~$90M with ~<$1M in defaults (they had one notable default from a lender in Kenya but recovered partially). GFI token once peaked at a $600M market cap in late 2021, now much lower (~$50M), indicating market re-rating of risk but still interest.
  • Centrifuge: about 15 active pools. Some key ones (like ConsolFreight’s invoice pool, New Silver’s real estate rehab loan pool) each in the $5-20M range. Centrifuge’s token (CFG) has a market cap around $200M in 2025.
  • Overall RWA Returns: Many RWA tokens offer yields in the 4-10% range. For example, Aave’s yield on stablecoins might be ~2%, whereas putting USDC into Goldfinch’s senior pool yields ~8%. This spread draws DeFi capital gradually into RWA. During crypto market downturns, RWA yields looked especially attractive as they were stable, leading analysts to call RWAs a “safe haven” or “hedge” in Web3.

• Geographical/Market Segments: A breakdown by region: A lot of tokenized Treasuries are US-based assets offered by US or global firms (Ondo, Franklin, Backed). Europe’s contributions are in tokenized ETFs and bonds (several German and Swiss startups, and big banks like Santander and SocGen doing on-chain bond issues). Asia: Singapore’s Marketnode platform is tokenizing bonds; Japan’s SMBC tokenized some credit products. The Middle East: Dubai’s DFSA approved a tokenized fund. Latin America: a number of experiments, e.g., Brazil’s central bank is tokenizing a portion of bank deposits (as part of their CBDC project, they consider tokenizing assets). Africa: projects like Kotani Pay looked at tokenized micro-asset financing. These indicate tokenization is a global trend, but the US remains the biggest source of underlying assets (due to Treasuries and large credit funds) while Europe is leading on regulatory clarity for trading.

• Market Sentiment: The narrative around RWAs has shifted very positively in 2024-2025. Crypto media, which used to focus mostly on pure DeFi, now regularly reports on RWA milestones (e.g., “RWA market surpasses $20B despite crypto downturn”). Ratings agencies like Moody’s are studying on-chain assets; major consulting firms (BCG, Deloitte) publish tokenization whitepapers. The sentiment is that RWAfi could drive the next bull phase of crypto by bringing in trillions of value. Even Grayscale considering a Plume product suggests investor appetite for RWA exposure packaged in crypto vehicles. There’s also recognition that RWA is partly counter-cyclical to crypto – when crypto yields are low, people seek RWAs; when crypto booms, RWA provides stable diversification. This makes many investors view RWA tokens as a way to hedge crypto volatility (e.g., Binance research found RWA tokens remained stable and even considered “safer than Bitcoin” during certain macro volatility).

To conclude this section with hard numbers: $20-22B on-chain now, heading to $50B+ in a year or two, and potentially $1T+ within this decade. Investment is pouring in, with dozens of projects collectively backed by well over $200M in venture funding. Traditional finance is actively experimenting, with over $2-3B in real assets already issued on public or permissioned chains by big institutions (including multiple $100M+ bond issues). If even 1% of the global bond market (~$120T) and 1% of global real estate (~$300T) gets tokenized by 2030, that’d be several trillion dollars – which aligns with those bullish projections. There are of course uncertainties (regulation, interest rate environments, etc. can affect adoption), but the data so far supports the idea that tokenization is accelerating. As Plume’s team noted, “the RWA sector is now leading Web3 into its next phase” – a phase where blockchain moves from speculative assets to the backbone of real financial infrastructure. The deep research and alignment of heavyweights behind RWAs underscore that this is not a fleeting trend but a structural evolution of both crypto and traditional finance.

Sources:

• Plume Network Documentation and Blog
• News and Press: CoinDesk, The Block, Fortune (via LinkedIn)
• RWA Market Analysis: RWA.xyz, LinkedIn RWA Report
• Odaily/ChainCatcher Analysis
• Goldfinch and Prime info, Ondo info, Centrifuge info, Maple info, Apollo quote, Binance research mention, etc.

One of the core promises of blockchain technology like Ethereum is a degree of anonymity. Participants, known as validators, are supposed to operate behind a veil of cryptographic pseudonyms, protecting their real-world identity and, by extension, their security.

However, a recent research paper titled "Deanonymizing Ethereum Validators: The P2P Network Has a Privacy Issue" from researchers at ETH Zurich and other institutions reveals a critical flaw in this assumption. They demonstrate a simple, low-cost method to link a validator's public identifier directly to the IP address of the machine it's running on.

In short, Ethereum validators are not nearly as anonymous as many believe. The findings were significant enough to earn the researchers a bug bounty from the Ethereum Foundation, acknowledging the severity of the privacy leak.

How the Vulnerability Works: A Flaw in the Gossip​

To understand the vulnerability, we first need a basic picture of how Ethereum validators communicate. The network consists of over a million validators who constantly "vote" on the state of the chain. These votes are called attestations, and they are broadcast across a peer-to-peer ($P2P$) network to all other nodes.

With so many validators, having everyone broadcast every vote to everyone else would instantly overwhelm the network. To solve this, Ethereum’s designers implemented a clever scaling solution: the network is divided into 64 distinct communication channels, known as subnets.

• By default, each node (the computer running the validator software) subscribes to only two of these 64 subnets. Its primary job is to diligently relay all messages it sees on those two channels.
• When a validator needs to cast a vote, its attestation is randomly assigned to one of the 64 subnets for broadcast.

This is where the vulnerability lies. Imagine a node whose job is to manage traffic for channels 12 and 13. All day, it faithfully forwards messages from just those two channels. But then, it suddenly sends you a message that belongs to channel 45.

This is a powerful clue. Why would a node handle a message from a channel it's not responsible for? The most logical conclusion is that the node itself generated that message. This implies that the validator who created the attestation for channel 45 is running on that very machine.

The researchers exploited this exact principle. By setting up their own listening nodes, they monitored the subnets from which their peers sent attestations. When a peer sent a message from a subnet it wasn't officially subscribed to, they could infer with high confidence that the peer hosted the originating validator.

The method proved shockingly effective. Using just four nodes over three days, the team successfully located the IP addresses of over 161,000 validators, representing more than 15% of the entire Ethereum network.

Why This Matters: The Risks of Deanonymization​

Exposing a validator's IP address is not a trivial matter. It opens the door for targeted attacks that threaten individual operators and the health of the Ethereum network as a whole.

1. Targeted Attacks and Reward Theft Ethereum announces which validator is scheduled to propose the next block a few minutes in advance. An attacker who knows this validator's IP address can launch a Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack, flooding it with traffic and knocking it offline. If the validator misses its four-second window to propose the block, the opportunity passes to the next validator in line. If the attacker is that next validator, they can then claim the block rewards and valuable transaction fees (MEV) that should have gone to the victim.

2. Threats to Network Liveness and Safety A well-resourced attacker could perform these "sniping" attacks repeatedly, causing the entire blockchain to slow down or halt (a liveness attack). In a more severe scenario, an attacker could use this information to launch sophisticated network-partitioning attacks, potentially causing different parts of the network to disagree on the chain's history, thus compromising its integrity (a safety attack).

3. Revealing a Centralized Reality The research also shed light on some uncomfortable truths about the network's decentralization:

• Extreme Concentration: The team found peers hosting a staggering number of validators, including one IP address running over 19,000. The failure of a single machine could have an outsized impact on the network.
• Dependence on Cloud Services: Roughly 90% of located validators run on cloud providers like AWS and Hetzner, not on the computers of solo home stakers. This represents a significant point of centralization.
• Hidden Dependencies: Many large staking pools claim their operators are independent. However, the research found instances where validators from different, competing pools were running on the same physical machine, creating hidden systemic risks.

Mitigations: How Can Validators Protect Themselves?​

Fortunately, there are ways to defend against this deanonymization technique. The researchers proposed several mitigations:

• Create More Noise: A validator can choose to subscribe to more than two subnets—or even all 64. This makes it much harder for an observer to distinguish between relayed messages and self-generated ones.
• Use Multiple Nodes: An operator can separate validator duties across different machines with different IPs. For example, one node could handle attestations while a separate, private node is used only for proposing high-value blocks.
• Private Peering: Validators can establish trusted, private connections with other nodes to relay their messages, obscuring their true origin within a small, trusted group.
• Anonymous Broadcasting Protocols: More advanced solutions like Dandelion, which obfuscates a message's origin by passing it along a random "stem" before broadcasting it widely, could be implemented.

Conclusion​

This research powerfully illustrates the inherent trade-off between performance and privacy in distributed systems. In its effort to scale, Ethereum's $P2P$ network adopted a design that compromised the anonymity of its most critical participants.

By bringing this vulnerability to light, the researchers have given the Ethereum community the knowledge and tools needed to address it. Their work is a crucial step toward building a more robust, secure, and truly decentralized network for the future.

We're thrilled to announce a significant expansion to BlockEden.xyz's API Marketplace with the addition of three cutting-edge blockchain networks: Base, Berachain, and Blast. These new offerings reflect our commitment to providing developers with comprehensive access to the most innovative blockchain infrastructures, enabling seamless development across multiple ecosystems.

Base: Coinbase's Ethereum L2 Solution​

Base is an Ethereum Layer 2 (L2) solution developed by Coinbase, designed to bring millions of users into the onchain ecosystem. As a secure, low-cost, developer-friendly Ethereum L2, Base combines the robust security of Ethereum with the scalability benefits of optimistic rollups.

Our new Base API endpoint lets developers:

• Access Base's infrastructure without managing their own nodes
• Leverage high-performance RPC connections with 99.9% uptime
• Build applications that benefit from Ethereum's security with lower fees
• Seamlessly interact with Base's expanding ecosystem of applications

Base is particularly appealing for developers looking to create consumer-facing applications that require Ethereum's security but at a fraction of the cost.

Berachain: Performance Meets EVM Compatibility​

Berachain brings a unique approach to blockchain infrastructure, combining high performance with complete Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility. As an emerging network gaining significant attention from developers, Berachain offers:

• EVM compatibility with enhanced throughput
• Advanced smart contract capabilities
• A growing ecosystem of innovative DeFi applications
• Unique consensus mechanisms optimized for transaction speed

Our Berachain API provides developers with immediate access to this promising network, allowing teams to build and test applications without the complexity of managing infrastructure.

Blast: The First Native Yield L2​

Blast stands out as the first Ethereum L2 with native yield for ETH and stablecoins. This innovative approach to yield generation makes Blast particularly interesting for DeFi developers and applications focused on capital efficiency.

Key benefits of our Blast API include:

• Direct access to Blast's native yield mechanisms
• Support for building yield-optimized applications
• Simplified integration with Blast's unique features
• High-performance RPC connections for seamless interactions

Blast's focus on native yield represents an exciting direction for Ethereum L2 solutions, potentially setting new standards for capital efficiency in the ecosystem.

Seamless Integration Process​

Getting started with these new networks is straightforward with BlockEden.xyz:

1. Visit our API Marketplace and select your desired network
2. Create an API key through your BlockEden.xyz dashboard
3. Integrate the endpoint into your development environment using our comprehensive documentation
4. Start building with confidence, backed by our 99.9% uptime guarantee

Why Choose BlockEden.xyz for These Networks?​

BlockEden.xyz continues to distinguish itself through several core offerings:

• High Availability: Our infrastructure maintains 99.9% uptime across all supported networks
• Developer-First Approach: Comprehensive documentation and support for seamless integration
• Unified Experience: Access multiple blockchain networks through a single, consistent interface
• Competitive Pricing: Our compute unit credit (CUC) system ensures cost-effective scaling

Looking Forward​

The addition of Base, Berachain, and Blast to our API Marketplace represents our ongoing commitment to supporting the diverse and evolving blockchain ecosystem. As these networks continue to mature and attract developers, BlockEden.xyz will be there to provide the reliable infrastructure needed to build the next generation of decentralized applications.

We invite developers to explore these new offerings and provide feedback as we continue to enhance our services. Your input is invaluable in helping us refine and expand our API marketplace to meet your evolving needs.

Ready to start building on Base, Berachain, or Blast? Visit BlockEden.xyz API Marketplace today and create your access key to begin your journey!

For the latest updates and announcements, connect with us on Twitter or join our community on Discord.