EAS (Ethereum Attestation Service) excels at flexible, gas-efficient attestations because it uses a schema-based registry and off-chain data storage. For example, an attestation on Optimism costs under $0.01, enabling high-volume, low-cost use cases like Gitcoin Passport scoring or Optimism's Citizen House voting credentials without minting a new NFT per credential.
LABS
Comparisons
EAS vs SBT Standards (ERC-721/5192)
A technical analysis comparing the Ethereum Attestation Service's flexible attestation graph against dedicated Soulbound Token (SBT) contracts. We evaluate data structure, queryability, and integration with existing DeFi and NFT tooling for identity solutions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Divide in On-Chain Identity
Ethereum Attestation Service and SBT standards represent fundamentally different philosophies for building trust and reputation on-chain.
SBT Standards (ERC-721/ERC-5192) take a different approach by leveraging the existing NFT infrastructure and wallet compatibility. This results in superior discoverability and composability out-of-the-box, as seen with projects like Sismo's ZK Badges or Galxe's OATs, which integrate seamlessly with marketplaces and portfolio trackers, but incur higher, fixed minting costs per credential.
The key trade-off: If your priority is scalability, cost-efficiency, and complex relational data (e.g., reputation graphs, on-chain resumes), choose EAS. If you prioritize maximal interoperability, user familiarity with NFTs, and simple binary attestations (e.g., membership tokens, proof-of-attendance), the SBT standard is the proven path.
tldr-summary
EAS vs SBT Standards
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A quick scan of core architectural and adoption trade-offs for on-chain attestations.
02
EAS: Cost Efficiency for Revocation
Off-chain revocation with on-chain proofs: Revoking an attestation costs ~45k gas (update a bitmap) vs. burning an NFT (~50k+ gas). This matters for high-volume, mutable credentials like event tickets or subscription status where updates are frequent.
~45k gas
Revoke Cost
04
SBTs (ERC-721/5192): Proven Scarcity & Provenance
Inherits ERC-721's robust ownership and transfer logic: Each token has a unique ID and immutable minting history on-chain. This matters for verifiable, one-of-a-kind credentials like academic degrees or professional licenses where forgery resistance is paramount.
05
EAS: Data Privacy & ZK-Readiness
Off-chain attestations with on-chain integrity: Data can be stored privately (IPFS, Ceramic) while the proof lives on-chain. Native support for ZK proofs (e.g., proving you have a credential without revealing it). This matters for privacy-sensitive applications in identity or enterprise.
06
SBTs: Simpler Developer Onboarding
Uses familiar token standards: Any team that has built an NFT project can implement an SBT using tools like OpenZeppelin's ERC-721 and the soulbound modifier from ERC-5192. This matters for teams with existing Web3 dev experience seeking a fast time-to-market.
ARCHITECTURE & USE CASE COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: EAS vs SBT Standards
Direct comparison of attestation frameworks and token-based identity standards.
| Metric / Feature | Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) | Soulbound Tokens (ERC-721/5192) |
|---|---|---|
Core Architecture | Off-chain schema registry with on-chain proofs | On-chain non-transferable NFT |
Data Storage | Off-chain (IPFS, Arweave) or on-chain | On-chain token metadata |
Gas Cost for Issuance | $2 - $15 (varies with data location) | $50 - $150+ (full mint) |
Revocation Support | ||
Primary Use Case | Verifiable credentials, reputation, voting | Membership, achievements, on-chain resume |
Token Standard Dependency | None (schema-agnostic) | ERC-721 with ERC-5192 lock |
Adoption Examples | Optimism Attestations, Gitcoin Passport | Proof of Attendance Protocols (POAP) |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
EAS (Ethereum Attestation Service) vs. SBT Standards (ERC-721/ERC-5192)
Choosing between a flexible attestation framework and a standardized NFT-based token. Key trade-offs for identity, reputation, and credential systems.
03
Choose EAS for Cost-Effective Revocation & Updates
Off-chain revocation registries: Invalidate attestations with a single, gas-efficient transaction, unlike burning an NFT. This matters for high-volume, temporary credentials like subscription passes or time-bound permissions where update costs are critical.
04
Choose SBTs (ERC-721/5192) for Maximum Composability
Universal ERC-721 standard: Leverages the entire DeFi and NFT ecosystem—usable as collateral in Aave, staked in protocols, or displayed in galleries. This matters for financialized identity where the token itself needs to be an asset in other smart contracts.
pros-cons-b
EAS vs SBT Standards
SBT Standards (ERC-721/5192): Pros and Cons
Key architectural and operational trade-offs between attestation frameworks and on-chain token standards for identity.
01
ERC-721/5192: Universal Composability
Native NFT Ecosystem Integration: SBTs built on ERC-721 are instantly compatible with every major wallet (MetaMask, Rainbow), marketplace (OpenSea, Blur), and indexer (The Graph). This matters for user onboarding and liquidity of reputation-based assets.
02
ERC-721/5192: On-Chain Persistence
Guaranteed Data Availability: Once minted, the SBT and its metadata (if on-chain) are permanently stored on the base layer (Ethereum L1/L2). This matters for building permissionless, verifiable credentials that cannot be unilaterally revoked by an issuer.
03
ERC-721/5192: Development Overhead
High Gas Costs & Complexity: Minting and transferring SBTs requires L1/L2 gas fees for every action. Managing soul-bound logic (e.g., preventing transfers) adds smart contract risk. This matters for scaling to millions of users or issuing frequent micro-attestations.
04
ERC-721/5192: Data Rigidity
Difficult to Update/Revoke: Updating an SBT's metadata often requires burning and re-minting, breaking token IDs. ERC-5192 adds a lock but doesn't solve data mutability. This matters for dynamic credentials like subscription status or skill ratings that change over time.
05
EAS: Cost-Effective Scalability
Off-Chain Data with On-Chain Proofs: EAS stores attestation data off-chain (IPFS, Arweave) with a tiny, fixed-cost on-chain hash. Issuing 1M attestations costs ~$50 on Ethereum vs. $100K+ for 1M SBT mints. This matters for high-volume credentialing (event tickets, POAPs).
06
EAS: Flexible Schema Management
Dynamic & Revocable Attestations: Issuers can easily update, timestamp, or revoke credentials without affecting a core token. Supports complex, modular schemas (e.g., KYC-Status-v1.2). This matters for enterprise compliance and evolving reputation systems.
07
EAS: Ecosystem Fragmentation
Limited Native Wallet Support: Attestations require custom integrators or dedicated viewers (EAS Scan) to be decoded and displayed. Lack of direct marketplace composability. This matters for consumer-facing dApps expecting users to see credentials in their existing wallet.
08
EAS: Issuer Centralization Risk
Off-Chain Data Dependency: The attestation's validity depends on the issuer maintaining the referenced off-chain data (e.g., IPFS pin). If the data is lost, the on-chain proof becomes a 'broken link'. This matters for long-term, censorship-resistant credential storage.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use EAS vs SBTs
EAS for DeFi & Governance
Verdict: The superior choice for reputation-based systems and Sybil resistance. Strengths: EAS is a schema-based attestation protocol, not a token. It excels at creating portable, revocable, and privacy-preserving reputation proofs (e.g., KYC status, credit score, protocol contributions). This is ideal for weighted voting, airdrop eligibility, and undercollateralized lending without minting new assets. Projects like Optimism's Citizen House and Gitcoin Passport use EAS for sybil-resistant governance. Weakness: Requires integrators to check an off-chain registry; not natively an on-chain asset.
SBTs (ERC-721/5192) for DeFi & Governance
Verdict: Useful for representing non-transferable membership, but less flexible for complex reputation.
Strengths: SBTs are on-chain, soul-bound NFTs. They are simple to integrate for basic membership gating (e.g., DAO access, loyalty tiers). The ERC-5192 standard provides a clear locked flag. Good for visual, asset-like representation of status.
Weakness: Data is immutable and public on-chain, limiting privacy and updateability. High gas costs for complex, multi-faceted reputation systems.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between EAS and SBTs is a strategic decision between a universal attestation engine and a specialized token standard.
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) excels at creating a flexible, chain-agnostic graph of verifiable data because it decouples attestations from any specific token or asset. For example, its on-chain registry has processed over 2.2 million attestations across multiple L2s, demonstrating its scalability for applications like KYC credentials, reputation scores, and off-chain event verification without the overhead of a full NFT mint.
SBT Standards (ERC-721/ERC-5192) take a different approach by embedding attestations directly into a soul-bound, non-transferable NFT. This results in a trade-off: superior native composability with the massive $11B+ NFT ecosystem (OpenSea, marketplaces, wallets) but with higher gas costs per credential and less granular control over data revocation and updates compared to EAS's off-chain schemas.
The key trade-off: If your priority is cost-effective, high-volume credentialing with complex data relationships and easy revocation, choose EAS. This is ideal for decentralized social graphs, on-chain resumes, and modular reputation systems. If you prioritize maximum visibility and instant compatibility with existing NFT tooling and wallets, choose SBTs (ERC-5192). This is optimal for membership passes, non-transferable achievements, and any application where the credential itself should be displayed as a collectible asset.
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