The chain is irrelevant. A user's verified identity, credit score, or proof-of-humanity is a portable asset, not a chain-specific token. The underlying blockchain is a settlement layer, not the source of truth for the credential itself.
decentralized-identity-did-and-reputation
Blog
Why Interoperable VC Schemas Are More Important Than the Underlying Blockchain
The real value in decentralized identity lies in portable, composable data standards, not the settlement layer. This analysis argues that a credential's utility is zero if it's locked to a single chain or ecosystem, making schema interoperability the critical infrastructure.
introduction
THE PROTOCOL LAYER
Introduction: The Chain-Agnostic Credential
Verifiable credentials must be defined at the protocol layer, not the execution layer, to achieve true interoperability.
Schemas are the standard. Interoperability requires a shared data format, like W3C's Verifiable Credentials standard, that any chain or application (e.g., Worldcoin, Gitcoin Passport) can interpret. This is analogous to how HTTP defines web communication, independent of server hardware.
Execution is a commodity. The actual verification logic can run on Ethereum, Solana, or a zkVM. The credential's validity depends on the cryptographic proof, not which chain processed it. This decouples trust from any single L1's liveness.
Evidence: The Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) demonstrates this principle by storing attestations on-chain while making the schema definitions portable and reusable across any EVM chain or L2 like Optimism or Base.
thesis-statement
THE INTEROPERABILITY IMPERATIVE
The Core Argument: Portability Over Provenance
The future of on-chain reputation depends on portable, verifiable credential schemas, not the specific blockchain where they are issued.
The provenance trap is a dead end. Building reputation silos on single chains like Ethereum or Solana creates the same fragmentation we aimed to solve. A user's on-chain credit score on Avalanche is useless for a loan on Base.
Portable schemas are the abstraction layer. A standardized verifiable credential (VC) format, like those explored by the W3C or implemented in projects like Veramo, separates identity from execution. This allows credentials minted on Polygon to be verified and used on Arbitrum via zk-proofs or optimistic verification.
The network effect flips. Value accrues to the credential schema and its adoption, not the underlying L1. Think ERC-20 over Ethereum. The winning standard will be the one integrated by AAVE, Compound, and UniswapX for permissionless underwriting, not the chain it first launched on.
Evidence: The Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) demonstrates early traction, with over 1 million attestations. Its schema registry is chain-agnostic, proving developers prioritize portable data frameworks over native chain features for reputation.
key-trends
WHY VC SCHEMAS OUTVALUE THE CHAIN
The Interoperability Imperative: Three Market Trends
The underlying blockchain is becoming a commodity; the real value accrues to the application-layer schema that can orchestrate liquidity and execution across them.
01
The Problem: Fragmented Liquidity Silos
Capital is trapped in isolated pools across Ethereum L2s, Solana, and Avalanche, creating massive arbitrage inefficiencies and poor user experience.\n- Opportunity Cost: $10B+ in idle capital across fragmented DEX pools.\n- User Friction: Manually bridging assets adds 5+ steps and ~2-5 minute delays.
$10B+
Idle Capital
5+ Steps
User Friction
02
The Solution: Intent-Based Cross-Chain Swaps
Schemas like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract chain complexity by letting users declare what they want, not how to get it. Solvers compete to find the optimal cross-chain route.\n- Efficiency Gain: Solvers aggregate liquidity, reducing slippage by 20-60%.\n- Chain Agnosticism: A single user intent can be filled via Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, and Polygon in one transaction.
20-60%
Slippage Reduced
4+ Chains
Single Intent
03
The Meta-Solution: Universal Settlement Layers
Protocols like LayerZero and Axelar are not just bridges; they are becoming the TCP/IP for state and message passing. The schema built on top (e.g., Stargate for liquidity) dictates the economic value.\n- Network Effect: $10B+ TVL secured, but the real moat is the developer schema.\n- Future-Proofing: A robust VC schema can seamlessly integrate new L2s and L3s without protocol redesign.
$10B+ TVL
Secured
0 Redesign
For New L2s
VERIFIABLE CREDENTIALS
The Interoperability Gap: Chain-Locked vs. Schema-Portable Credentials
Comparing credential architectures by their core interoperability properties, which dictate composability and long-term utility.
| Core Feature / Metric | Chain-Locked (e.g., Sismo Badges) | Schema-Portable (e.g., Verax, EAS) | Universal Resolver (e.g., DIF, W3C) |
|---|---|---|---|
Underlying Trust Root | Single L1/L2 (e.g., Ethereum, Starknet) | Multi-chain Attestation Registry | Decentralized Identifier (DID) Method |
Credential Portability | |||
Schema Reusability Across Chains | |||
Verifier On-Chain Logic Overhead | High (custom per chain) | Low (shared schema) | None (off-chain resolution) |
Native Integration with DeFi (e.g., Aave, Compound) | |||
Resistance to Chain Reorgs / Downtime | Vulnerable | Vulnerable (per registry) | High (via DID method consensus) |
Development Standard | Proprietary Contract | EIP-7212 / EAS Schema | W3C Verifiable Credentials |
Long-Term Credential Persistence | Tied to chain lifespan | Tied to registry lifespan | Decoupled from specific infrastructure |
deep-dive
THE INTERFACE
Architectural Deep Dive: Schemas as the Universal Language
The value of verifiable credentials shifts from the issuing blockchain to the standardized data schema that enables cross-chain and cross-application utility.
Schemas define composability. A VC's utility is constrained by the applications that understand its data format. A schema is the universal interface that allows a Soulbound Token from Ethereum to be verified and used by a DeFi protocol on Solana or a game on Arbitrum.
Blockchains are execution layers. Their role is to provide immutable state and consensus for credential issuance and revocation. The chain's brand (Ethereum, Solana) matters less than the schema's adoption, just as TCP/IP matters more than the specific router hardware.
The counter-intuitive insight: A credential's liquidity and value accrue to the schema, not the L1. Widespread schema adoption creates network effects that make the underlying chain a commodity. This mirrors how ERC-20 dominance made Ethereum valuable, not the reverse.
Evidence: The Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) demonstrates this shift. Its power is the open, chain-agnostic schema registry, not the Ethereum L1. Projects like Gitcoin Passport use EAS schemas to create portable reputation, decoupling identity from a single chain's ecosystem.
counter-argument
THE ABSTRACTION TRAP
Counter-Argument: But Chain Security Matters!
Chain security is a necessary but insufficient condition for a functional, multi-chain future.
Security is a commodity. The execution layer is a fungible resource. The value accrues to the application layer and the interoperability fabric that connects it.
Developer velocity kills. A team building on Solana cannot wait for a Cosmos IBC connection to finalize. They need a universal state representation that works across all VMs.
The market decides. Users on Avalanche and Polygon use LayerZero and Wormhole daily, abstracting away the underlying chain's consensus. Their security assumption is the interoperability protocol, not the base layer.
Evidence: Ethereum's rollup-centric roadmap proves the point. The security of Optimism and Arbitrum is derived, not primary. The innovation is in the bridging standards and shared sequencing that make them usable together.
protocol-spotlight
INTEROPERABLE VC SCHEMAS
Builder's Playbook: Who's Getting It Right?
The underlying blockchain is becoming a commodity; the real moat is in the portable, reusable verification logic that spans them.
01
The Problem: Isolated Security Silos
Every new chain or L2 forces a costly, redundant security audit cycle. This fragments liquidity, increases time-to-market, and creates systemic risk from inconsistent implementations.
- ~$500k-$2M per audit for a new VM environment
- Months of delay for protocol deployment on new chains
- Fragmented user experience across isolated trust domains
~$2M
Per-Audit Cost
+3-6 Mo.
Deployment Lag
02
The Solution: Portable Verification Circuits
Frameworks like Risc Zero and SP1 enable developers to write and prove state transition logic once in a universal VM (RISC-V). This proof becomes a portable credential verifiable on any chain with a cheap on-chain verifier.
- Write once, verify anywhere logic (EVM, SVM, Move, Cosmos)
- ~10-100ms verification time, independent of execution cost
- Enables native cross-chain apps (e.g., a DEX whose settlement proof is chain-agnostic)
~100ms
Verify Time
1 -> N
Deployment Multiplier
03
Who's Winning: Succinct & Avail
Succinct's SP1 is gaining traction for general-purpose ZK verification, enabling projects like Polygon zkEVM and Gnosis Chain to share security primitives. Avail's Nexus acts as a unification layer, using ZK proofs to settle consensus across rollups, making them interoperable by default.
- SP1: Enables Ethereum to verify Solana or Cosmos state transitions
- Avail Nexus: Unifies rollup sovereignty with shared security and messaging
- Critical path for modular stack interoperability beyond mere bridging
Multi-Chain
Proof Portability
Unified
Sovereignty Layer
04
The New Stack: Schema > Chain
The future stack inverts the model: the interoperable verification schema is the primary product, and blockchains are interchangeable execution layers. This is the ZK counterpart to Cosmos IBC, but for arbitrary computation, not just token transfers.
- Primary Asset: The verifiable circuit schema and its network effect
- Execution Layer: Becomes a commodity provider of block space and data availability (e.g., Ethereum, Celestia, EigenDA)
- Endgame: Truly chain-abstracted applications where users never sign a chain-specific transaction.
Schema-First
Architecture
Chain-Agnostic
Users
risk-analysis
THE INFRASTRUCTURE TRAP
The Bear Case: What Could Go Wrong?
Blockchain maximalism is a distraction; the real systemic risk is fragmented application logic across siloed execution environments.
01
The L1/L2 Fragmentation Trap
Building on a single chain is a vendor lock-in bet. Your app's logic is trapped in a silo, unable to leverage specialized execution environments (e.g., Solana for speed, Ethereum for security, Arbitrum for cheap ETH).
- Problem: Users face a ~$50+ UX tax bridging and managing assets across chains.
- Solution: A portable VC schema lets your app's state and logic move, making the underlying chain a commodity.
~$50+
UX Tax
10+
Siloed Chains
02
The Oracle Problem for State
Today's bridges are just token teleporters. They don't verify arbitrary application state, creating a trusted third-party gap for anything more complex than an asset transfer.
- Problem: Apps need custom, insecure relayers to read state cross-chain, introducing a single point of failure.
- Solution: A universal VC schema acts as a canonical state root, enabling light-client level security for proving any app state (e.g., a Uniswap position, an Aave loan) across environments.
$2B+
Bridge Hacks
1
Failure Point
03
Capital Inefficiency & Liquidity Silos
Capital stranded on dozens of chains is non-composable capital. Yield farming on Arbitrum can't collateralize a loan on Solana without expensive, slow bridging.
- Problem: ~30% of DeFi TVL is locked in bridging protocols, not productive applications.
- Solution: Portable collateral via VC proofs unlocks cross-chain money legos, turning all liquidity into a unified, programmable layer.
30%
TVL Trapped
100%
Utilization Goal
04
Developer Velocity Grinds to a Halt
Building cross-chain requires integrating with each chain's idiosyncratic RPC, tooling, and prover system. This is a productivity black hole.
- Problem: Teams spend >6 months building chain-specific adapters instead of core product.
- Solution: A single VC abstraction layer (like a "Cross-chain EVM") allows developers to write once and deploy to any compatible execution environment, slashing go-to-market time.
>6mo
Wasted Time
1x
Codebase
future-outlook
THE INTERFACE LAYER
Future Outlook: The Schema-Centric Stack
The value of blockchain will shift from consensus to the standardized data schemas that enable cross-chain applications.
Schemas are the new API. The underlying blockchain is a commodity; the interoperable data format is the moat. Applications like UniswapX and Across Protocol succeed by defining a universal intent schema, not by optimizing a single chain's execution.
Portability defeats fragmentation. A wallet or dApp built on a verifiable credential schema like W3C VC-DATA-MODEL operates on any chain. This creates network effects at the application layer, making the base chain irrelevant for user experience.
The stack inverts. Today, apps are built on Ethereum or Solana. Tomorrow, chains will be selected for apps based on which best executes a portable schema. The value accrues to the schema standard, not the L1 token.
Evidence: LayerZero's Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard demonstrates this. It defines a universal asset schema that abstracts the underlying bridge, enabling seamless transfers across 50+ chains without app rewrites.
takeaways
THE INTEROPERABILITY LAYER
TL;DR for CTOs & Architects
The underlying L1/L2 is becoming a commodity; the real moat is the schema for how value and state move between them.
01
The Problem: Liquidity Fragmentation is a $100B+ Tax
Capital is trapped in silos, forcing protocols to deploy on every chain and users to pay for bridging. This is a direct tax on composability and capital efficiency.\n- ~$1B+ in daily cross-chain volume is arbitraged away\n- >50% of a user's DeFi journey can be bridging fees and latency\n- Solana, Arbitrum, Base each require separate deployments and liquidity
$1B+
Daily Arb
>50%
Bridging Tax
02
The Solution: Universal Asset Schema (e.g., LayerZero V2, IBC)
Define assets and messages once, execute anywhere. This turns chains into execution environments for a unified state machine.\n- Omnichain Fungible Tokens (OFTs) enable native cross-chain transfers\n- General Message Passing allows logic like cross-chain lending (Compound) or governance (Uniswap) \n- Interoperability as a protocol-level primitive, not a user-facing afterthought
1 Schema
N Chains
Native
Transfers
03
The Killer App: Intents & Solver Networks (UniswapX, Across)
VC schemas enable intent-based architectures. Users declare what they want, solvers compete to fulfill it across the best liquidity sources.\n- UniswapX abstracts away chain selection and routing\n- Across uses a unified liquidity pool and competing solvers\n- Result: Better prices for users, higher fill rates for protocols, and MEV capture redirected to solvers
~500ms
Fill Time
5-10%
Price Improv.
04
The Architectural Shift: From Monolithic to Modular Interop
Stop building monolithic cross-chain apps. Build modular components that plug into a shared verification layer (like Polymer, Hyperlane).\n- Separate Verification from Execution and Transport\n- Security is pooled across all connected apps (shared light client networks)\n- Developer velocity increases; integrate once, connect to Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana
80%
Dev Time Saved
Pooled
Security
05
The Risk: Interop is the New Security Perimeter
The interoperability layer is the most critical attack surface. A breach here compromises every connected chain. Wormhole ($325M) and Poly Network ($600M) hacks prove the point.\n- Economic security must exceed the TVL it secures\n- Verification diversity is key (multi-proofs like zk, optimistic, TSS)\n- Failure isolation must be designed in, not bolted on
$600M
Historic Hack
#1 Risk
Vector
06
The Bottom Line: Own the Schema, Capture the Value
The chain that hosts the canonical schema for an asset or application becomes the value anchor. This is the real defensibility.\n- Ethereum's dominance is largely due to being the schema origin for USDC, DAI, UNI\n- Future winners (Solana, Arbitrum, etc.) must export their own schemas\n- VC investment should target schema standardization, not just TPS
Schema
Is Moat
L1/L2
Is Commodity
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall