Standards create network effects. The ERC-20 and ERC-721 token standards dominate because every wallet, DEX, and analytics tool builds support once. This creates a powerful feedback loop where new projects adopt the incumbent standard to access the existing ecosystem, reinforcing its dominance.
e-commerce-and-crypto-payments-future
Blog
Why Smart Contract Commerce Will Consolidate Around a Handful of Standards
The same network effects that created ERC-20 and ERC-721 are now driving a winner-take-most consolidation for commerce standards like ERC-7007. This is the technical and economic inevitability.
introduction
THE STANDARDIZATION IMPERATIVE
Introduction
Smart contract commerce will consolidate around a handful of standards because network effects and developer mindshare create winner-take-most markets.
Developer tooling consolidates winners. Foundry and Hardhat won the development framework war by creating superior, integrated experiences. This tooling standardization funnels developers toward compatible smart contract patterns, making divergent standards prohibitively expensive to build and audit.
Interoperability demands conformity. Cross-chain commerce via protocols like LayerZero and Axelar requires standardized message formats. Applications that deviate from norms like the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol isolate themselves from major liquidity pools and user bases.
Evidence: DeFi composability. Over 95% of Ethereum's Total Value Locked (TVL) interacts with ERC-20 tokens. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave are built as permissionless lego bricks specifically for these standards, creating an insurmountable moat for alternatives.
thesis-statement
THE NETWORK EFFECT
The Core Argument: Composability Demands Standardization
Smart contract commerce will consolidate around a handful of standards because composability's value is a function of shared interfaces.
Composability is a network effect. Its value increases exponentially as more applications share common interfaces, creating a winner-take-most dynamic for standards like ERC-20 and ERC-721. Fragmentation destroys this value.
Fragmentation creates systemic risk. Each new bridge standard (LayerZero, Axelar, Wormhole) or token standard (ERC-20, SPL, Move) introduces a new attack surface and integration cost. The ecosystem consolidates to minimize this security and integration debt.
Standardization enables abstraction. Platforms like UniswapX and CowSwap rely on intent-based standards to abstract away complexity. This user-centric model only works if underlying assets and actions are predictable, forcing consolidation around core primitives.
Evidence: The dominance of ERC-20 and EVM-compatible chains. Over 90% of DeFi TVL exists on EVM chains, not because of superior tech, but because the standardized developer toolkit maximizes composability and liquidity.
key-trends
NETWORK EFFECTS & COMPOSABILITY
The Forces Driving Consolidation
In smart contract commerce, standards don't just win—they become the rails upon which all value flows, creating winner-take-most dynamics.
01
The ERC-20 Monopoly on Value
The liquidity moat is insurmountable. Every new token standard (ERC-4626, ERC-404) must be backward compatible or face irrelevance. DeFi's entire stack—from Uniswap to Aave—is built to ingest ERC-20s.
- $1T+ in cumulative transfer volume.
- Zero marginal cost for new projects to adopt.
- Creates a single liquidity layer for all automated market makers (AMMs).
>99%
Token Share
$1T+
Liquidity Moat
02
The Composable Stack Defines the Market
Standards are the API for blockchain finance. A new NFT marketplace doesn't build its own wallet, indexer, or marketplace contract—it plugs into the ERC-721/ERC-1155 and EIP-712 signing stack.
- Enables permissionless innovation on a stable base.
- Reduces development time from months to weeks.
- Forces consolidation around the most battle-tested implementations (OpenZeppelin).
10x
Faster Dev
-90%
Audit Surface
03
Security is a Standard, Not a Feature
Auditors and developers converge on the most secure, well-understood patterns. The cost of a novel standard failing is catastrophic (see: proxy pattern vulnerabilities). The industry consolidates around audited blueprints.
- Formal verification is only feasible for standardized code.
- EIP-1967 proxy standard secures $50B+ in upgradeable contracts.
- Risk-averse institutions (Coinbase, Circle) only integrate dominant standards.
$50B+
Secured TVL
-99%
Exploit Risk
04
The Cross-Chain Imperative
Fragmented liquidity kills applications. Standards that enable native cross-chain composability (like ERC-5169 for cross-chain execution) will become mandatory. Projects like LayerZero and Axelar are effectively standardizing message passing.
- Wormhole and CCIP create standard bridges for contract calls.
- Enables a single UI to manage assets on 10+ chains.
- Without a standard, every new chain requires a full-stack rewrite.
10+
Chains Unified
-70%
Integration Cost
05
Developer Talent Follows the Money
The opportunity cost of building on a niche standard is career-limiting. Top devs build expertise in ERC-20, ERC-721, and the dominant DeFi primitives. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle of talent and tooling.
- Hardhat, Foundry optimize for mainstream standards.
- ~80% of Solidity job postings require ERC standard experience.
- Niche standards suffer from a tooling desert.
80%
Jobs Require It
10x
Tooling Advantage
06
The Regulatory Hammer
Compliance is expensive. Regulators (SEC, MiCA) will classify and regulate token types, not individual projects. A legally recognized standard (like a qualified ERC-1400 for securities) becomes a safe harbor, forcing consolidation.
- Provides legal clarity for institutional adoption.
- MiCA explicitly defines and regulates "crypto-assets".
- Creates a regulatory moat for early, compliant standards.
Safe Harbor
Legal Status
$100B+
Institutional AUM
INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS
The Standardization Playbook: ERC-20 vs. The Commerce Stack
Comparing the foundational token standard against emerging protocols for complex on-chain commerce, showing why ERC-20 is insufficient for modern applications.
| Core Feature / Metric | ERC-20 (Fungible Token) | ERC-4337 (Account Abstraction) | ERC-7579 (Modular Smart Accounts) | UniswapX (Intent-Based) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Function | Asset representation & basic transfers | User operation batching & gas sponsorship | Account module interoperability standard | Off-chain order routing & settlement |
Settlement Finality | On-chain, 1 transaction | On-chain, 1 UserOperation | On-chain, depends on modules | Off-chain intent, on-chain fill proof |
Native Multi-Asset Support | ❌ Single contract, single asset | ✅ Via bundled UserOperations | ✅ Via payment module plugins | ✅ Cross-chain native via fillers |
Gas Abstraction Layer | ❌ Payer = signer | ✅ Sponsor pays via Paymasters | ✅ Module-dependent sponsorship | ✅ Filler pays gas, user signs intent |
Typical Fee for Swap | 0.3% (DEX LP fee) + network gas | < 0.01% (bundler tip) + gas | Variable (module fees) + gas | 0.0% (no LP fee), filler's quote + network gas |
Time to Finality (L1) | ~12 seconds (Ethereum block time) | ~12 seconds (bundled in block) | ~12 seconds (executed in block) | < 1 second (intent signed), ~12s (settlement) |
Key Dependency / Risk | Wallet security & gas price volatility | Bundler & Paymasters centralization | Module registry security & governance | Filler network liquidity & honesty |
deep-dive
THE STANDARDIZATION FRONTIER
The Battle for the Commerce Primitive: ERC-7007 and Beyond
Smart contract commerce will consolidate around a handful of standards because network effects in composability are winner-take-most.
Composability is the moat. A single standard like ERC-7007 for AI agents creates a unified market. Every new agent built on it increases the value of all others, mirroring the liquidity flywheel of Uniswap V2. Fragmented standards fracture this network effect.
Interoperability demands standardization. Commerce requires settlement across chains and applications. A dominant standard becomes the canonical settlement layer, similar to how WETH became the de facto wrapper, enabling seamless integration for protocols like Aave and MakerDAO.
Developer adoption is binary. Teams choose the standard with the largest ecosystem and tooling. ERC-721 won NFTs because OpenSea and Rarible built on it first. The same path dependence will decide commerce primitives.
Evidence: The ERC-4337 Account Abstraction standard saw 4.7M user operations in Q1 2024 after major wallet providers like Safe and Biconomy consolidated around it, demonstrating the consolidation pattern.
counter-argument
THE NETWORK EFFECT
The Fragmentation Counter-Argument (And Why It's Wrong)
Smart contract commerce will consolidate around a handful of standards due to developer inertia and user experience demands.
Standards create developer inertia. The cost of building on a new, unproven standard outweighs the marginal benefit. Developers default to ERC-20 and ERC-721 because tooling, audits, and marketplaces are pre-built. This inertia is a stronger force than protocol-level innovation.
User experience demands consolidation. Users and wallets cannot manage hundreds of bespoke token standards. Cross-chain intent systems like UniswapX and CowSwap abstract complexity by routing through dominant standards, further entrenching them. Fragmentation creates a poor UX that the market rejects.
Liquidity follows standards. New standards fail without immediate liquidity. Established standards like ERC-20 benefit from network effects across every DEX and lending pool. A new token standard is a liquidity desert that few projects can survive.
Evidence: The failure of ERC-777 and the dominance of ERC-1155 for semi-fungibles prove this. ERC-777 introduced security risks and gained no traction, while ERC-1155 succeeded by being a strict superset of ERC-721, not a radical departure.
takeaways
THE STANDARDS CONVERGENCE
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
Smart contract commerce is undergoing a Darwinian consolidation where network effects, security, and developer velocity will crown a few dominant standards.
01
ERC-4337: The Account Abstraction Standard
The Problem: Wallets are dumb key managers. The Solution: Smart accounts that enable gas sponsorship, batch transactions, and social recovery.
- User Acquisition: Enables sponsored transactions, removing the #1 onboarding friction.
- Security Model: Shifts risk from EOA private keys to modular, auditable smart contract logic.
- Market Signal: Already adopted by Starknet, Polygon, Base; backed by $200M+ in ecosystem funding.
~0
User Gas Cost
10x+
UX Improvements
02
ERC-7579: The Modular Account Standard
The Problem: Monolithic smart accounts create vendor lock-in. The Solution: A minimal interface for plug-and-play modules (e.g., 2FA, session keys, DeFi plugins).
- Developer Velocity: Build once, deploy to any ERC-7579-compliant wallet (Safe, ZeroDev, Biconomy).
- Interoperability: Breaks walled gardens, creating a competitive market for wallet functionality.
- Future-Proof: Inherently supports intent-based architectures and cross-chain logic via CCIP or LayerZero.
-70%
Integration Time
100+
Module Ecosystem
03
The Payment Rail: Stablecoins & Intent Bridges
The Problem: Volatile, slow, expensive settlement. The Solution: Programmable stablecoins (USDC, EURC) routed through intent-based bridges (Across, Socket).
- Settlement Finality: USDC's Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) enables canonical value movement with ~5 min finality.
- Execution Efficiency: Intents (via UniswapX, CowSwap) abstract complexity, finding optimal routes across 10+ chains.
- Regulatory Moat: Off-chain rails (Visa, Stripe) will integrate with these sanctioned, compliant standards first.
$100B+
Settled Volume
-90%
Slippage
04
The Interoperability Backbone: CCIP vs. LayerZero
The Problem: Fragmented liquidity and state. The Solution: Generalized messaging protocols that will become the TCP/IP for smart contracts.
- Security vs. Flexibility: Chainlink CCIP offers a risk-managed network with off-chain consensus. LayerZero provides lightweight, configurable on-chain verification.
- Enterprise Adoption: CCIP is integrated with SWIFT & DTCC, signaling institutional preference for managed security.
- Winner-Takes-Most: Commerce standards will coalesce around 1-2 dominant protocols due to liquidity gravity and auditability.
~$20B
TVL Secured
<2 sec
Message Latency
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